Talk:Those Who Trespass

Neutrality,Citations

Removed some weasel words and un-encyclopedic language in the cultural references section.I think the section is noticeably more neutral now. Needs more citations, especially regarding the material in the book, otherwise It is OK. 85.154.102.17 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem especially neutral. Personally, I'd be interested to read professional critics' reviews and sales figures. Instead of even a mention of those significant areas, we're treated to multiple sentences of Franken's (clearly partisan) harsh criticisms... I'd never heard of it until Stephen Colbert was mocking this book, so I can't imagine it was especially successful.68.52.147.84 (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed Franken. His criticism is really directed at BOR and has really nothing to do with the book, or any cultural influence regarding the book. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, your edits were reverted pretty quickly. Firstly, you're correct that there are no citations (the reference goes to a single sentence which says "Minnesota Senate Seat Election Contest." Given its irrelevance to the article, it appears to be a joke). Secondly even if there was a legitimate source, it seems completely unencyclopedic to have a non-critic's opinion of the book. I really would like to see professional critics' praise & criticisms, not to mention sales figures...68.52.147.84 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to bicker with him, but User:HaeB has made this article so biased, it borders on the absurd. Now, I'm a Colbert fan myself, and only learned of this book through Dr. Colbert, so it takes a lot for me to cry Liberal bias, but just look at this article.

It's so dubious that all the article contains are three scathing reviews of the book. No sales figures, no other reviews. If one was to read this page, they'd be left with the impression that this book sold a total of three copies, to Colbert, Franken and the NYT, and 100% of the readership passionately despised every word.

The fact that Hitler's Mein Kampf has a far less biased article than this little novel by an American talking head shows there's something very wrong here.76.123.241.114 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to bicker ... - then why did you?

User:HaeB has made this article so biased - check the version history before making false claims. I did not write the parts that you are objecting to, they had been present in the article for at least 21 months when I became involved, because I noted that Arzel was deleting a whole section using a dubious justification (claiming it had "No Sources" whereas the sources were clearly stated). The only thing I added was the quote from Nicholas Lemann's review in The New Yorker (which you apparently confused with The New York Times). I added it in response to concerns that the article lacked "professional reviews", although of course Franken, Colbert and Michael Hastings are professionals too. The New Yorker review is hardly "scathing", and even if it were, your personal disagreement with Lemann wouldn't be a valid reason to delete it.

Now, I'm a Colbert fan myself .. - whatever. Claiming to be a fan of someone or to have a certain political stance doesn't make your personal opinion any more relevant for writing the article, see WP:NPOV. We have to refer notable views about the book, not write it according to our own views.

very wrong here - see Godwin's law.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

HaeB, let the unknown "others" that Hastings is referring to speak for themselves. Find those sources, without knowing who they are or what capcity they made those comments it is not possible to determine their individual notability. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)