Talk:Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Revision as of 22:45, 30 January 2024 by imported>Cewbot (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Books}}.)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Latest comment: 20 June 2022 by JSory in topic Extreme bias on this page
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Archives

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
Any further commentary on this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Extreme bias on this page

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)Reply

Wikipedia is meant to present the general consensus of knowledge on a topic at the current time. The general consensus at the current moment is that it has major flaws in accuracy. JSory (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Template:Sourcecheck

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply