Talk:Blacklisted by History

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Books portal 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 articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Not started in any competent manner

Random House is not "fringe". Also, I intend to beef up the article on the book. Most of your criticisms make the case that the article is not finished, rather than showing that the book is not a worthy topic for an encyclopedia article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article going to consist entirely of quotes or will it have actual prose at some point? He iro 21:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actual prose? Like what you did here? Well, that's a start.

I usually start with quotes first; especially when something is so controversial. That's why I appreciate your input. Apparently I was just going by all the praise I saw in the Amazon.com review, which turn out to be almost all conservatives.

Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion, as we used to say in the good ol' days of WP. Is that still the policy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is, which is why I added some of the other reviews and mentioned that the book gained prominence after Beck championed it.[1]. He iro 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed: (i) Random House is the book's publisher, so blatantly partisan. (ii) It is clear that your article was not started in such a way that anything could be done without a complete rewrite from scratch. A WP:QUOTEFARM of far-right WP:FRINGE sources (the John Birch Society for f@ck's sake?) is utterly worthless! If you cannot create a reasonably competent WP:STUB to act as an acorn for growth, then please don't create anything. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Radosh review

I would suggest that, given his background, Ronald Radosh's review is a 'must have' for this article. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall so tight that I can't even find out exactly when it was published (so as to add a citation of it to a 'Further reading' section). Can anybody access it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you ask, and I'm back from my vacation, I did a little googling and found this:

It is a mistake for conservatives to think that just because McCarthy’s targets were real, the Senator did no harm. [2] Is that anything like what you were looking for? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't -- but it does link to a copy of the review -- so I've added material from that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchet job on this book

In keeping with the fact that Wikipedia is a left-wing intelligence op, I'm not at all surprised at this "article" attacking the book, nor in Wikipedia's whitewashing of John Carter Vincent, a Soviet agent. Blacklisted By History is heavily sourced, including testimony during congressional investigations (when they weren't taking the 5th). Try reading the book. You fellow travelers should also read The New Dealer's War. Obviously no one here has read either one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.174.217 (talk • contribs) 23:19, April 26, 2014‎

While I'm sure you have specific concerns, you haven't mentioned them. Instead, you've launched a blanket condemnation of the entire project, broadly defended the book and handed out reading assignments. Hopefully you merely intended to vent because your approach won't accomplish anything else. I can recommend you do one of two things: Be more specific about your concerns (citing independent reliable sources) or look elsewhere for the truthiness you seem to be looking for. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]