![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the reference used for the "multiple errors," the examples given are so trivial it's really a moot issue and goes to show the liberal bias here and in the media. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 02:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The errors need to be listed, as many as can be, because there are nearly or over a million copies of the inaccurate books out there in existence and there is no guarantee the publisher will print a fully corrected edition someday. There may exist partially corrected versions. My local library has five of the inaccurate books and one audio version. As of this date I have not yet seen any alleged corrected version in stores. And for the record, I am neutral on Mr. O'Reilly. I don't even watch his TV show. This is about making an effort to prevent the rewriting of history. Witness the list of fake memoirs on Wikipedia where the controversy about those books is also noted in their articles. 5Q5 ( talk) 19:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the section title back to "Controversy" for the second time after editor Mathewignash changed it to "Corrections. "Controversy" is the appropriate section title as can be found in the list of examples below of Wikipedia book articles. The section is about the controversy of inaccuracies. Has anyone seen a partially or fully corrected version of the book yet? When that happens, we should check to see if there is a quick way to identify it and state it in the article. Books.Google unfortunately scanned the inaccurate one. Here is an interview with O'Reilly that uses the term "controversy."
Wikipedia book articles with "Controversy" sections (sampling):
Further, if there is sufficient evidence to justify a dedicated article on the topic, here is an example of how other editors did it for another best-seller: Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Thanks. 5Q5 ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to include a line saying that the publisher's parent company, Macmillan, "As of [date], the publisher has not recalled any of the books containing the errors" and source it to the publisher's Announcements page where they have listed other recalls due to inaccurate content. (PDF link) If you are going to tell me, no, that would be "original research," well, here are other Wikipedia articles that currently mention no recall of a product (Google phrase searches):
It is factual and encyclopedic to state that there was no recall; to not would be to participate in a cover-up (there is no mention of the controversy at all on the publisher's website) and therefore be non-neutral article writing to favor the subjects of the article. If there is a recall someday, as through a class-action lawsuit, the article could then be updated to reflect the new status. Anyone agree? 5Q5 ( talk) 19:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I encountered a revised version of Killing Lincoln in a Wal-Mart and a Books-A-Million chain store that only has the following corrections:
All the other inaccuracies remain and there is no other way to identify the book as a partially corrected version. 5Q5 ( talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This 5Q5 guy is on some kind of crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.147.96 ( talk) 06:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Killing Lincoln inaccuracies was deleted. Moscowamerican
These are well sourced. I added these inaccuracies back. ( talk) 11:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the reference used for the "multiple errors," the examples given are so trivial it's really a moot issue and goes to show the liberal bias here and in the media. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 02:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The errors need to be listed, as many as can be, because there are nearly or over a million copies of the inaccurate books out there in existence and there is no guarantee the publisher will print a fully corrected edition someday. There may exist partially corrected versions. My local library has five of the inaccurate books and one audio version. As of this date I have not yet seen any alleged corrected version in stores. And for the record, I am neutral on Mr. O'Reilly. I don't even watch his TV show. This is about making an effort to prevent the rewriting of history. Witness the list of fake memoirs on Wikipedia where the controversy about those books is also noted in their articles. 5Q5 ( talk) 19:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the section title back to "Controversy" for the second time after editor Mathewignash changed it to "Corrections. "Controversy" is the appropriate section title as can be found in the list of examples below of Wikipedia book articles. The section is about the controversy of inaccuracies. Has anyone seen a partially or fully corrected version of the book yet? When that happens, we should check to see if there is a quick way to identify it and state it in the article. Books.Google unfortunately scanned the inaccurate one. Here is an interview with O'Reilly that uses the term "controversy."
Wikipedia book articles with "Controversy" sections (sampling):
Further, if there is sufficient evidence to justify a dedicated article on the topic, here is an example of how other editors did it for another best-seller: Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Thanks. 5Q5 ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to include a line saying that the publisher's parent company, Macmillan, "As of [date], the publisher has not recalled any of the books containing the errors" and source it to the publisher's Announcements page where they have listed other recalls due to inaccurate content. (PDF link) If you are going to tell me, no, that would be "original research," well, here are other Wikipedia articles that currently mention no recall of a product (Google phrase searches):
It is factual and encyclopedic to state that there was no recall; to not would be to participate in a cover-up (there is no mention of the controversy at all on the publisher's website) and therefore be non-neutral article writing to favor the subjects of the article. If there is a recall someday, as through a class-action lawsuit, the article could then be updated to reflect the new status. Anyone agree? 5Q5 ( talk) 19:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I encountered a revised version of Killing Lincoln in a Wal-Mart and a Books-A-Million chain store that only has the following corrections:
All the other inaccuracies remain and there is no other way to identify the book as a partially corrected version. 5Q5 ( talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This 5Q5 guy is on some kind of crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.147.96 ( talk) 06:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Killing Lincoln inaccuracies was deleted. Moscowamerican
These are well sourced. I added these inaccuracies back. ( talk) 11:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)