Talk:Edward Klein

message: A number of news outlets such as Oprah...
Um, Oprah is a talkshow, not a news outlet. -Fsotrain09 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is practically a hit piece, I see almost nothing but various criticisms. GoodSirJava 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that there are responses to the criticisms (or other favorable statements) that should be added, feel free to improve the article.  We don't try to achieve a spurious balance by deleting valid information, though.  Because there are no specifics identified in support of the neutrality dispute tag, I'm removing it. JamesMLane t c 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Media Matters is basically a democratic blog using them as source makes article look clownish. 
===Thoughts on Mr. Klein’s "The Truth About Hillary" book=== 
I'm moving my thoughts on Mr. Klein's book, "The Truth About Hillary," to its more appropriate place on the "The Truth About Hillary" Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Truth_About_Hillary"
New interview on May 14 2012 with Sean Hannity on his new book targeting Obama Radio Interview
DonL (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Great, thanks. I didn't know how the Hannity interview was controversial so I deleted it. Something should be added explaining who attacked the book in the manner described. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  As 184.97.132.178 pointed out, the criticism is heavily one-sided. I observe that it is a substantial fraction of the article and it relies entire on Politico and Media Matters, which are hardly neutral sources. The need for more balance is patent. --Yaush (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute tag

message: I'm moving my thoughts on Mr. Klein's book, "The Truth About Hillary," to its more appropriate place on the "The Truth About Hillary" Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Truth_About_Hillary"
New interview on May 14 2012 with Sean Hannity on his new book targeting Obama Radio Interview
DonL (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on Mr. Klein’s "The Truth About Hillary" book

message: Speaking about "clownish" this entire biography is pathetic.  Obviously the Clinton Defenders have set about essentially vandalizing this page, starting with the intro which uses extremely loaded terminology. "Gossip Columnist".  Ed Klein is a journalist, with a degree in journalism from the top J-school in the United States. 
The bio still DOES have to meet the *living persons biography* rules, and it comes close to slander. 
The cause of all this is crystal clear, the "books" section begins and ends with criticism of his Hillary book.  Gee, didn't this author have 4 or 5 NY Times best sellers that proceeded it?  Yes, yes he did.   Say, wouldn't a normal (non-hatchet job) bio discuss them in order?  Yes, yes it would.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Horribly Biased Wikipedia Bio =

message: The source for the section on his criticism is listed as being part of the 3rd source. In fact, it's an excerpt from the 4th source, but even when you click to the 4th source, which is a liberal media criticism blog, that source doesn't link to the original source. (It is a blockquote without a working link.) Go down to the bottom of the article and you will see the bottom third of the article is a long block of non-working links, and the source quoted in the Wikipedia page is connected to the first blockquote within the non-working link: http://mediamatters.org/research/200504140004  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.190.69 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Sources

message: I found this extremely confusing. The blockquote with some complicated references to his texts, the opinionated presentation, all of it was strange and impossible to understand. Now, it seems, it was poorly sourced. I am going to delete the whole section. Whoever wants this information in the article should find sources. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. I didn't know how the Hannity interview was controversial so I deleted it. Something should be added explaining who attacked the book in the manner described. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  As 184.97.132.178 pointed out, the criticism is heavily one-sided. I observe that it is a substantial fraction of the article and it relies entire on Politico and Media Matters, which are hardly neutral sources. The need for more balance is patent. --Yaush (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting criticism section

message: In the criticism section, the Wikipedia article claims "The British newspaper The Guardian pointed out a number of verifiable factual errors in Klein's 2014 book Blood Feud.[14]"
However, if you read the article it only lists one minor error: the name of the French restaurant owner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.173.206 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Feud