Talk:Do as I Say (Not as I Do)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am accurately synopsizing the information provided in the book, which is footnoted and taken from public records. That the information is considered hypocritical, contradictory, or, in some cases, flat out dishonest on behalf of those involved is the POV of the author. Do you think I should continually point out Mr. Schweizer contends that the actions are hypocritical, while other people may disagree? I think it's clear that the examples cited are considered acts of hypocrisy by the author.

Noam Chomsky — Social Parasite, ..., Amoral Defense Contractor Could somebody please show me a reference or citation that proves Noam Chomsky is a "social parasite?" No? How about a cite that proves Chomsky is "amoral?" No again? These things are opinions, and Wikipedia's policy is to "let the facts speak for themselves." It seems this page is a blatant or thinly veiled attempt to push a particular point of view, rather than an encyclopedia entry about a partiular book.

BTW, I am wondering if the Barbra Streisand synopsis is too detailed? --Gerkinstock 19:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag[edit]

User: Zantastik, I don't know that I agree with you but I'd like to see your POV issue addressed. Can you give a specific example (from the article) of how it doesn't make clear the profiles are Schweizer's opinion and not its own? Alternatively, can you suggest a specific way of how the article could be written/edited so that it does do that? Lawyer2b 16:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, if you want to see a page deserving of a POV tag, check out this one. Gerkinstock 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly requires a POV tag at the very least. It simply repeats claims from the book, even though they are false. Take the implication that Noam Chomsky (who is not a liberal in the first place, and thus cannot be an example of "liberal hypocrisy") opposes any funding from the Pentagon (which refers to his own work in linguistics at MIT). Chomsky addressed this issue decades ago, in the article "The Function of the University in a Time of Crisis", included in the collection _For Reasons of State_ (1973). There, Chomsky says "In certain respects, the issue of Defense Department funding of research is a misleading one. Research on chemical and biological warfare or counterinsurgency would be no more benign if funded by the National Institutes of Health or the Social Science Research Council, just as work on high-energy physics is not corrupted if funding comes through the Department of Defense. The important question is the nature of the work and the uses to which it is likely to be put, not the bureaucratic issue of the source of funding." (p. 312) Schweizer, in short, relies on the ignorance of his audience, who would reject his claims as laughable falsehoods if they knew the actual facts. --Dan Clore

I don't see how linguistic research can be used for military purposes. (Other than making a general purpose translator machine, which I think is not too evil.) --80.98.80.131 (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why simply repeating "supposedly false" claims as they appear in a published book violates the NPOV policy, assuming that the claims are portrayed as claims and not indisputable facts. Can you point to a specific part of any policy to support your claim a POV tag is clearly required? I would also like to note that your Chomsky citation is interesting and if it was published in some form as a direct refuation of Schwizer's accusations it would be eminently includable. Unfortunately, as it stands, the citation on its own as a response is an example of original research. Lawyer2b 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AFTERMATH section is clearly POV BTAUS 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Btaus, can you point to the part of the NPOV policy that you feel this section violates and describe how it does so? Thanks. Lawyer2b 01:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple violations of BLP[edit]

Any and all chapter titles without supporting RS V secondary sourcing are, in-and-of-themselves, clear violations of BLP. I am removing, and will continue to do so (3RR does not apply) in accordance with BLP. When the allegations contained in the titles are RS V souced, they will be inclusionable. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct on applying the policy here, but I'm not sure; regardless, though, it is a thoroughly interesting case that begs for the policy to be better defined and kudos to you for bringing it up. At its based, is the question if something note worthy that inherently is may violate WP:BLP, what is wikpedia to do? What if a noteworthy book is titled, Michael Moore is a thief! ? Is having an article in wikipedia about the book a violation of WP:BLP? Would we have an article but not mention the title? Interesting stuff! Thank you, Fairness, for reminding me of one of the things I love about lawyering!  :-) Lawyer2b 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fairness, please see the opinions given at Wikipedia:BLP/Noticeboard and Talk:Wikipedia:BLP which disagree with your application of WP:BLP in this instance. I do agree, however, with your more neutral phrasing of the accusations Schweizer levels (e.g. "Schweizer alleges", etc.), well done.  :-) Lawyer2b 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete agreement with your verbiage describing the titles. I don't think they need any more supporting sources, however. Lawyer2b 03:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi L2B, you'll notice that I didn't remove chapter titles that had at least some text, no matter how POV, to support the accusations that I feel are BLP violations. IMHO, the individual BLP violating accusations are going to need individual cites - at least to the books page number, if the text isn't online. Lets wait for some more feedback. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the book. If you go through the article and indicate with a [citation needed] marker, I will go through and provide the page numbers. Lawyer2b 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a proper cite template of the book. - Crockspot 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Schweizer, Peter (2005-10-25). Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. Doubleday. pp. 272 pages. ISBN 0385513496. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Should we put the refutions in the chapter bodies, L2B? I think so. I can summarise the ones I find. Here is one from Franken. counter claim from franken Also, an editorial pointed out how much of the book (and this article) was devoted to Streisand, Steinam and other people who don't really 'matter' much, except that they're celebrities. I think that an article that has multiple paragraphs on Streisand, 2 sentences on Pelosi, and nothing on Hillary is substandard. Are these all the chapters? No Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Danny Glover or Harry Belafonte? Gloria Steinam instead? Wow. - F.A.A.F.A. 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think including the refutations in the chapter bodies is fine. That letter from Franken is hilarious (as he is normally) and should definitely be in his chapter's section. However, I think an editorial that simply offers an opinion about the targets of the book should not be. Perhaps a section specifically on editorial reviews might be in order? So long as the information is from a reliable source I think it can be included. The chapters listed are indeed all the chapters of the book. I don't know how or why he picked the people he did to profile. Glover and Belafonte would have been high up on my list. Perhaps he is waiting for a "Volume II"? :-) Lawyer2b 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) Here's a review from Publisher's Weekly:

"Working with a broadly inclusive pantheon of "the Left" that places Ralph Nader and Barbra Streisand on equal footing with Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, Schweizer (The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty) suggests that liberalism's heroes conduct their lives in ways that prove their philosophy to be "ultimately self-defeating, self-destructive, and unworkable." While acknowledging that conservatives can be high-profile hypocrites as well, Schweizer employs a double standard, arguing that "when conservatives betray their publicly stated principles, they harm only themselves and their families," but when liberals misbehave, they harm their principles first and foremost. Sometimes his research uncovers significant contradictions, as when Schweizer points out that Noam Chomsky, who tends to demonize the military establishment, wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army, the Air Force and the Office of Naval Research. But many of his charges are egregiously hyperbolic, as when he suggests that Cornel West is a "segregationist" because he bought a home in a largely Caucasian suburb. Schweizer clearly knows the limitations of his argument, since he backpedals from many of his most damning statements in his closing remarks. For all its revelations, in the end, this volume reads less like a critique of liberal philosophy than a catalogue of ammunition for ad hominem bloggers."

I'd love to read Schweiser try to defend Abramoff, Scanlon, Delay, et al! L2B, will you please add some info on his 'closing remarks' where he 'backpedals from many of his most damning statements' ? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will accede to my libertarian perspective which is that there is much hypocrisy on both the conservative and liberal fronts. I will also re-read the conclusion see what I can add by way of a summary. Lawyer2b 05:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(extraneous discussion moved to L2B's talk page) - F.A.A.F.A. 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed[edit]

I noticed the request left on FAAFA's talk page, and decided to come here and have a look. I'd like to begin by saying that the article in its present state reads closer to a book report than an article about the book. For examples of how an appropriate article whose subject is a book with a partisan political message, look at any of Ann Coulter's books' articles (e.g. Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter) or Al Franken's books' articles (e.g. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations).

The article in its present state goes into specifics about each specific section and offers summaries- this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's job is to describe, not analyze or provide summary beyond general descriptions of the book, its context, public reaction, and notable occurrences surrounding the work. As such, the article needs to be completely rewritten and the format recast- as it stands, the article is about the points the book makes, not the book itself, and the distinction between the two is what sets the above examples of articles (even those that are stubs) apart from this one. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestions, if followed, would be an improvement to the article. Lawyer2b 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Later today I may be available to rewrite the article in a fashion that I've described above. If I do, it will be in a subpage of this article, and I will mention it here. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Kuzaar, and acknowledge your insight. I didn't even see the 'big picture'. I was totally focused on the individual trees, not the forest. No wonder you're an Admin, and I'm not! Cheers! - F.A.A.F.A. 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear, Kuzaar. Wish I'd read your comment before I posted mine, you said it better. Kasreyn 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a temporary page and almost completely rewritten the article, removing specific claims and done my best to accurately portray the tone and content of the book. It is available at Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy/Temp for anyone who wants to look at it. If there are no issues brought up here or there in the next few days, I will migrate it out to the main article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed deletion for the /Temp page because a) re-writes should not be kept in the mainspace and b) it seems to have been abandoned. If someone feels the need to keep it, please userfy the page. --12 Noon 2¢ 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability trim[edit]

Wikipedia is not a library. The purpose of an article on a book is to help the reader understand what the book is about and what it is notable for, not to quote extensive material in a kind of "Cliff's Notes" fashion. This article could definitely stand a great deal of trimming. Kasreyn 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite needed[edit]

I have to say, this article is pretty poorly styled, is pretty slim on any factual argumentation, and does little to advance Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. My suggestion is to cut the article down to about 2-3 paragraphs, providing a broad overview of the books claims, and a similarly broad overview of the book's critics' claims. As it is now, the article reads rather more like a middle school book report than an encyclopedia article. It does little to summarize the rational argument about such subjects, and can easily be interpreted as supporting the book's libelous claims. --jacobolus (t) 13:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should read the talk page before posting commentary. :) --jacobolus (t) 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion[edit]

Clarify where the book is claiming in every instance. Remove the citation needed tags. Look out for POV language even when restating the books claims (e.g. "enormous" fortune - "Even more damming"). Try and shorten. Rich Farmbrough, 20:34 20 December 2006 (GMT).

Links[edit]

The insertion of links to some but not all of the subjects of his boosks is similar to article title, discussed way atthe start, they are POV and violating BLP. and Linkspam. It would be better to link to only the few that are actually discussed-=-and which presumably have already been evaluated for BLP.DGG 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography tag[edit]

I removed the Wikiproject Biography tag from this page. WPBio is for articles about people, not articles about biographies. RedRollerskate 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

publisher and copyright date?[edit]

It would be nice to have these. Eperotao (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Do as I Say (Not as I Do). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Do as I Say (Not as I Do). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Do_as_I_Say_(Not_as_I_Do)&oldid=1201576976"