| Revision as of 07:23, 24 March 2006 editHerschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs)2,877 edits →What can be done to balance the State Department statement ?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:45, 30 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,298,584 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Books}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (94 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
| == The concluding paragraph == | |||
| {{WikiProject Books }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|banner=yes|image=none|search=no}} | |||
| == Long indiscriminate lists == | |||
| This section seems to me to be indulging in a bit of editorializing, inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If there are criticisms of Perkins that can be attributed to a source, the inclusion of those criticisms would be a more appropriate way to balance the article. If no such criticism can be found, this paragraph should be considered POV and dropped. --] 00:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] This ridiculously long list of links that provide nothing to the article except as a list of links simply doesn't meet our guidelines, and that's even before looking at many of the individual links to self-published sources and blogs. It needs to go. ] (]) 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Criticism== | |||
| :I have no objection to trimming the list. But I think links such as one with an interview of the author about this book seem well worth including. ] (]) 02:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::So why aren't they used as references if they're so important? Which ones do you think are worth keeping? ] (]) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any further commentary on this? ] (]) 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Blog review in response section == | |||
| Misplaced Pages policy is that criticism to balance the article is encouraged, but it must be criticism from published sources. The edits that I reverted were from an editor who had read the book and wanted to add a personal book review of sorts, but that is not in accord with Misplaced Pages policy. Please find published critics. --] 15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Just to point out that the whole 'response' section has only one source which is a blog review! Since this author is widely characterised as a conspiracy theorist, does a blog review meet standards?] (]) 18:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == What can be done to balance the State Department statement ? == | |||
| == Extreme bias on this page == | |||
| The included document by the state department, although an official source, clearly rises to the level of attempted character defamation. Personal attacks are classic ways of distracting from dissent. I really wonder why the state department found it necessary to write such a big note, and tries to defame Perkins' character here. Yes, its an official source, but what can be done to balance this in the article ? After all, did they give any evidence that he did NOT do the things he writes about ? They get a pretty big section in the article plus the link to their website and I am worried that they are successful here in distracting from the real red flags the book raises. | |||
| So I am a bit late with this, but I just finished the book today. Although I am a bit sceptic about some of the claims made in this book, and from time to time I think the author over simplifies and only present one perspective, I think there were some interesting points made. I am a strong believer in freedom of speech, any idea can be discussed and so on. Currently book isn't presented in a neutral way and is almost instantly disregarded as nonsense. I think it is better to present it in a fair way and then let it be criticized. Does anyone disagree? --] (]) 12:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The person who originally inserted this material attributed it to unidentified "critics," a violation of ]. I put in the attribution to the State Dept., and I think that the reader will now draw the appropriate conclusions from the source of the criticism. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is meant to present the general consensus of knowledge on a topic at the current time. The general consensus at the current moment is that it has major flaws in accuracy. ] (]) 01:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| : Here's another critic: (from the Washington Post, requires registration). -- ] 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| ::If you read the State Department's statement very carefully, the main thrust of it is directed at something John Perkins acknowledges: the difficulty of providing concrete evidence (or much of it) for his link to the NSA or any other intelligence agency. There are some problems with this: firstly, the NSA's two missions were outlined by Executive Order 12333, dated December 4th, *1981* . The alleged events (not to mention MAIN's alleged involvement) date from before that time. Secondly, the NSA's 1st mission: "information assurance for information infrastructures critical to U.S. national security interests", could conceivably justify activities like the alleged screening of EHM applicants. | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| ::It's 2nd point is that the US supports debt relief, in contrast to supporting policies that create huge debt to enslave other countries. Of course their support of that claim is a program proposed in 2004. The first, most obvious problem with this is that it does not address policies that were possibly implemented from the 60's until now. Secondly, I don't see many (if any) countries listed on the debt relief list that were allegedly victimized by the "EHMs". | |||
| I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| ::It's 3rd point amounts to a ] argument, which some of you have pointed out. | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601184853/http://www.economichitman.com:80/pix/veracitymemo.pdf to http://www.economichitman.com/pix/veracitymemo.pdf | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
| ::So how to balance it? State the rebuttals clearly and precisely. Make sure none of them are vaguely presented and that conclusions which are not presented without being clearly connected to the supports of those conclusions. If a criticism is clearly a personal attack, be clear that it does not actually address the issue, but is commentary on the person presenting the issue. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| ::Make the criticism stand on it's own legs, not vaguely inflated ones. :) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::(] 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :::I think that what ] identifies as an ''ad hominem'' argument is a perfectly legitimate line to take in questioning Perkins's credibility, in the same way that one might question the credibility of a witness for the other side in a court of law. At issue is whether one finds it probable that Perkins is telling the truth. Surely it is relevant if he has publicly made questionable claims in other areas. Furthermore, what I personally find most implausible about Perkins's story is that the NSA would have tapped ''him'' in particular for such a sensitive secret mission, since nothing in his background or resume would seem to justify it. | |||
| :::I would also like to see the section on "criticism" move beyond the State Dept. release (which, incidentally, was issued because ] and others cited the book as evidence of the US's nefarious intentions towards Latin America). Plenty of people have questioned Perkins's credibility. We already have a link to a ''Washington Post'' column by Sebastian Mallaby that claims Perkins is peddling a popular but completely inaccurate view of global finance. -- ] 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "Surely it is relevant if he has publicly made questionable claims in other areas. " | |||
| I do not consider it sure. ;) But I do stand corrected; The main 3rd point I refer to in the State Dept release is not precisely ], but ]. You can follow the link, but the basic form of this fallacy is: | |||
| *A makes claim B; | |||
| *there is something objectionable or invalid about claim C (also made by A), | |||
| *therefore claim B is false. | |||
| So I think we are actually in agreement that all these claims should be examined. I object only to inferences that shortcuts to truth can be taken based on the record of a person who is raising an issue. Just because you think there is something wrong with "claim C", it seems that you would dismiss "claim B" automatically, without examination. | |||
| The issue should be whether the statements are true and/or valid, NOT whether it's probable that they are. To know that, they must be examined. To dismiss most of Perkins' statements or issues without examining them, because other issues statements he has made are inadaquately supported (or we disagree with them), is potentially sloppy and biased. Please, beware ]. | |||
| I urge anyone to take a closer look at the statement issued by the State Dept. They only state that, "his claim that he was acting as an “economic hit man” AT THE BEHEST of the NSA appears to be a total fantasy". | |||
| I find it funny that at least a few people take this to mean they are charging the whole thing as "fantasy". There is NO language in the release that does so. Besides which, they come rather close to agreement on Perkin's main points when they state that, "Perkins raises legitimate questions about the impacts of economic growth and modernization on developing countries and indigenous peoples". Just take a close look at it. The US government appears to have examined Perkins' main points. | |||
| As long as the Criticism section is clear in what and how it challenges the stances Perkins is taking on issues, great. "Plenty of people" sounds intriguing. I hope their arguments are valid & sound. Furthermore, I hope that contributors clearly understand any criticisms before they try to paraphrase. ;) | |||
| As for "nothing in his background or resume would seem to justify it", the book plainly states that his personal connections led to the job with MAIN. Whether those connections were related to the NSA or not, the role of his personal connections in landing him the job is supported by documentation cited in the book. Are you going to tell me you've never heard of or experienced favoritism? ;) | |||
| (] 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :::I think that something important is being overlooked here, which is that Perkins attended ]. Like the prep school system in the U.K., certain elite institutions of higher learning are recruiting centers for intelligence operatives. And here is something I just came across: in October of ], a conference was held at The Rohatyn Center for International Affairs of ], entitled "The Privatization of National Security." Sponsored by the Rohatyn Center (''see ]'') and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at ], the conference discussed privatization of functions which historically have been considered the sole province of the military and of official intelligence agencies. One participant, Peter Feaver, said that "In fact what we’re seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the East India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire." --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 07:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : At issue is Perkins's credibility as witness. Perhaps an analogy will help to clarify this: Suppose that the prosecution's main witness claims to have seen the defendant on the night of the murder leaving the victim's house wielding a bloody knife. Suppose that that same witness has previously written a book arguing that JFK was killed by aliens. Then the defense could legitimately bring up that book to argue that the witness's testimony at the murder trial shouldn't carry much weight. Logically there is no reason why being wrong about JFK and the aliens would necessarily mean that the witness is wrong now about the defendant at the murder trial. But if I think that the witness is a crackpot, then I will naturally take his current testimony less seriously. | |||
| :This is particularly relevant in Perkins's case because all we have is his say-so for what is by far his most serious allegation, without which his book would be of no particular interest: that the NSA hired him to deliberately saddle Third World countries with unpayble debts. I think that anyone who is even slightly acquainted with how global finance works will realize that this is an extraordinary claim. In evaluating how seriously to take that claim, the fact, for example, that Perkins believes in shamanism is a legitimate consideration. | |||
| :I have revised the "Criticism" section so as to include references to other major sources who have questioned the value and credibility of Perkins's book (all it took was a Lexis-Nexis search). -- ] 15:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about this example: | |||
| ::*Some guy (let's call him Joe) tells me that ] is a large number. So big that I'd spend years counting to it, perhaps dying before I could finish it. | |||
| ::*Another guy (let's call him Dan) shows me documentation (former report cards, etc.) that Joe got dismal spelling grades, and in fact, that he was prone to misspell words. Furthermore, I am shown that he has a history of misleading people (practical joker) and getting things confused. | |||
| ::*Under previously suggested "logic", I would dismiss what Joe says given "the weight" of all the other things standing against him. I'd be apt to think that he just got it confused with Google, or that he's playing a joke on me. But none of that has any relevance to the fact that investigating shows that googol is a number. It has NOTHING to do with Joe's skill at spelling that he can make this observation and pass it on. | |||
| ::If we are serious about all of this, we HAVE to check each claim, independent of any other claims made. The "weight" of all this other stuff has absolutely NO bearing on the claim that googol is a large number. | |||
| ::Plus, in order for you example to match up with John Perkins, the prosecution's witness you refer to would also be presenting pictures or other solid evidence. | |||
| ::Have you even READ the book? There is documentation supporting all of the most serious claims. NSA or no NSA, he STILL makes a serious case that government and big business have been colluding in an inappropriate manner, and that exploitation has resulted. | |||
| ::So if any criticism is going to be serious, it has to question the validity of EACH claim. Otherwise, we are the villagers from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". They boy in that story lied, but when we fail to examine each claim, the wolf eats our sheep. | |||
| ::(] 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| ==Criticism Section Clean-up/POV== | |||
| All the criticism in the criticism section boils down to: | |||
| *Details of Perkins' story are far-fetched or seem like embellishments | |||
| *No solid evidence is provided to back up a link to NSA | |||
| *Economic studies are provided to support claims that some of Perkins' economic claims are not valid. | |||
| EVERYthing that is actually directed at the BOOK, can be boiled down to these things. At least so far. | |||
| So we can/should consolidate, while providing references for each criticism issue, or category, if you will. Readers can follow up on each reference, but this is an article about a guy's book, not specifically it's criticism. Besides which, it's ridiculous to have several guys repeating themselves about the same points. | |||
| Make each point. Show that "these guys" all make that point. No need to repeat it over and over and over and over. ;) | |||
| ******************** | |||
| As far as POV...... | |||
| *The way some of the criticism is phrased, it is not always clear what content in the book is being criticized. | |||
| *As content is being added, it is submitted in a way that retains bias from the auther of that content. If you cannot find a way to phrase such content that is, "cold, fair, analytical,"] without deflating the argument, it is not submittable. | |||
| ******************************** | |||
| And can we clean up the "External links" section? The article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hurricane_Katrina#References is a good form. | |||
| (] 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :I agree with you that this article is about the book, rather than about criticism of the book. On the other hand, it'd be absurd to have an article about, say, '']'', which doesn't discuss criticism of it. (BTW, I'm not comparing Perkins's book to the ''Protocols'', I'm only making a point. The ''Protocols'' come to mind because they are in today's featured article.) So I sympathize with the desire to keep the "Criticism" section succint and well organized. | |||
| :I think that you have not identified one of the strands of criticism of the book: that, regardless of whether what it says is true or not, it offers only a titillating tale of global intrigue and contributes little to the serious debate on Third World debt. This is the point made by the quote from the NYT. It's also the point made by Mark Engler of ''In These Times'', who in his review explicitly says he otherwise agrees with the views Perkins expresses about Third World debt. | |||
| :The recent edits by ] contain several violations of the NPOV policy: certain newspapers are characterized as "establishment press organs" and a sentence from Mallaby's column is described as "typifying" the establishment's "angry response." In fact this book, which was published in 2004, had been almost completely ignored by major newspapers and magazines until it became a bestseller and was picked up by Penguin. With the exception of Mallaby's column, all the other sources of criticism quoted treat the book very politely. In any case such value judgments shouldn't appear in the article. | |||
| :Finally, I don't think you can downplay the issue of whether Perkins's NSA story is true. If Perkins's had simply written a book saying that when he worked for Chas. T. Main he signed deals with Third World governments which didn't aid development and instead created onerous loads of debt for them, then his book might have been truthful and perhaps even interesting, but it wouldn't be a bestseller. It's pretty clear to me that that was the book Einar Greve thought Perkins had written when he was first asked about it. Then he realized that the book is something else entirely: it claims that these loans were forced upon those countries through the NSA, assassinations, bribes, and all other kinds of skullduggery. -- ] 01:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''"....regardless of whether what it says is true or not, it offers only a titillating tale of global intrigue and contributes little to the serious debate on Third World debt. This is the point made by the quote from the NYT."'' | |||
| :: Now maybe I misunderstood the quote you submitted to the article, ''"the actual content of Perkins' admissions proves distressingly thin"'', but it comes off quite different from what I just quoted from you. Talking about the content of his admissions is not quite the same as whether or not a serious contribution to debate was rendered. | |||
| ::From what you said and what is in the article, I'm not sure whether the author was claiming Perkins needed to suggest solutions to the problem fo 3rd World debt (or something like that) OR claiming that he wasn't really admitting to much. Objectively speaking, it needs to be clear what the author meant. | |||
| :: ''"It's pretty clear to me that that was the book Einar Greve thought Perkins had written when he was first asked about it. Then he realized that...."'' | |||
| ::I can't emphasize this enough. ''We'' don't decide what someone meant. They either expressed something, or they did not. We submit what authors and/or sources say, not what we ''think'' they meant. He doesn't explain the apparent contradiction? We do not do that for him. We present it as objectively as possible. | |||
| :::(I agree completely. This is why I'm arguing that ''here'' rather than in the article. But by the same token I think the part about how Greve "appeared to contradict himself" should be removed. Why not just transcribe the two statements made by him?) -- ] 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| ::p.s. "I don't think you can downplay the issue of whether Perkins's NSA story is true." I'm not. :) | |||
| ::(] 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| ==Criticism is issue by issue, not "all or nothing"== | |||
| <pre><nowiki> | |||
| "If Perkins's had simply written a book saying that when he worked for Chas. T. Main | |||
| he signed deals with Third World governments which didn't aid development and instead | |||
| created onerous loads of debt for them, then his book might have been truthful and | |||
| perhaps even interesting....." | |||
| </nowiki></pre> | |||
| Now I think we are getting somewhere. I think we are disagreeing about the importance of any possible NSA link, relative to the rest of the book. | |||
| I am saying that truth HAS to be evaluated individually for EACH claim brought forth. You seem to be advocating an "all or nothing" approach. The NSA issue is clearly contestable. Also, Perkins' style seems to include colorful language at times, to put it kindly. We agree there. Those two issues are clearly areas that can be contested. | |||
| But documentation is cited to support the other points made. Who Perkins worked for (Chas. T. Main), what he did, some of the effects his work (and others doing work like his) had on 3rd World countries, and the blurring line between business and government (e.g., officials and administration members passing between company jobs and government offices), not to mention the use of skullduggery (e.g., assassinations, etc.). He is even citing many things which are public record. | |||
| That is why one cannot simply write that ''"he does not provide support for his most 'serious' claims"'' when paraphrasing a case made regarding the NSA issue. For one thing, the NSA thing is only ONE claim. For another, arguing the NSA thing does not somehow prove that he did not work for Chas T. Main. Nor does it disprove the nature of his job. Nor does it disprove the effects his job had on 3rd World countries. Nor does it disprove the blurring line between business and government. Nor does it disprove congressional hearings and the like that are cited to support the use of skullduggery (e.g., assassinations, etc.). '''All of which could be considered "serious" claims.''' | |||
| Criticism regarding the NSA issue does not translate into a case made against his other points. '''''None of the criticism cited so far has been powerful enough to explain away the evidence cited for all the other points being made in the book, so it should not be presented as such.''''' | |||
| (] 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :It's perhaps unnecessary for me to point out that the statement that ''none of the criticism cited so far has been powerful enough to explain away the evidence cited for all the other points being made in the book'' is your POV. And even if that criticism were, in your mind, strong enough to explain away all the claims in Perkins's book, as a Misplaced Pages writer your job would still be simply to accurately summarize that criticism as it has been made by others in major media outlets. | |||
| :You insist that even if the story about the NSA is not true, Perkins's book is still a valuable contribution to the debate about Third World debt. You are entitled to that opinion, but many of the book's critics think otherwise and we should make that clear in an objective discussion of criticism of the book. The reason why these critics disagree with you is first that a. some, like Mark Engler, don't think Perkins's has any really major insights to contribute on the subject, b. others, like Sebastian Mallaby, disagree with the view of modern foreign corporations in the Third World as essentially predatory, and c. some might not be inclined to take seriously on any subject an author who makes wild and scantily supported allegations. | |||
| :On this third point perhaps another analogy might be useful: Let's say I'm a retired ] officer unhappy about the things I saw and did on the job. Let's say I write a book which raises some legitimate, though controversial questions about police brutality, police corruption, etc. Let's say that I also claim in that book that I know from experience that the LAPD is controlled by the Japanese mafia with the consent of the mayor of LA, the governor of California, and the Prime Minister of Japan. If you read that book and decide that the Japanese mafia stuff is made up, what would you think of the book as whole? Would you say it's a good book, aside from the fact that I think it's main selling point is fiction? (This last bit reminds me of the joke about how someone asked Lincoln's wife, after she returned from Ford's Theater on the night Lincoln was killed, "Yes, but apart from that, how did you enjoy the play?") -- ] 01:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Stating that "none of the criticism cited so far... (etc.)" is not POV. Although I apologize if you misunderstood it. I will attempt to restate it. Hopefully we will all be laughing about this later. | |||
| :::The point I was trying to make, using your own analogy: If that retired officer '''accurately''' depicts cases of police corruption AND has sources to back up those cases (i.e., he shows and proves), '''then''' even if you discover and disprove the Japanese mafia point, that is a separate issue from the corruption that has been shown and proven. As a wikipedia editor, you NEED to be able to see the difference. You need to be able to see the correct form of argument if you are going to be depicting it. | |||
| :::Before you have submitted content which disproved only the NSA point, and summarized it so it appeared they disproved ALL of his book, when they didn't. | |||
| :::And honestly, I'm amused that you got an opinion from, "Talking about the content of his admissions is not quite the same as whether or not a serious contribution to debate was rendered." Stating that, "one argument is different from another," is not an endorsement of either argument. | |||
