Talk:Rick Perlstein

message: Sparseness of biographic content makes page read like an advert from his publisher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.30.122.246 (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rick Perlstein. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20151121130957/http://events.latimes.com/bookprizes/previous-winners/year-2001/ to http://events.latimes.com/bookprizes/previous-winners/year-2001/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405013402/http://events.latimes.com/bookprizes/previous-winners/winners-by-award/ to http://events.latimes.com/bookprizes/previous-winners/winners-by-award/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: needs discussion including quotes from reviews.  There is a WP:NPOV issue when 3 books discussing Conservatism are discussed, and the one book discussing The Left is not. — Lentower (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.. Perlstein is considered a liberal. That he wrote a massive set of books on the rise of Conservativism in America - basically a social history through that lens, of the two decades 1960-1980. There is nothing biased that requires a banner tag. If you think content is missing please add it. -- GreenC 04:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

text: The other thing is that the C books are histories of lasting importance whereas The Stock Ticker had a short life about the political moment ca. 2005. It's not so simple as conservative vs. democrat books, that is a false balance. -- GreenC 04:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth book ''Stock Ticket'' needs discussion with links to reviews to resolve [[WP:NPOV]] issue 

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:
* Cite templates will be used where possible.
* I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
* Links to potentially unreliable digitised copies may be removed. 
This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with commenting out the author. First, arguments in citation templates should either be used or deleted it creates clutter and confusion for other processes. Second, maintaining the author is important for other processes that (may) need that information. A cite book without an author is not good. Third, it should use  +  not , so other processes can more accurately parse the information. -- GreenC 15:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments.  I often "comment out" the author fields when there are no other authors in the citation, i.e. for the human reader, repeating the author can be redundant.  I've always assumed that any robust metadata-harvesting process (such as XSLT) would still be able to extract the relevant metadata,  but if you think it's necessary I will leave the author fields in place. Sunwin1960 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is going to try and extract commented metadata because it's not reliable in weird formats with inline comments etc..  in cases like this where it's a bibliography use   -- GreenC 15:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography