Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 30 January 2024 (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}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

	This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

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)

• C-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles