Talk:Regnery Publishing

Rv pov

I deleted the part about leftists considering Regnery to be part of a fascist theocratic scheme to take over America, as that's obviously not sourced. BarrettBrown 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've deleted it again. BarrettBrown 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politically Incorrect Guide series

I think there should be something here about their "Politically Incorrect Guide" series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.222 (talk • contribs) 17:49, July 18 2006 (UTC)

Junking C&C

It is blatantly obvious that various editors are smuggling in ridiculously POV'd general smears and hatchet-jobs under the aegis of (seemingly legitimate) criticism. In fact, the entire entry consists on nothing-but. Consequently, I'm pulling the chain on it.--Mike18xx 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you should junk C&C. This entire obvious that this page is just an attack on Regnery Publishing, not unbiased in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could certainly use some trimming; that first sentence under "conspiracy theories" probably needs to go. Don't just delete everything, though. BarrettBrown 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the Ben Domenech portion of the criticisms section you removed. Please don't just remove an entire section like that. BarrettBrown 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove content to white wash the article. If you have POV issues discuss it on the talk. Removing segments will result in a block. Arbusto 08:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism needs to be cleaned up. It is not white washing. If things can't be removed, things will have to be added to balance it out. You are being ridiculous, this article clearly is negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 (talk • contribs) 00:31, October 25 2006 (UTC)

Cmr924 is engaging in sock puppetry to get criticism removed (see my talk page for proof). Arbustoo|Arbustoo 01:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. I just did not sign in yet. That is my IP address. Calm down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 (talk • contribs) 01:39, October 25 2006 (UTC)

Did you make these edits? [1][2] [3][4]? Arbusto 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also are these tied to you JonMoseley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or BarrettBrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I am thinking about a Request for CheckUser information. Arbusto 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, you will be proven wrong. Would be great to see. My last edit was perfectly acceptable. What was wrong with it? That is what I am asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 (talk • contribs) 03:24, October 25 2006 (UTC)

Have you removed the section under any other names? Arbusto 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have one name. Cmr924. So that would be a no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 (talk • contribs) 00:27, October 26 2006 (UTC)

Any news on your "Request for CheckUser"? Should be interesting to hear about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 (talk • contribs) 00:24, October 29 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

User:DGG "condensed" the article, but I am not sure why the removal of information was helpful. I am partially reverting/rewording that deletion for now, but I hope DGG will consider explaining his rational for information that seems to be notable (i.e. the involvement of notable individuals in the company). DickClarkMises 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Domenech

I think the section on him should be removed from this article. It is not about Regnery at all and gives us no more information on it. Steve Dufour 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actions which led Regnery to fire an editor is relevant to the article about the company. Guettarda 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, particularly since there are assertions that his firing was connected to Regnery-related activities. -Will Beback · † · 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If every college student who plagerized got mentioned in WP that would take up a lot of space. :-) Steve Dufour 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are that many of them employed as editors by publishers which have Wikipedia articles, and get fired (from that job and others) for the plagiarism? Guettarda 06:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If more of them were fired the world would be a better place, IMO. :-) Steve Dufour 06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been happy with this section, because it is relatively trivial compared to the important material about the company. Sometime plagiarism is a major event, but it is not here, and Regnery's omission or insertion of the passage concern is among the least of its (mis)deeds. Keeping it might look like struggling to find something negative. DGG 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it should removed, it is a notable and verifiable event. If there are other more notable controversial issues missingm here, like Robert Novak's son working at Regnery while he shilled for their books[5], is not sufficient justification for removing this event. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that fact that an employee of a publisher "shills for their books" notable? I would think that should be part of their jobs. :-) Steve Dufour 02:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for quote

The article includes the quote: "... manages to connect the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones." However no source is given and we are not told who said it. Can this information be added? Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material is sourced, it's been sourced for a long time. I find your question puzzling. Guettarda 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question that what was said about the book is true. I just think it would be better if the article said who said it. The footnote led to the Amazon.com page for the book. I didn't see the quote there but I might have missed it. Steve Dufour 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Control-F", it's a good way to find text on a web page (with most browsers). Guettarda 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no criticism section

Regenry Publishing is obviously controversial yet this article mentions nothing but praise. For example intelligent design is widely considered pseudoscience and the South was the premier source of racism in America(and still is). I found criticism of them from experts while search online so I will add them to my user pageYou very nice place 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the publishing house doesn't try to hide their radical neo-conservative christian gun-toting views in any way - and publishes them at any given opportunity, would it be apporpriate to include those same charges as a criticism about their works? Regnery might think those things are great and good but their detractors obviously do not. Critics would obviously accuse them of having a political agenda and lack of impartiality (the upshot of which could be an accusation that some of the books are nothing but propaganda) 195.153.45.54 14:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and OR tags

Some of the edits here are legitimate (the correction about Eagle Publishing and the removal of the list of books), but others are plainly POV-pushing, and violate NPOV and OR by including unsourced opinion and blog opinion. THF 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content

"Wonkette fails BLP"

Wonkette said "a source said X". This is a comment on the inner workings of the company, not a living person, so BLP relevant here.

"Ernest weblog violates BLP"

To begin with, these are course notes, not blog posts. In addition, this text documents Ernest's opinion - the opinion of a University of North Carolina "Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies".

"David Walls, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Sonoma State University, fails WP:RS"

No, he doesn't. Really.

"Ben Domenech - This isn't particularly relevant, as there is no known connection between his Regnery job and his plagiarism"

He was fired from Regenery for this, so yes, it's relevant, much like the Jayson Blair scandal is relevant to NYTimes. Guettarda 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The available sources state that Mr. Domenech resigned from Regnery on March 21, two days before the plagiarism came to light. FCYTravis 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information from Wonkette is controversial information about a person that is not reliably sourced, and plainly violates BLP. Do not add it again, or I will seek intervention from admins. THF 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins? You called? How about addressing the substance of what I had to say, instead of making false accusations of vandalism? Guettarda 14:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles'

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption.

Again, please read WP:BLP, as you have violated it three times, and should have been blocked. THF 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonkette is not a blog for that purpose but is run by a major corporation and has a process of fact-checking and editorial oversight. Note the word "self-published" in the above. JoshuaZ 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to Wonkette is anonymous gossip, and not something we should be repeating. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply calling it "anonymous gossip" is not an argument. Are you claiming that Wonkette does not have editorial oversight, fact-checking and is run by a major publishing company? That makes it a reliable source. JoshuaZ 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's necessary that it be a reliable source, but not sufficient. We should avoid repeating gossip. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonkette is a reliable source for what Ana Marie Cox says, which is what the article reports.
As Joshua pointed out, Wonkette does not fit the "blog rule".
This information is about corporate policy decisions, so BLP is irrelevant. Guettarda 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the page to prevent further violations of our policy on biographies of living people. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "you have protected the page to gain the upper hand in a content dispute (yet again, surprise, surprise, Tom is abusing his admin tools). Guettarda 15:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I strongly suggest you unprotect. I'm not going to wheelwar, but this simply isn't a BLP concern. It is well-sourced and notable information. If you've agreed that the source is reliable your concern seems to be more of an "I don't like it" than anything else, especially given that this is about corporate practice. JoshuaZ 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to the blp noticeboard inviting review. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JoshuaZ. Protecting an article in which you are involved in a content dispute is a indisputable misuse of admin tools and position, and no amount of papering over it with "BLP concerns" will cover it up. You need to unprotect it and let an unaffiliated admin decide. Amazing. Odd nature 16:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before lodging such accusations, editors should be aware that the admin in question was likely responding to the first of multiple reports on the BLP noticeboard. If we are going to beat BLP patrollers who happen to be admins over the head because they end up having to protect a page that they were trying to bring into compliance due to a noticeboard report, then we might as well stop trying to enforce BLP at all. Editors may not agree that there is a BLP issue, but a BLP issue was reported. - Crockspot 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uninvolved admin. I came here from the noticeboard, saw and removed the blp violation, protected the page to prevent reinsertion, and posted to the blp noticeboard inviting review. Having been abused for that by experienced administrators who should know better for supposedly misusing my admin tools, I think a request for comment on my behavior is a good idea. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the above comments would be a lot more plausible and credible had Tom no history of similar shenanigans on related topics, like the Dominionism template debacle several months ago. There we saw an improper block. Sorry guys, but noone is buying that. Odd nature 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. BLP patrol is a thankless and tedious job, and hardly worth doing when such abuse is the standard response. - Crockspot 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd nature, then go and file an RfC. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a higher editorial standard than a news article (or news blog in this case). We do not report anonymous claims/rumors because our content is viral and a false statement could potentially be picked up by mirrors and it's out there for years. That's the whole reason for the BLP policy. As an uninvolved admin, I endorse the protection and/or blocking of any user who persists in adding BLP-violating material. --B 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison's actions look right to me (difficult calls are an admins job). So for the sake of stating the obvious I am another uninvolved admin endorsing the actions.--BozMo talk 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't know whether his judgment is correct in this case, but certainly there's no abuse. BLP allows admins to use their tools even if they're involved in editing the article. That can be abused by someone who wants a particular version, and just claims BLP in order to enforce it. But Tom had never edited the article before; he simply saw a BLP complaint at AN/I. As a completely uninvolved administrator, he came to have a look, judged that the claim had merit, removed the material, and protected. All completely in accordance with policy. If his judgment is faulty, in thinking that it was a valid BLP issue, then let's focus on that. It's just not plausible that he'd "abuse the tools" to get his own way in an article when he had so little interest in the article that he had never edited it before seeing the BLP complaint at the noticeboard. As for his previous "abuse", I remember seeing that at the time. He claimed BLP, blocked an anon after warning (remember that that is permitted by policy even if you're involved, if it's a valid BLP case) and immediately and conscientiously reported the block, inviting review. It wouldn't make sense to voluntarily open it up to public scrutiny if he was just using his tools to make sure he got his own way in a content dispute. As I recall it, he got quite a lot of support, including support from an ArbCom member. ElinorD (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:
- Procedure:Tom harrison's actions froze the article until consensus could work out whether or not BLP concerns apply in this case. Discussion is ongoing. Since we need consensus on this anyway, what's the problem? BLP matters are more sensitive than just about anything else, so the information can't stay while this is worked out.
- About the information itself: Could someone please explain to me how it is important to a reader's understanding of Regnery Gateway to know this information? If it is not important, then Wonkette's reliability doesn't matter, does it? (~~Another question, how do we establish Wonkette's reliability?~~) Or should this be debated over at the BLP Notice page? I guess one forum is better than two. Noroton 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just noticed JoshuaZ's 14:35 comment on reliable sources up above. If Wonkette is known to have editorial oversight and/or fact-checking, that should meet that objection. Noroton 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton:

Tom first reverted the page[6] and then[7] joined the discussion here, replying to Joshua's comment,[8] which clearly established that there was no BLP vio. When Joshua addressed his concern[9], Tom responded.[10] Only then, as an participant involved in a content dispute, that he protected the page.[11] It was one admin (Tom, who is known for abusing his admin tools to further his position in content disputes) versus two others. It was clearly established, both my myself and by Joshua, that this was not an BLP issue. There was no justification for Tom to protect the page. Guettarda 22:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda: Thank you for the reply; that was helpful. If I were in a similar situation and the comments were made in that way before the protection was put on, I'd be annoyed. too. It seems to me the approach should be for the admin to put question marks at the end of his sentences if comments are to be made before the protection -- the only purpose of commenting here before protecting would be to get information, right? I mean, an admin could write: "This looks questionable. Why shouldn't I remove the info and protect the page for the following reasons ...? Any comments?" But once the admin determines as best he can that the situation is at least questionable, I think he's obligated to remove the info, freeze the page, leave a comment on the talk page explaining why, and take the matter to the BLP notice board, right? By the way, if these sentiments please you, let me just show how unpolitical I can be: I came here because I saw Tom Harrison's post over at AN/I about this, and one reason was because I've recently been very impressed by some other recent work he did, improving links to the Michael Moore web site by going to direct pages. It was a move that diffused much of the controversy we had going and obviously improved the encyclopedia. (Annoyed yet? ;) )

You say that the situation is clearly not a BLP violation. I respectfully disagree. It doesn't seem to me to be especially clear either way. My views on that are at the BLP section. I could accept that Wonkette could be a reliable source, although it would be nice to have some evidence of it for a Web site. It seems to me the hardest hurdle for you to jump over is how this information is important enough for readers in understanding Regnery Gateway. The spirit of BLP seems to be against you, and so does the language of the policy. Think you're annoyed now? Wait a week, look over all of it again and you may find you agree with the idea of removing the info. Now that's annoying! Noroton 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:COATRACK immediately comes to mind with the insistence that an article about a publishing company include an extensive and questionably-sourced indictment of a former employee. An RfC for admins violating policy is needed, but Tom isn't the one who has violated policy. THF 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:COI was what sprang to my mind reading that. Your point you're tyring to make only works if the sourcing is indeed questionable, which does not appear to be the case here. Odd nature 22:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating that COI is perceived to apply to right-wing POVs for simply having POVs (in contradiction to what the COI guideline actually says, which is why I have been cleared of claims fo COI in three separate occasions before COIN), while actual left-wing POV-pushing in violation of NPOV and BLP is considered appropriate behavior. Don't worry, I'm leaving Wikipedia. THF 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI is likely to apply when you are inserting your employer's talking points into an article, or (like here), when you are whitewashing an article about a company that has published your colleague's(colleagues') book(s). Guettarda 22:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attenuated relationships like that do not violate COI, but, per WP:COOL, I am withdrawing from editing this article. THF 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's doubt about whether the Domenech resigned before the plagiairism story broke. There are at least two contemporary press reports which indicate he was still an employee at the time. Our sources to the contrary are both blogs. When the article is unlocked we should re-write the text so that the purporeted date of his resignation from Regnery is not so prominent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I deleted the sentence again because the sources still don't support it, unless I'm missing something in the sources which is entirely possible.

The only mention of Regnery in the first source is the sentence, "The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot, 7th edition (1953; Henry Regnery, 1986) is an American classic.", the second source is a speech by Buckley where he is reading two pages from a currently unpublished novel and the third doesn't mention Regnery in the source. --PTR 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd left the first cite in although I couldn't find what it was supposed to be sourcing. I'll have to go check the Buckley article again. As for the book, it does indeed say that Regnery published books on behalf of the John Birch Society.

In 1954, Regnery published two books for the John Birch Society. p.206 [12]

That book says quite a bit more about the history of Regnery, and if anyone is sufficiently interested to go further it may be a useful source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read parts of it and it's a bit of a crazed rant - Google says it's highly controversial - is it a good source? Anyway, it says that Regnery published two books for the John Birch society but it doesn't say "in support of".

I noticed that there is a reference to all three of the first books being pro-nazi but the review of In Darkest Germany that I found says:

Foreigners, such as the Swedish writer Stig Dagerman, could write about the sufferings of the Germans immediately after the war, but not the Germans themselves. Victor Gollancz, a British publisher of Polish-Jewish origin who could not be suspected in the slightest of Nazi sympathies and who had spent the entire 1930s publishing books warning the world of the Nazi peril, wrote and published a book in the immediate aftermath of the war called In Darkest Germany, in which he drew attention to the plight of the Germans living (and starving) among the ruins, which he observed on a visit there. To the charge that the Germans had brought it all on themselves and deserved no less, he replied with a three-word question: “And the children?” His book was furnished with many affecting pictures, perhaps the most poignant among them that of the comfortably attired Gollancz lifting the foot of a little German boy to demonstrate his pitiful footwear to the camera.

The Frieda Utley book review says:

Excellent, readable, well documented account of the cruelties, and of the disasters, to victors and vanquished alike, which resulted from the application of the slightly modified Stalin-White-Morgenthau Plan to conquered Germany after 1945.

I didn't find anything that said they were pro-Nazi. Where is the source for that? I'd like to see it removed until it is sourced. --PTR 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the sourcing either, and that's a pretty terrible statement to make without a traceable source. What is it we say somewhere -- "Extraordinary charges require extraordinarily solid sourcing" or something like that? Will, you mention page 206, but when I try to access that page, the Web site tells me it's not one of the pages available. Does that change every time you go to that Web page or did you give the wrong page number? I'm a bit dubious about the reliability of the book. It seems to be from a pretty small publishing house.

I believe Regnery published Joe McCarthy and his Enemies by William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell. The book was "pro-McCarthy" in the sense that it said that while McCarthy erred, he was correct in his general point that there were Communist spies in government.~~(Never mind, that was beside the point. I misremembered what the sentence in question said.)~~ Will, that sentence should go out until it's properly sourced. I searched for the word "Regnery" in the first source and found nothing that supported the sentence. The Buckley speech doesn't seem to support anything at all in that sentence either. My mind is open, and if the sentence is true it deserves to be in there, but we risk misleading readers if we have it there with phony sourcing. Noroton 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, the part about Regnery and John Birch Society seems to have a lot of sourcing. Just see the Google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=Regnery+%22John+Birch%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8 Noroton 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Good. I think adding one of those sources would be good. Did you find anything except the book for the pro-nazi statement? I'm really uncomfortable leaving it in when it's only sourced to a controversial book. --PTR 23:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I hate it when I get this interested in something. I've looked over the Google results for Regnery and "John Birch" and I don't find credible sources. Regnery did publish books by the founder of the JBS and one was conspiricist.

In the early 1950s, Regnery published two books by Robert Welch, who later founded the John Birch Society in 1958.[13]. In 1952, Regnery published "May God Forgive Us". Regnery came out with "The Life of John Birch" by Welch in 1954.[14]

May God Forgive Us appears to be a call to anti-Communism. John Birch was a Baptist missionary in China who later worked as an intelligence officer there for the U.S., opposed the Chinese Communists and was apparently killed by them. Actually, I read a brief review from The New York Times of "May God Forgive Us". The reviewer criticizes the author for charging conspiracy when ineptitude among foreign policy types would be more accurate.

There's a sentence still in the article that says some Regnery books "have been called pro-Nazi". I've been looking at New York Times citations for Regnery in the 1950s and 1960s, and I'm finding nothing (although I'm not looking at the little notices the Times published about upcoming books, and maybe the Times just didn't review them).

Regnery did publish books sympathetic to Germans and their experiences during the war, including one by Rommel's chief of staff and one by a German general. Neither were pro-Nazi and both criticized Hitler. The second one got a glowing review from The New York Times.

Regnery was a respected publisher back then. It published the memoirs of Konrad Adenauer and, when Ezra Pound was in disrepute (he was held in a mental hospital, basically for making pro-Fascist radio broadcasts from Italy during WWII -- the prosecutor or judge didn't have the heart to imprison him), Regnery published a book by him, apparently about culture.

In the paragraph with the "called pro-Nazi" line there is absolutely nothing in the footnotes to back it up. Sounds slanderous to me and I'm removing it. Noroton 01:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an enormous amount about the early history of Regnery. I think I didn't add too much because it's important to know (a) the publisher's relationship to conspiracists like Robert Welch of the John Birch Society; (b) that Regnery Publishing was involved with the people who set up the modern conservative movement, and that's important; (c) Henry Regnery's pro-German sympathies before and after World War II and how to best describe the publisher's books on German/World War II topics. We need more information on all of these, especially (c). I'm going to look for some reliable sources (a book by George Nash about the modern conservative movement is scholarly and widely respected across the political spectrum and I think would make an excellent source). The best way to avoid slandering or whitewashing, of course, is to find the good sources. Noroton 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All three books have been described as "pro-nazi"."

I took the above sentence out of the article. First, it needs a citation. Second, if we get a citation, we can evaluate how much prominence to give it, if any. Being critical of wartime actions of the Allies, as some of the books apparently do, does not make one pro-Nazi. Noroton 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did a lot of research! I think that's a good call. After reading the sentence I looked up the authors of the books and couldn't find anything, then looked up the books and couldn't find any sources for it. It's an ugly label as you said above and should have really solid sources. --PTR 12:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is a good call. However, if the original point was to show common criticisms of the company then removing it has removed a vital part of the article. Maybe you could have replaced it with information about the publisher having published books critical of the allies. 195.153.45.54 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]