| :::And perhaps one more example, in case yours doesn't work. If I'm teaching a class of kids math, kids who've never seen numbers, and I say that aliens came down from the sky to give us the knowledge that 1+1=2...... and some guy comes along and refutes that aliens gave us that knowledge, he has not simultaneously refuted the fact that 1+1=2. | |||
| :::I am objecting to any framing of criticism that represents that more than one point has been refuted, IF in fact, only one has been. Lastly, government/intelligence agency involvement is cited and sourced in instances other than the NSA claim, so conceding that point does not win an argument that "the government has no part in the corruption depicted". | |||
| :::(] 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| ===Sebastian Mallaby=== | |||
| I think that it was a mistake to remove the description of Mallaby's ''curriculum vitae''. I would submit that under the circumstances Mallaby could be considered a spokesperson for the interests that Perkins is attacking, although I do not suggest that this point should be made in the article. I think that the information should be included so that the reader may draw his own conclusions. I am restoring it to the article. Also, calling the man a "frothing conspiracy theorist" is not exactly "questioning the fairness of his economic worldview" -- it is what would be called here at Misplaced Pages a "personal attack." In deference to Ed, I have not used the word "angry" in characterizing Mallaby's response. Instead, I wrote that he "reacted sharply." --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 15:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think in the name of succinctness, curriculum vitae is not necessarily needed to show any bias in arguments being presented. I think that if you phrase the argument in it's most basic terms, it will stand or fall on it's own. Unfortunately, that might be more work because you need to read all the sources, not simply try to fix what is submitted. | |||
| :I'm with you that "calling the man a frothing conspiracy theorist is not exactly questioning the fairness of his economic worldview". But "frothing conspiracy theorist", is a conclusion. I think the most constructive thing for a criticism section is listing "why" he makes this claim. That should be depicted. Not all criticisms being leveled are based on "the fairness of his economic worldview. As such, even if they make their case, it's a different argument they are winning. | |||
| :(] 20:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| ==Critique of the Man or the Book== | |||
| Content of the book is a separate issue from his published works or public comments. | |||
| Criticism regarding those things belong on the author's page or pages for the relevant published works. | |||
| Since critics are still citing things related to the author, etc., in regards to this book, a reference (that is, a ''brief'' summary) to it should be cited and linked to the appropriate place for the information. | |||
| (] 21:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:45, 30 January 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
Long indiscriminate lists
Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Misplaced Pages articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. This ridiculously long list of links that provide nothing to the article except as a list of links simply doesn't meet our guidelines, and that's even before looking at many of the individual links to self-published sources and blogs. It needs to go. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objection to trimming the list. But I think links such as one with an interview of the author about this book seem well worth including. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- So why aren't they used as references if they're so important? Which ones do you think are worth keeping? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Any further commentary on this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Blog review in response section
Just to point out that the whole 'response' section has only one source which is a blog review! Since this author is widely characterised as a conspiracy theorist, does a blog review meet standards?Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Extreme bias on this page
So I am a bit late with this, but I just finished the book today. Although I am a bit sceptic about some of the claims made in this book, and from time to time I think the author over simplifies and only present one perspective, I think there were some interesting points made. I am a strong believer in freedom of speech, any idea can be discussed and so on. Currently book isn't presented in a neutral way and is almost instantly disregarded as nonsense. I think it is better to present it in a fair way and then let it be criticized. Does anyone disagree? --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is meant to present the general consensus of knowledge on a topic at the current time. The general consensus at the current moment is that it has major flaws in accuracy. JSory (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601184853/http://www.economichitman.com:80/pix/veracitymemo.pdf to http://www.economichitman.com/pix/veracitymemo.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Categories: