Talk:Talking Right

Well have any wikipedians read the book enough to sumarize it? Mathiastck 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and I will provide a summary shortly. marbeh raglaim 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! marbeh raglaim 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations for my summary

In the header, I stuck the following disclaimer: "The summary in this article describes the book's views from the author's perspective and shouldn't be taken as an endorsement." While the placement of this message looks slightly awkward, I found it hard to summarize the book without assuming Nunberg's point of view, because ultimately what I'm describing is what the book is arguing--a complex argument that requires several sentences to explain. Repeatedly sticking the words "according to Nunberg," "Nunberg argues," etc. throughout the summary would have looked even more awkward. Anyone who has any suggestions of how this could be improved, I'd love to hear. marbeh raglaim 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now taken away the lengthy subtitle in the infobox. To my eye, it looks much better this way. I suppose I'll have to see how others react. marbeh raglaim 21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in the infobox

1) I couldn't find on the Internet a very large photo of the cover.

2) The ISBN, put in by another user, lacks hyphens, and I don't know why. It is the correct ISBN (I checked), but when I copied the ISBN from my copy of the book, it wouldn't work. So I stuck with the one given by the previous user.

3) The subtitle is so damn long that I'm seriously tempted to remove it in the infobox. It takes up space and looks awkward. marbeh raglaim 21:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

POV violation! The idea that elitism and liberalism are not linked is a POV violation, just like the idea that elitism and liberalism are linked would be a POV violation! Just bringing this towards your attention. (Greatest Hobgoblin 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I understand your point. Frankly, I think the whole summary (which I wrote) is sort of POV, which is why I stuck in the disclaimer at the top. I really would like to find a way to make the summary sound more neutral so that I don't need the disclaimer, but it seems awkward to keep sticking in the words "Nunberg argues" everywhere. marbeh raglaim 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the summary to make it more neutral, and I have taken away the disclaimer at the top. marbeh raglaim 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NunbergTalking.jpg

Image:NunbergTalking.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]