Talk:Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Any further commentary on this? |
→Blog review in response section: new section |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::So why aren't they used as references if they're so important? Which ones do you think are worth keeping? [[User:Thargor Orlando|Thargor Orlando]] ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|talk]]) 11:45, 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? [[User:Thargor Orlando|Thargor Orlando]] ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|talk]]) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Any further commentary on this? [[User:Thargor Orlando|Thargor Orlando]] ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|talk]]) 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
::Any further commentary on this? [[User:Thargor Orlando|Thargor Orlando]] ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|talk]]) 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Blog review in response section == |
|||
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?[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 18:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:35, 10 August 2014
Books Start‑class | |||||||
|
Long indiscriminate lists
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
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)