Talk:Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Archives: 1

Long indiscriminate lists[edit]

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)