Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

chill out

In light of the pending rejection by ArbCom for this being a content dispute, I'm going to informally step in here and tell both sides here to chill out and relax. Content disputes can be resolved amicably, but this one is not being done so, and if the insults and attacks continue to fly,some editors are going to find themselves temporarily blocked from editing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SWATjester. This entire episode has been quite stressful, and I warmly appreciate you volunteering to help with this. (Thank you also for noticing that the Lies book article doesn't have a "Criticisms" section when almost all other books in a similar vein do.)

---

---

Criticsm section outcomes organization

Ok, so in this section after we agree on the inclusion of a finalized version of the criticism, we'll move it here.

For each topic of criticism, use FOUR equal signs to offset the subtopic.

If a section is disapproved by all sides as not acceptable for inclusion, lets strike it through and move it to the temporary section for rejections, which will be deleted once we're done.

Remember, make your comments in Italics with two apostrophes to seperate them from the subject matter of the proposed criticism. Also remember to use the strike out to remove lines/sections instead of just deleting them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: do NOT move the refslist above, we don't need it cluttering things up here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism approved, ready for inclusion

Difficulty posed by use of satire and nonfiction

In a book review of Franken's book in the Washington newspaper The Hill, reviewer Mary Lynn F. Jones, a fan of Franken's previous works, opined, "Franken's tendency to mix fact with fiction [also] left me wondering sometimes what was true and what wasn't." As an example, she cited a passage in Franken's book in which he wrote that former Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage "bolted" from a Senate hearing and "[knocked] over veteran reporter Helen Thomas, breaking her hip and jaw" (page 218). In the paperback version of Lies, Franken subsequently clarified the passage with a footnote saying, "the Helen Thomas thing is a joke" (page 227 of the paperback). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidShankBone (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

• I nominate The Hill criticism. --David Shankbone 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Seconded. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Third. D323P 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Fourth. A few details, though: (1) I don't understand what purpose the "fan" phrase serves, would there be any objection to simply cutting it? (2) is the author correct? The page linked merely credits the essay to "The Hill staff." (3) Page numbers are not necessary, as has been mentioned elsewhere. (4) Also, I think this essay could be used as a source for the item below, regarding the "polarizing" effect of partisan authors. -Pete 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism approved, but still working out details on inclusion

Factual accuracy

A 2004 article by pundit Rich Lowry, of the conservative National Review, challenged Franken's book on its facts. . Lowry noted that Franken had claimed in his book that the Clinton administration had a "far-reaching plan" to eliminate al Qaeda and that the Clinton team "decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out." However, Lowry wrote that Sandy Berger testified in front of Congress on September 19, 2002, and stated, "[T]here was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."

• Nominated by D323P 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)'

• Seconded. This section is pretty much good.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. Berger's testimony corroborates the bulk of Franken's point, which is that Berger communicated a plan to Rice, which was then ignored. Using Berger's testimony to contradict Franken, while it may be accurate, is deceptive by omission. Furthermore, the discrepancy is over the words "eliminate" (vs. "disrupt") and "war plan," (vs. "plan"), so to leave out the part of Franken's quote that uses those words would be a mistake.I believe a few words could draw this closer to NPOV, and make it acceptable (though notability would still be a question.) I tried to edit it myself some time back, but was reverted; I'd appreciate if somebody else could take a crack. -Pete 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What changes do you propose then? Also, can you attribute this counter-criticism or is it of your own research (which we cannot include)/ ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try rewriting again, below. My impression was that D323P's objection was not on the basis of "original research" - the point is pretty straightforward, Berger's words are direct and clear. Rather, my impression is that D323P objected on the grounds that the broader context has no bearing on his specific point.

If that's correct, I think D323P's concern may be met by introducing the context more fully, rather than tagging rebuttals on the end of the text. That's what I've tried below, in what I consider a "rough draft" - open to further editing, as this is a new approach to the material. It's rather long, and should probably be edited for brevity. (If Franken used the word "eliminate," it should be included in a quote - this would actually sharpen the criticism of Franken, and make it clearer to the reader what is under dispute.) -Pete 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Franken criticized the Bush administration for failing to follow up on the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts. He wrote that the Clinton administration had a "far-reaching plan" to eliminate al Qaeda and that the Clinton team "decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out." He is widely believed to have based that claim on a Time Magazine report.

In a September 2002 Congressional hearing, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger addressed the issue, saying:

“ Number one among those [situations we faced] was terrorism and Al Qaida. And I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly, so I'm not violating any private conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing -- on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. ”

Berger denied, however, the existence of a "war plan" designed to "eliminate" Al Qaida, emphasizing that the goal had been to target bin Laden, and merely disrupt the organization:

“ But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect. ”

Conservative pundit Rich Lowry explored that discrepancy in detail, taking exception to Franken's factual accuracy.

• I like all of that, except the part that says "widely believed....Time magazine article". Is there a citation for the time magazine article? Also, is there a source stating that the time magazine article is widely believed to be his source? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have OR concerns. If anything, though, this probably means that the Berger dispute belongs in the "difference of opinon" category I mentioned below. It seems that this dispute is less over "factual accuracy", which is in play in the Cleland example, and more about how you interpret different things that Berger has said at different times. It seem that Lowry's analysis and quoting leaves out a significant portion of events. My remedy here would be to avoid any sort of interpretive element on our part (determining which facts to include versus which not to and which facts support which case) and instead focusing on the fact that Lowry took exception to Franken's analysis of events. Croctotheface 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• SwatJester, I'm not 100% sure about the "widely-believed" part. Maybe D323P could check if Franken cites Time in his book? (I don't have a copy handy.) I think that part's pretty uncontroversial, and could stay in without a specific cite - but if you disagree, we can pull it out

Yes. Franken cites the Time article which Berger specifically says is wrong. I see no reason why my version is unacceptable, except that fans of Franken don't like it. All I see is a "yeah, but" excuse for Franken. That's POV, isn't it? 71.107.241.22 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I disagree, I don't know one way or the other, nor do I really care. I just don't want bad information in the article, and if it really is widely believed, there'd be plenty of cites in there. You guys are the experts on this article not me, I'm just mediating you guys to a successful collaboration.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Croctotheface, I don't quite get it. Maybe I didn't make clear: the two quotations above flowed together in Berger's testimony - they're not from two different places, or even two parts of the same testimony. They were basically part of the same "breath." As for OR, this is why I restructured the paragraph, so it's not necessary to say that Berger "corroborated" what Franken said, which I concede is probably more of a conclusion than it's fair to draw. The goal I'm trying to reach is letting the reader can draw his/her own conclusions. We should provide enough context for him/her to see what the dispute concerns, and the ability to follow it into other texts if he/she is sufficiently interested. -Pete 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• If the quote is contiguous, then I don't think it's really necessary to split it up and analyze it. In general, though I'm concerned that we are going to give minor parts of the book major coverage in the article. I appreciate that you want to contextualize the dispute, but I'd rather contextualize the major arguments that Franken makes in the book, rather than a dispute over the evidence he uses in support of them. As I said already, it is my opinion that disagreeing with someone is not the same as criticism. If Lowry's criticism is based on either a simple disagreement or an erroneous understanding of the facts, then I am disinclined to treat it in any kind of detail. If it's invalid (as it may be, based on your comments), then that could be a reason not to include it at all. You leave the fact that Franken was criticized for the matter to the last sentence of your version, when it's supposed to be the subject of the section. Even then, I'm not sure that Lowry took issue with Franken's factual accuracy so much as he said that Franken's idea that Berger gave Rice a plan to work with was contradicted by Berger's statement regarding not turning over a "war plan." You point out that Franken's description could be supported by Berger's statement that he briefed Rice on their current methods and planning for the future. If it's a difference of opinion or a matter of semantics, then we should characterize it as such and mention it only briefly, if at all. Croctotheface 09:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Croctotheface: my original recommendation was to leave out the item entirely, on exactly the grounds you suggest. That's still fine by me. This is the point I've been trying to make all along: if we include the point, it needs to have sufficient context; but providing sufficient context ultimately serves to highlight its non-notability. -Pete 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

---

...Franken wrote, "[Former Georgia Senator] Max [Cleland] left three of his limbs in Vietnam. A VC grenade blew them off" (page 163, hardcover). Schweizer replies, “Actually, the tragedy was a result of a training accident, as Cleland writes in his memoir” (page 71).

• Nominated by D323P 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Needs to be referenced with a page number and bibliographic reference in schweizer's book.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, but this can otherwise go in. Croctotheface 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would prefer if we can hold off on discussing this item until some of the earlier proposed items have been resolved. -Pete 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• We'll get to this one once we're finished with the sandy berger section, but this section should be next because I think this should be a fairly easy include. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly with that, I'm just finding it difficult to follow so many threads at once. But I don't want to hold up the process.I'll try to come back tonight and explain my thinking on that. I should say upfront, my late father suffered from his service in Vietnam, so it's an emotional topic for me. I'll try to keep that in check though. -Pete 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This criticism is based on an extraordinary politicization of a non-political topic. Max Cleland's injury was sustained in service to his country, pure and simple, a fact which is clearly reflected by the medals bestowed upon him. As a technical matter, Franken was incorrect to use the acronym "VC," but so is his critic wrong - I believe - to say it was a "training accident." The mission was a non-combat mission, but I have seen no credible source call it a "training" mission. A quote from of Cleland's own words about the accident is included in this article.

I find this criticism to be unnecessarily inflammatory to anyone whose loved ones have suffered while serving their country. I understand that in itself is not a reason for non-inclusion, but I don't believe it serves any purpose while doing that.

There seems to be a growing consensus here that the "criticisms" section should be used for general criticisms of Franken's approach, rather than cherry-picking factual errors from the details of the bood. I agree that the more general critiques are more worthy of our attention, and I believe this item should be left out on those grounds. -Pete 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"General criticisms"? That is very POV. Why is pointing out factual errors of conservative authors valid "criticism," while doing the same for Franken is "cherry-picking factual errors"? There's a glaring double standard here! 71.107.241.22 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here. I don't mind covering legitimate factual errors. However, I do very strongly object to describing a matter as a factual error when it is not, which was the context in which I had mentioned a preference for mentioning general criticisms rather than nitpicky ones. However, I don't object to including this particular error, since Franken got it wrong, and there really isn't a way to argue that he did not make a mistake. Still, the paragraph should be worded in a way that does not appear to denigrate Cleland or minimize what happened to him. Croctotheface 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an enormous difference between a factual error that damages the logical argument that flows from it, and a mere misstatement of fact. If you remove the acronym "VC" from Franken's sentence, the sentence becomes entirely accurate, and retains essentially the same meaning. Franken's point is that Cleland sustained major injury while serving his country; the exact cause of the injury is a detail of no significance to Franken's point. This article is not meant to be a catalog of every assertion in Franken's book. -Pete 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we should not endeavor to catalog each and every statement in the book. However, an incorrect one is an exceptional case. Franken was incorrect and he was criticized for it. We need not judge his error to be intentional or malicious to include it: in fact, a general rule for editors here is to be dispassionate in this respect and let the sources do the talking. In this case, we have a notable source of criticism. We can execute a degree of judgment if we find the criticism to be weak, invalid, or misleading. In this case, though, the basic tenet of the criticism is that Franken made a factual error, which he did. We need not get involved in a dispute over whether wound suffered in combat is different. Readers will be free to come to their own conclusion about that. I would advocate not quoting the book and instead using a more neutral description, such as the one at Max Cleland. However, I don't think any of the concerns that have been raised so far are reasons to exclude this criticism. Croctotheface 21:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandy Berger

Has anyone checked to see if Berger has been challenged on his testimony? So much of this stuff on factual accuracy is "he said-she said" stuff. Who did Franken rely upon for that information? --David Shankbone 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism still being debated.

Factual accuracy

In the 2005 bestselling book Do As I Say, author Peter Schweizer criticized Franken’s facts:

... Franken wrote that the General Accounting Office refuted the Bush administration in claiming that there was ‘no record of damage’ (pp. 153-154, hardcover) done by Clinton staffers to the White House as they vacated their offices after the 2000 election. Wrote Schweizer, "Actually, the report begins, ‘Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition’” (page 71).

• Nominated by D323P 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• I reject the inclusion of this criticism pending inclusion of other aspects of the GAO report that doesn't make this seem so "cut and dry"; as it reads now, it's POV. --David Shankbone 19:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see what you're saying, but the issue is whether Schweizer criticized the Franken book, and that's indisputable. As such, I suggest including it, with a sentence tagged along at the end saying "However, other sections of the GAO report seem to dispute Schweizers conclusion (ref= whatever the section is)". That should satisfy everyone. Also, Schweizer's book needs to be referenced with a page number and bibliographic info. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree here. We know that Schweitzer criticized Franken's book. It's not necessary to repeat each and every criticism he makes. As I've previously said, this seems to be more of a difference of opinion where there is more or less a "liberal" side and a "conservative" side. If we mention this, I think we should mention it only in passing rather than using a "however, other sections..." kind of sentence, which probably would be original research anyway. Croctotheface 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Each and every charge" is not being proposed. And the fact that "we know that Schweizer criticized Franken's book" only merits that a few, short criticisms be listed, IMHO. D323P 03:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think we might be talking past each other here. I was responding to the idea that so long as a notable criticism was made, it should be included. I think that the other two criticisms that would be source to Schweitzer are plenty to illustrate the concept. Croctotheface 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think a small rewrite could make this acceptable. I don't have a problem with Franken being criticized on this point, but the current formulation leaves the reader with the distinct impression that the Clinton staff behaved in a uniquely juvenile fashion. The inclusion of brief quote or allusion to the GAO's finding that all recent administrations have behaved in this manner would satisfy me. -Pete 01:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Croctotheface: I'm confused, we only have 2 criticisms by Schweizer here. You seem to imply that there are more? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Well, I had interpreted D323P's comment to suggest that there were. I don't know for a fact, as I haven't read the book. My point was that Schweitzer could make, say, 50 criticisms of Lies, but it is not incumbent upon us to describe each and every one of them. We don't describe each and every argument Franken makes in the book. I don't think it's wise to do the same for each and every argument made against Franken in someone else's book. Croctotheface 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're only using two of the criticisms. This one and the other one. Given that, do you have any objection? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My point in rasing the "we need not delineate each of Schweitzer's criticisms" issue was less to object to mentioning this item at all and more about preferring that it be covered in less detail. As I've said, this matter strikes me as more of a difference of opinion over interpreting facts rather than a matter where Franken drew criticism because he was not factually accurate. The fact that Schweitzer also presents a one-sided and not necessarily accurate version of events (as your suggestion of including the "However, other sections of the GAO report seem to dispute..." sentence indicates) makes me want to avoid having to repeat either argument. I'd prefer for any of these "difference of opinion" criticisms to be treated more briefly, perhaps in a single paragraph, if we include them at all. The sentence about this one could be something like "Schweitzer disputed Franken's conclusions regarding the GAO report on vandalism during the 2000 White House transition". In general, Franken's interpretive arguments in the book are not repeated in the article, except for his central thesis about the media. I don't think it's generally wise to repeat interperative arguments made by his critics. I'd prefer to for the criticism section to focus on criticism of the general tone/style of the book ("satire vs. reality" or the one I mentioned about Franken as a partisan attack dog) or instances when Franken got his facts wrong (such as the Cleland example). The vandalism example is too much in dispute for us to present it as a case where Franken got his facts wrong. Croctotheface 07:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

...At the beginning of the Lies book, Franken writes that he received applications from “seven hundred students” (p. xii) to work with him during his fellowship at Harvard. But a 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson reported, “Franken received applications from 90 students ...”

*Nominated by D323P 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the source for this number at the Harvard Crimson, and I am unable to find other allusions to a jacked up number of applications on the internet, searching several ways for it on Google. That is first an indication of an unnotable criticism that seems to be aimed at saying, "Al Franken, you aren't as popular as you claim" and, in this case, Franken is more of an authority on how many applications he received than an unsourced statement in the student newspaper at Harvard. Given Harvard's generally liberal student body and Franken's popularity, I think erring on the side of Franken as to how many applications he received is more appropriate than on the side of an unsourced statement in a student newspaper. --David Shankbone 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Needs to cite page number in Franken's book that he makes the claim of seven hundred, and Harvard Crimson article needs to show the number 90 in the article."⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• The line is right there in black and white: "Franken received applications from 90 students detailing why they wanted to be in his study group." (about 1/4 down the page [1])

My point wasn't that I couldn't find the article or the line, but that I couldn't find any other source except the student newspaper, which didn't cite where it came from. --David Shankbone 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with this item is that Franken could've been joking by using 700 as kind of an outlandish number. This could be more a matter of the "difficulty of using satire in nonfiction" issue. Croctotheface 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The student article is still fact checked and a reputable enough source. More importantly, it's not a criticism in the article, thus I just don't think it's strong enough for inclusion (the harvard crimson isn't actually criticising Franken for that, thus it's OR by us). However, see below for some GOOD criticisms that come out of the harvard crimson article-⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

700 is an "outlandish number" at Harvard? C'mon, man. 71.107.241.22 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If he actually received 90 applicants, then, yes, a figure that is almost 900% greater is indeed outlandish. It don't really see what good Franken does for himself by saying 700 rather than 90, so, much like the Armitage/Thomas line, it seems to me like he was making a joke. I suppose that I'm reluctant to make the judgment of Franken required to think that he lied about something like this. Still, as Swatjester pointed out, there is no source that Franken was criticized for this, so there's no way to include it per WP:A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Croctotheface (talk • contribs) 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

• From the harvard crimson article: (we'd need to copy edit these) "Since Lies’ release, Franken has faced criticism of his work from many corners—the book has sparked an accusatory column in the Los Angeles Times, a lawsuit from Fox News and an angry backlash over a prank Franken played on Attorney General Ashcroft and other right wing figures in the drafting of the work." ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!}
  • "In September, David Horowitz wrote a scathing editorial in the Los Angeles Times that called Harvard one of the Ivy League’s “left-wing think tanks” and attacked the KSG for funding what it called a politically partisan book." ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!}
    • "The wave of criticism continued when it became public that Franken had written a prank letter to several conservative leaders asking for personal testimonies about their experiences with abstinence—on Shorenstein Center stationery. enter Director Alex Jones said he was upset that the Harvard center’s name was being implicated in a prank of this nature. “You could call it irony, I call it bad judgment,” Jones said in an interview last month. “It is inappropriate to use Shorenstein stationery to play a practical joke.”"⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!}
      • "But the most publicized critique came in August, when Fox News sued Franken on the grounds that the term “fair and balanced,” which appears in the title of Lies, resembled the network’s own slogan too closely.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!}

"

All of those are from the Harvard Crimson article, which is definitely a reliable source. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

They all seem like general criticism of Franken and/or Harvard, not the book, which is what this article is about. Croctotheface 07:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum: I know I mentioned this before and have been somewhat lazy in not doing it myself, but the one criticism that I really want to see mentioned here centers on the idea that Franken's attack dog style is somehow unproductive. I recall reading more than one review that said something to the effect of, "Franken proves a highly effective critic of conservative pundits, but his methods reduce him to their level." Croctotheface 07:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The fox lawsuit over the title of the book seems pretty cut and dry though, and that one is definitely related to the book. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right that it's about the book. I'm not sure that it's much of a criticism, though, and the story is covered from the perspective of granting publicity to Franken. The whole "wholly without merit" business sort of shows how valid the whole suit was. Croctotheface 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

+_+_+_+

Accusations of Plagiarism

In Pants on Fire, Skorski also claimed that Franken plagiarized portions of Lies and the Lying Liars from a 2001 report on the Fox News Channel by the media watchdog group FAIR. An example by Skorski:

FAIR, July/August 2001: " The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes:

Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ...

Al Franken, page 63 (hardcover, 1st edition):

For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.

In all, Mr. Skorski believes to have cited a total of ten passages in Franken's book which bear "striking similarities" to the FAIR report.

• Nominated by D323P. I have seen no good reason to exclude this, except supporters of Franken don't like it. It's an interesting addition, and it's valid. D323P 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I reject the inclusion of the plagiarism section, pending a better source. --David Shankbone 15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm also iffy on this section. It's entirely dependent on whether you consider Franken a journalist or not as to whether this is actually a criticism or not, and enough editors seem to not like the source that I'm also iffy about bringing it in as well. As a compromise, would you consider leaving this section out? I can't say that it really improves the article much. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Better source"? I'm confused. The book is published by a well-established and well-known conservative organization (World Net Daily). Anyone with a copy of Al's book and an internet connection can judge for themselves about this. Whether or not anyone wants to label Al as a "journalist" or not is irrelevant. The guy has written six books. He has been a political commentator on television and radio. He used to host a politically oriented talk show on a nationally syndicated network (AAR). He is running for United States Senate. He obviously seeks to be taken seriously for his views. A critic has noted what he perceives to be plagiarism in his Lies book, therefore I think it's a totally legitimate addition, as well as interesting. D323P 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this section merits inclusion. The source doesn't pass muster in my mind, and I'm not even convinced, based on the example given, that there is a strong enough basis for the criticism. Croctotheface 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think this particularly qualifies as plagiarism, a comparison to the Globetrotters. It certainly isn't damning evidence. --David Shankbone 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether it qualifies as plagiarism or not, since a relatively notable critic (albeit a partisan one) is calling him out on it, what I do think matters is that it's just not a very strong criticism, and the space is better reserved for other things. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we are in agreement. I also agree with Croc's wanting to see a criticism of Franken's attack-dog style. This is a criticism I have with him personally, as well. Maybe I will try to write something myself on it, since I disdain the foaming-at-the-mouth by both sides of the aisle. It doesn't do one positive thing for the country. --David Shankbone 12:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ShadowJester and David Shankbone. I think the lack of accuracy and lack of notability amount to the same thing here; if it were truly a case of plagarism, the criticism would be notable, and less partisan writers would have picked up the story. -Pete 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lack of accuracy"? "Lack of notability"? I'm not clear: What does that mean exactly? And as far as it being "not a very strong criticism," how about letting the reader decide? Isn't that fair? D323P 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dave, we aren't here to present debate no matter the quality. We do present debate, but quality debate. An encyclopedia is more meant to present fact, and not any spurious claim or allegation that comes its way. "Letting the reader decide" is simply not a valid argument on Wikipedia, or else we would present evolution as "debateable - let the reader decide" when, in fact, it is not debateable by any scientific or acceptable standard. --David Shankbone 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim is not "spurious." When I talk of "letting the reader decide," I talk of letting readers decide for themselves how serious Fraken's infraction is. (As readers can in similar articles.) D323P 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, "We do present debate, but quality debate." Not every allegation is of equal merit, which basically sums up everything we have talked about on this page. Which is why mainstream, notable, quality sources need to be used. If you can't find these issues and allegations discussed in the mainstream media, then they are not notable enough to include on Wikipedia and belong on the partisan trashheap (whether the trashheap be the left's or the right's). --David Shankbone 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) "Letting the reader decide," while an important consideration overall, is a vast oversimplification of what's going on here. If "let the reader decide" were the overriding principle, nobody would care what did or didn't go on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteforsyth (talk • contribs)

New discussion, starting May 07

David Shankbone: "Which is why mainstream, notable, quality sources need to be used. If you can't find these issues and allegations discussed in the mainstream media, then they are not notable enough to include on Wikipedia and belong on the partisan trashheap (whether the trashheap be the left's or the right's) ... This is a major problem with Wikipedia, and why it is increasingly being perceived (and often dismissed) as a liberal mouthpiece. It doesn't account for the liberal bias of the mainstream media when writing about political pundits. The MSM simply won't publish an unflattering portrait of a big liberal like Al Franken; you simply won't see a hit piece on Franken by WaPo's Paul Farhi like the one he did on O'Reilly. In addition, the barometer for "notable quality, sources" is different for conservatives. Media Matters is constantly treated as a reputable source in several articles (despite its close connection to the Clinton camp), while MRC or NewsBusters is dismissed to the "partisan trash heap," (as you say) whether the facts are true or not. Facts are not the standard here! "Wikipedia collaboration" is about liberals collaborating together. With that said, the "Criticism" section here is super weak, and I know that's the way it's intended. "Difficulty posed by use of satire and nonfiction"?? Give me a break. This is minor, harmless criticism that will raise no eyebrows at all. Why not the citation of clear factual errors by Franken? (There is a lengthy section of this in the article on Ann Coulter. Again - an unequivocally clear double standard.) With that said, I'll probably get a message saying I'm engaging in "personal attacks." And when I do, it will only prove my point even further. The discussion boards for political figures more and more resemble those of Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. I will end this comment by simply saying there is absolutely no good reason to omit the plagiarism issue. D323P 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

David Pierre, you're the one spearheading the "Wikipedia is liberal, blah blah" campaign. So when you say "increasingly perceived", you really mean "I'm writing articles about this idea." Your liberal media theory strikes me as paranoid. The issue of Media Matters vs. MRC is tangentially related. If you wanted to give me some examples of what you consider that double standard, I'd be interested to see them. I could imagine being willing to remove some content describing criticism of O'Reilly if MM is the only place criticizing him. I'm OK with putting the Cleland factual accuracy piece in this article, since it is clearly a fact that Franken got wrong. The other items strike me more as a difference of opinon than anything else. Certainly not the same as saying that The New York Times didn't run a story when in fact they did. Croctotheface 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Croctotheface has zeroed in on the central issue. The article that Dave Pierre (D323P) wrote on his blog in February accuses Wikipedia of bias; his actions here appear aimed at creating conditions that would prove his point, rather than aiming to create a better article or a better encyclopedia. I agree - and have said several times before - that any inappropriate bias in the articles on Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly should be fixed, but this page is not the place to discuss it (and I may not personally choose to participate, especially if not asked nicely, because it doesn't really interest me.) Furthermore, the claim that O'Reilly and Franken should be written about in a similar fashion presupposes that they *are* similar to begin with, which is an opinion - not a fact.

Regarding the Cleland item, on reflection I believe there is probably a formulation that would be appropriate, but I can't endorse the original sentence proposed, for two reasons: (1) the sentence should be rewritten to avoid the provocative word "actually," and (2) I believe the accident occurred during a non-combat mission, not a "training mission" as the original critic claimed. I believe a quick look at Cleland's book would clarify that, but I don't have a copy. I will go to the library if nobody else here has a copy.

Finally, I feel that the civility we achieved a couple months ago resulted mostly from Swatjester's expert mediation; if there's a serious desire to re-open the discussion, I suggest that we seek out his assistance again.

-Pete 07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dave Pierre, for those of us with thousands and thousands of edits on multiple pages, what you write above rings hollow. You have a well-documented agenda and POV that you came on to Wikipedia intending to push. Despite a well-developed and popular conservative media from which you may choose, including The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, The Washington Times, Fox News et. al., you have been unable to support many of your claims except with those sources that play fast-and-loose with the facts. You have plagiarism allegations that revolve around a one-line, weak comparison of a television show to the Harlem Globetrotters. This is your "j'acuse!" moment, and it falls flat. We were all in the process of hammering this out with you, but you disappeared. You continually attempt to goad us into submission with a "prove Wikipedia is not biased and accepted my POV edits" line of reasoning. You consistently bring up other articles on Wikipedia that have absolutely nothing to do with this book; except to you, everything is connected and Wikipedia is one big liberal conspiracy. So, what you should do since you are more interested in allegations, is write another blog or "News Busters" opinion piece about how you were proven right that Wikipedia is a liberal think-piece because they would not allow you to include your original research and point of view edits that you could not back up with citations to any main-stream media organization, either liberal or conservative. In the end, everyone is wrong but...Dave Pierre, who holds the ultimate truth. --David Shankbone 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The "thousands of edits" is completely irrelevant. It has no bearing that there is a liberal POV here. (Don't you actually have a photo of Al Franken on your profile page? Did you not post an anonymous "blogspot.com" rebuttal on this page?) ... 2. "a well-developed and popular conservative media from which you may choose, including The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, The Washington Times, Fox News ...": LOL! You prove my point exactly! Except for business-related items, the WSJ has minimal influence in the news; the National Review has a fraction of the readership of a major weekly like Time or Newsweek; the WashTimes plays second fiddle to the WaPo; and FNC is a cable channel that people have to pay for. ABC? NBC? CBS? CNN? the AP? NYTimes? LA Times? SanFranChron? Boston Globe? Where are they? They are liberal, of course. ... 3. Your response proves exactly that it's not the facts that matter; it's about bullying others when they present facts you disagree with by accusing them of "personal attacks" and failing to "collaborate." ... 4. There is no effort here to have Al Franken's entry or this entry resemble those of his conservative counterparts like Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. In fact, the effort is to supress any such efforts. Example; By baselessly claiming the clear case of plagiarism in the Harlem Globetrotters example "falls flat." If the facts are correct (which they are), why not let the reader decide? D323P 28 May 2007

On the one comment (4) by Dave Pierre/D323P that has to do with the content of the article:

It's because the negative connotation of "plagiarism" - the aspect that would make it a "criticism" - results from it being either a crime or a significant violation of academic or journalistic ethics. Neither is the case here; the original utterer of the statement is not known to have so much as grumbled about Franken's co-opting the phrase. Not notable, not controversial, not a legitimate criticism. If you think this issue is so important, why not try to get a news reporter to write about it? If I'm wrong and it is notable or controversial, surely someone would want to get the scoop during a Senate campaign. -Pete 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So funny. 1. I'm a photographer, Dave, and I have photographed not only Al Franken, but also William Cohen, Stephen Moore (writer) Stephen Moore (economist), Drew Barrymore, Sarah Michelle Geller, Martin Scorsese and about 250 other notable people for Wikipedia. A photo of Al Franken on my page is, in fact, my photo of Al Franken; a User page showcases an editor's work on Wikipedia. That's why yours is blank, and I have about 10 pages that branch off with my contributions. 2. You neglect to mention what readership and influence (and most conservatives would laugh at you for your statements about the WSJ, including Stephen Moore (writer) Stephen Moore (economist), whose photo is on my profile) have to do with reporting facts? Both of those sources have more readership than any of the sources you attempt to use. Fox News runs a website with plenty-o-reporting on it. 3. You're right: we don't edit on Wikipedia to "match" other pages. Each article stands on its own; each page must, on its own accord, meet Wikipedia criteria and guidelines. Just because Ann Coulter may have 10 criticisms does not mean Al Franken must have 10 criticisms.--David Shankbone 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to stay away from comparing our contributions to Wikipedia - this is not a contest. However, Dave Pierre/D323P, experience editing a wide variety does bring the benefit of a practical, working knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and how they relate to a variety of topics. Your choice to focus exclusively on a contentious political issue, without first working on articles on, say, the Rocky Mountains or apple pie or swimming, is a bold one. I think some of your frustration may result from that choice; if the rest of us are more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that is not intended to demean you, it's just a natural result of the experience we have accumulated.

As for Media bias in the United States, it is not up to us to decide that issue one way or another in this forum. We just need to use reliable sources for items we add to the article. The reasons why Newsbusters is not a reliable source for this article - as well as the conflict of interest involved in Dave Pierre's lobbying for it to be used - have been discussed. Media Matters is not cited on this page. So that issue, in my view, is settled. -Pete 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not chest-thumping my contributions; my photo of Al Franken was brought up as some sort of evidence proving something... --David Shankbone 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Pete: "Let's try to stay away from comparing our contributions to Wikipedia ..." Of course you'd want to stay away from comparisons! Any comparisons unequivocally expose the bias here at Wikipedia! ... 2. DavidShankbone: "Just because Ann Coulter may have 10 criticisms does not mean Al Franken must have 10 criticisms." I've never said that. I just think it's honest to apply the same kinds of criticism (e.g, factual errors, plagiarism) ... 3. Pete: "Media Matters is not cited on this page." And that means ... what? The point is that it is cited on several other pages. MM is OK for other articles, but NewsBusters, which can easily be identified as a conservative conterpart to MM, is not. This is textbook bias. ... 4. Pete: "Your choice to focus exclusively on a contentious political issue, without first working on articles on, say, the Rocky Mountains or apple pie or swimming ..." Where is it stated in Wikipedia policy that I must first contribute to non-political articles first? By the way, I have made small contributions to other, non-political articles.

5. Pete: "conflict of interest" ... This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I have zero financial incentive in linking my one little article. I am not salaried by NewsBusters. My personal websites actually cost me money; I refuse to display any paid advertising on them. And what does Wikipedia say about "conflict of interest"? Hmmm: "When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." There you go. By applying the same standard that's observed in other articles, my contributions are certainly notable...

6. David Shankbone: "most conservatives would laugh at you for your statements about the WSJ" Oh, really? Please provide me three names to support your (so far baseless) allegation. ...

7. Croctotheface: "If you wanted to give me some examples of what you consider that double standard, I'd be interested to see them." Here: [2]

8. Pete: "It's because the negative connotation of "plagiarism" - the aspect that would make it a "criticism" - results from it being either a crime or a significant violation of academic or journalistic ethics. Neither is the case here." a. Then why is the plagiarism issue such a big deal at the page for Ann Coulter? Because Keith Olbermann and Media Matters stirred the issue up? b. You would not expect FAIR, an ally of Al Franken, to publicly complain against him for stealing from them. c. Franken composed his book during a fellowship at Harvard, so, yes, this is certainly a case of "academic or journalistic ethics."

9. Finally, I thought that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be composed in a collaborative spirit by people who know the subject they are writing about. I have researched Al Franken's last two books more than anyone I know of (and certainly more than anyone contributing here). I have never received one penny for Frankenlies.com, nor do I ever wish to. ("About the site": [3]) I have done my work to provide a balance to the debate and expose the double standard that operates in the MSM and other areas of media. And what have I got in return? Accusations of "personal attacks" and lack of "collaboration." You're welcome. D323P 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave Pierre, thank you for disclosing your identity, and for describing your relationship with Newsbusters etc. I'm not sure why you didn't before, but that's not the point: the fact that you have now will make this discussion go much more smoothly. An agenda that is disclosed, in my view, is entirely legitimate, while an agenda that is not acknowledged can be poisonous to rational discourse. So I appreciate you letting us know more specifically where you're coming from.

1. What I meant was that comparing the number of contributions to WP was not productive - I kind of meant that to protect you, Dave P., from any potential bullying if people started to compare number of edits. If that is unwelcome, I'll retract the comment. On the other hand, feel free to back up your claim that a comparison of the quality of contributions will reflect poorly on me, or on Wikipedia - you can start with the articles linked here.

2. Your request is based on the assumption, the opinion, that Coulter is comparable to Franken, in terms of the number, kind, and validity of criticisms leveled against them. I don't know that that is true; the best way to find out is to evaluate each on their own merits, and compare the results. I hope there is an equally vigorous debate over on the Coulter page; and if there isn't today, there probably will be next week, or next year. That is the beauty of Wikipedia - it's not perfect, but it gets better over time.

3. I've already explained that: it means that it is not worth discussing here. If you have a problem with MM being used as a source elsewhere, bring it up on that talk page. That's a pretty fundamental part of how the collaborative editing on WP works.

4. I didn't claim it was "against the rules," nor did I suggest you stop. I was just making what I intended as a friendly observation. If you don't want to take it that way, that's fine too.

5. You provide much new information in your comment, that I wasn't aware of. However, the central point about "conflict of interest" still exists: if you have a strong personal investment in an issue (whether it's financial, emotional, political, or whatever), there is a chance that your perspective is skewed; it does not in any way prohibit you from editing the article, just increases the importance of taking the views of others into account. (As you're going through my edit history, you will find that I have fought hard for the editing rights of editors with whom I did not agree. This is an important principle to me.)

6. Do I hear your right, Dave Pierre, that the WSJ is a fringe publication of little influence outside of the business world? I share David ShankBone's bewilderment…I've never heard that said before.

7. Not interested in going down that road, I'll leave that to DSB.

8. re: Ann Coulter, I suspect it's because either her plagarism was a big deal, covered by reliable sources, or because WP standards have not been effectively enforced over there. I'm not sure, because I haven't read the article. re: Franken, you bring good news. Now we can get a definitive answer. You should get in touch with the head of the department he was working with, and if that person censures or sanctions Franken, it will surely be widely covered by the news. Then we can include it in this article without objections. If he/she doesn't, that will be strong evidence that Franken's actions do not rise to the level of "plagarism."

9. Nobody has accused you of personal attacks since Swatjester joined us to moderate the discussion. In fact, some of us have gone out of our way to make sure you understand that this is not personal. (See my comment on your talk page from late March.) One thing you may not realize is, there is a while when nobody knew that you were Dave Pierre; so if people were commenting Dave Pierre at that time, they were not trying to offend you. At any rate, I thought we had made significant progress on this point, and am disappointed to find that you don't feel the same. Please let me know if any of my comments are offensive; I'm doing my best to keep things civil.

By the way, I think it would be appropriate if you were to thank Croctotheface for putting some work into making your nominated item (re: Cleland) suitable for inclusion. From what I see, that seems a significant show of good faith on his/her part; ordinarily, one would expect you, the nominator, to adjust it to meet standards for inclusion. -Pete 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is way too much to respond to here. I have other work to do, but I'll respond to the easy ones.

1. "Do I hear your right, Dave Pierre, that the WSJ is a fringe publication of little influence outside of the business world?" "Fringe publication"?? Please. I did not say that. No, you don't hear me right. Good grief. WSJ is the #2 paper (by circulation) in the country. What I'm saying is if news from the WSJ makes your morning paper or nightly TV news, it is most often business related. The WSJ is primarily focused on the business and the financial world. (By the way, the news division of the Wall Street Journal (as opposed to its editorial division, which is mostly conservative) has been cited for its liberal bias.)

2. "Dave Pierre, thank you for disclosing your identity, and for describing your relationship with Newsbusters etc. I'm not sure why you didn't before." First of all, nobody asked who I was. All someone had to do was ask. I've never hid anything. Meanwhile, how am I to know that others here, whose identities remain anonymous, don't have some interest in Al Franken? I don't.

3. "if you have a strong personal investment in an issue (whether it's financial, emotional, political, or whatever), there is a chance that your perspective is skewed." C'mon. "Personal investment" and "conflict of interest" are two different things. Obviously, I have some emotional investment in this article, but so do you! Looking at the fact that you have taken such a strident, active role in this article and you quickly respond to comments here means that you have some degree of "emotional investment." As far as "skewed perspective," that means little unless presented facts are wrong or distorted.

4. "You should get in touch with the head of the department he was working with, and if that person censures or sanctions Franken, it will surely be widely covered by the news." You mean Alex Jones? C'mon, now. Harvard and Alex Jones have no good reason to cite Al Franken's plagiarism and possibly make him and themselves look bad. They're on the same team!

5. "If you have a problem with MM being used as a source elsewhere, bring it up on that talk page. That's a pretty fundamental part of how the collaborative editing on WP works." *Sigh.* I've brought up that tired issue before, here --> [4]

Thank you. D323P 28 May 2007

I posted this below, but I'll post it again here, in response to your comment "5". If you are interested in improving Wikipedia, then we welcome you to do that. The procedure to improve Wikipedia would involve editing articles or discussing changes on their talk pages. Linking your Newsbusters article from several months ago on the talk page of this article will not effect any kind of change. If you're just here to rabble rouse or generate fodder for another blog post, then that could be considered disruptive and unwelcome. This page exists for ths sole purpose of discussing ways to improve the Wikipedia article on Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Croctotheface 01:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond number by number, but I will respond to number 7, which was addressed to me. I had asked for examples of WP articles that report criticism coming from Media Matters and no other avenue. You linked me to your February "Wikipedia is liberal" article here, which, it seems, does not provide examples to that effect. Much of what it says reflects the same things you have been saying here. I will echo Pete's encouragement for you to deal with inadequately-sourced criticism on the talk page of the article in which it occurs. I think you'll be at least a little pleased by the way Criticism of Bill O'Reilly has changed since February. There are no longer two articles, and a large number of the material that was present then is no longer present now. As Pete says, articles here tend to get better over time. Should you find examples of poorly sourced critical material in articles on anyone regardless of their political affiliation, I would encourage you to either seek out better sources or seek to have it removed. Croctotheface 23:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Croctotheface: "I had asked for examples of WP articles that report criticism coming from Media Matters and no other avenue." What you actually wrote was, "If you wanted to give me some examples of what you consider that double standard, I'd be interested to see them. I could imagine being willing to remove some content describing criticism of O'Reilly if MM is the only place criticizing him." I clearly elucidate the "double standard" in my NB article. As for using only MM as a source, you can go to this article for one (Criticism of Bill O'Reilly) and knock yourself out by removing the MM stories. Have fun, and let me know if your edits are reverted. D323P 28 May 2007

I'm confused. Are you interested in improving the encyclopedia by removing dubiously sourced items? If so, I encourage you to identify them and act accordingly. If you're just here to argue or make some sort of political point, then I think we're all wasting our time. This is a page for discussing improvements to one Wikipedia article, not a forum for political discussion. Croctotheface 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

D323P:

1. WSJ is the #2 paper (by circulation) in the country. Glad to know I misunderstood.

2. nobody asked who I was. All someone had to do was ask. I thought that you had been asked, but I could be mistaken. I can see how irritating it would be not to be asked directly, even as we all assume the answer. I apologize for my role in that; I made a bad assumption, and I'm sorry. Meanwhile, how am I to know that others here, whose identities remain anonymous, don't have some interest in Al Franken? Clearly we all have some interest, but that's not the point. Nobody but you has argued stridently for their own article, outside Wikipedia, to be cited in the article. That is the only point where "conflict of interest" comes into play; if you're no longer pursuing that (are you?), then there is no longer a COI issue. I hope that's the case, and we can just move on from that debate.

3. Looking at the fact that you have taken such a strident, active role in this article and you quickly respond to comments here means that you have some degree of "emotional investment." Agreed; I do not claim to be perfect.

4. Harvard and Alex Jones have no good reason to cite Al Franken's plagiarism and possibly make him and themselves look bad. They're on the same team! If that's so, perhaps an academic elsewhere will condemn the department, or Harvard itself, for letting politics get in the way of its adherence to academic ethics. Since that hasn't happened, I believe it's safe to conclude it's really no big deal. Comics and political activists, like musicians, visual artists, etc., borrow from each other's work all the time; it's not necessarily a bad thing, or noteworthy. When it is, there's usually a lawsuit or an article in the mainstream press. Why should we regard this case differently?

5. *Sigh.* I've brought up that tired issue before, here --> [5] Sorry, but I'm not interested in following this debate to another site. I read your article a while ago, and my vague recollection is that you tried to get MM removed, encountered a small amount of resistance, and immediately gave up. If your complaint is legitimate, and you're willing to make some effort, there is recourse for you; if not, so be it. Really, this is not my problem; the people you need to work it out with are those who disagreed with you.

Thank you. D323P 28 May 2007 No sweat...it's time consuming, but I feel this process is productive. I must concede, I'm finding you to be more reasonable than I first perceived. -Pete 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

Cite formatting

One of my hobbies on WP is formatting the existing citations in articles, so that they are as compact, yet informative as possible, and all standardized and lined up nicely. It seems like you guys will be dribbling in sources as you hash out this dispute, which works well for me, because I get antsy after doing more than a few in one sitting. So if no one objects, I'll be converting them as they are added, using the "cite web" template from WP:CTT whenever a hyperlink is involved. The "cite web" and "cite news" templates display the parameters in different locations on the line, so sticking with the "web" template will make them all line up with the dates right after the author name. I'll also verify that the url is still active, and update the "retrieved" date. I'm using the YYYY-MM-DD standard, as it crunches a few characters out of the citation, usually making the difference between whether it displays on one line or scrolls to two. I won't involve myself in any content discussion, strictly offering technical support. (Unless I see something that really sticks in my craw, then I may pipe in on the talk page.) - Crockspot 02:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Further technical clarification: I'm using the "cite web" template within the php ref tags. I am also giving them ref names, so if you want to use a reference that already has been named for other statements in the article, you just tag the statement with <ref name="refname"/>, where "refname" is the name of the reference. - Crockspot 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. I completely suck at using the cite format, and this will go a long way towards making this a more accurate citation list. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of criticism?

I don't have the time nor patience to read through all of this, but I am wondering why there is little or no criticism of this book in the main article; but in every other article I read about conversative writers, there is a large section of criticism. Doesn't seem very fair and balanced to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.82 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-29

The find some criticism. Perhaps the reason is that the conservative writers wrote serious books that earned criticism, but this book is essentially a criticism all on its own, a parody/joke book that isn't worth anyone's time to criticize? If you have neither the time nor patience to read the discussions here, why do you bother making a comment? -Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors often say that criticism sections are discouraged in general; however, I just searched for a guideline, and came up only with this essay. At any rate, it's very likely that whatever articles you're referring to about conservative writers are in error, not this one. Wikipedia does not claim to be "fair and balanced" (that's Fox News you're thinking of), but rather to be accurate in presenting facts and notable opinions as reported by reliable sources. In this instance, at least one editor (D323P) did a great deal of research seeking out such criticism, and what you see is the result of a group of several editors who reviewed numerous items for their suitability.

If you know of a criticism that should be included, by all means, add it to the article, and include a citation. If you're unsure, bring it up here on the talk page first. -Pete (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy section

Can anybody post a citation for this? TIA --Tom (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources for the book and for what actually happened were indeed in the article. There was an extensive discussion about all this stuff that you can read in the archives. Beyond that, in all candor, I don't personally care enough about this one particular item to do the research that would likely be involved to find notable criticism six years after the book came out. I'm in favor of including it, though. Croctotheface (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081211085648/http://www.markhertsgaard.com:80/articles/144 to http://www.markhertsgaard.com/articles/144

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) 19:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)