Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

message: ====Difficulty posed by use of satire and nonfiction====
In a book review of Franken's book in the Washington newspaper The Hill, reviewer Mary Lynn F. Jones, a fan of Franken's previous works, opined, "Franken's tendency to mix fact with fiction [also] left me wondering sometimes what was true and what wasn't." Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Franken's Humor Overpowered by Cynical Look At the Right," The Hill, September 9, 2003 Retrieved February 25, 2007. As an example, she cited a passage in Franken's book in which he wrote that former Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage "bolted" from a Senate hearing and "[knocked] over veteran reporter Helen Thomas, breaking her hip and jaw" (page 218). In the paperback version of Lies, Franken subsequently clarified the passage with a footnote saying, "the Helen Thomas thing is a joke" (page 227 of the paperback). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidShankBone (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism approved, ready for inclusion

message: In a book review of Franken's book in the Washington newspaper The Hill, reviewer Mary Lynn F. Jones, a fan of Franken's previous works, opined, "Franken's tendency to mix fact with fiction [also] left me wondering sometimes what was true and what wasn't." Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Franken's Humor Overpowered by Cynical Look At the Right," The Hill, September 9, 2003 Retrieved February 25, 2007. As an example, she cited a passage in Franken's book in which he wrote that former Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage "bolted" from a Senate hearing and "[knocked] over veteran reporter Helen Thomas, breaking her hip and jaw" (page 218). In the paperback version of Lies, Franken subsequently clarified the passage with a footnote saying, "the Helen Thomas thing is a joke" (page 227 of the paperback). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidShankBone (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficulty posed by use of satire and nonfiction

message: Has anyone checked to see if Berger has been challenged on his testimony?  So much of this stuff on factual accuracy is "he said-she said" stuff.  Who did Franken rely upon for that information?  --David Shankbone 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandy Berger

message: In Pants on Fire, Skorski also claimed that Franken plagiarized portions of Lies and the Lying Liars from a 2001 report on the Fox News Channel by the  media watchdog group FAIR.NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007) An example by Skorski:
:FAIR, July/August 2001: " The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes:
::Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ...
:Al Franken, page 63 (hardcover, 1st edition):
::For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.
In all, Mr. Skorski believes to have cited a total of ten passages in Franken's book which bear "striking similarities" to the FAIR report.NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)
:* Nominated by D323P. I have seen no good reason to exclude this, except supporters of Franken don't like it. It's an interesting addition, and it's valid. D323P 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Better source"? I'm confused. The book is published by a well-established and well-known conservative organization (World Net Daily). Anyone with a copy of Al's book and an internet connection can judge for themselves about this. Whether or not anyone wants to label Al as a "journalist" or not is irrelevant. The guy has written six books. He has been a political commentator on television and radio. He used to host a politically oriented talk show on a nationally syndicated network (AAR). He is running for United States Senate. He obviously seeks to be taken seriously for his views. A critic has noted what he perceives to be plagiarism in his Lies book, therefore I think it's a totally legitimate addition, as well as interesting. D323P 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe that this section merits inclusion.  The source doesn't pass muster in my mind, and I'm not even convinced, based on the example given, that there is a strong enough basis for the criticism. Croctotheface 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  I don't think this particularly qualifies as plagiarism, a comparison to the Globetrotters.  It certainly isn't damning evidence.  --David Shankbone 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it matters whether it qualifies as plagiarism or not, since a relatively notable critic (albeit a partisan one) is calling him out on it, what I do think matters is that it's just not a very strong criticism, and the space is better reserved for other things. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 06:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like we are in agreement.  I also agree with Croc's wanting to see a criticism of Franken's attack-dog style.  This is a criticism I have with him personally, as well.  Maybe I will try to write something myself on it, since I disdain the foaming-at-the-mouth by both sides of the aisle.  It doesn't do one positive thing for the country.  --David Shankbone 12:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ShadowJester and David Shankbone. I think the lack of accuracy and lack of notability amount to the same thing here; if it were truly a case of plagarism, the criticism would be notable, and less partisan writers would have picked up the story. -Pete 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lack of accuracy"? "Lack of notability"? I'm not clear: What does that mean exactly? And as far as it being "not a very strong criticism," how about letting the reader decide? Isn't that fair? D323P 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, we aren't here to present debate no matter the quality.  We do present debate, but quality debate.  An encyclopedia is more meant to present fact, and not any spurious claim or allegation that comes its way.  "Letting the reader decide" is simply not a valid argument on Wikipedia, or else we would present evolution as "debateable - let the reader decide" when, in fact, it is not debateable by any scientific or acceptable standard. --David Shankbone 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim is not "spurious." When I talk of "letting the reader decide," I talk of letting readers decide for themselves how serious Fraken's infraction is. (As readers can in similar articles.) D323P 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, "We do present debate, but quality debate."  Not every allegation is of equal merit, which basically sums up everything we have talked about on this page.  Which is why mainstream, notable, quality sources need to be used.  If you can't find these issues and allegations discussed in the mainstream media, then they are not notable enough to include on Wikipedia and belong on the partisan trashheap (whether the trashheap be the left's or the right's).  --David Shankbone 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of Plagiarism

message: One of my hobbies on WP is formatting the existing citations in articles, so that they are as compact, yet informative as possible, and all standardized and lined up nicely. It seems like you guys will be dribbling in sources as you hash out this dispute, which works well for me, because I get antsy after doing more than a few in one sitting. So if no one objects, I'll be converting them as they are added, using the "cite web" template from WP:CTT whenever a hyperlink is involved. The "cite web" and "cite news" templates display the parameters in different locations on the line, so sticking with the "web" template will make them all line up with the dates right after the author name. I'll also verify that the url is still active, and update the "retrieved" date. I'm using the YYYY-MM-DD standard, as it crunches a few characters out of the citation, usually making the difference between whether it displays on one line or scrolls to two. I won't involve myself in any content discussion, strictly offering technical support. (Unless I see something that really sticks in my craw, then I may pipe in on the talk page.) - Crockspot 02:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite formatting 

message: Can anybody post a citation for this? TIA --Tom (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources for the book and for what actually happened were indeed in the article.  There was an extensive discussion about all this stuff that you can read in the archives.  Beyond that, in all candor, I don't personally care enough about this one particular item to do the research that would likely be involved to find notable criticism six years after the book came out.  I'm in favor of including it, though. Croctotheface (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual inaccuracy section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081211085648/http://www.markhertsgaard.com:80/articles/144 to http://www.markhertsgaard.com/articles/144
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified