Talk:Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women

message: :Image:Faludi-backlash.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if an author's estimation of their own work (in this case, only inferred) should be used to gauge whether it should be included or not.  We'd have to delete everything on Kafka, for one!  But the criticism is more in the nature of a passing mention, so isn't particularly worthy in that regard.  There are more substantive criticisms (and praise) to be found. Шизомби (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I would support removing the Crichton quotation; it's a throwaway line without any argument or support. He's also no expert. Any objections?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordanob (talk • contribs) 02:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Faludi-backlash.jpg

message: The text of Crichton's criticism of Backlash can be found at the ILF Digest (http://www.wbsi.org/ilfdigest/commentaries_mar_04.htm) but is absent from his offical website (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-whyspeculate.html). I wonder if these comments are worthy of being included if Crichton himself did not. Hazel75 (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if an author's estimation of their own work (in this case, only inferred) should be used to gauge whether it should be included or not.  We'd have to delete everything on Kafka, for one!  But the criticism is more in the nature of a passing mention, so isn't particularly worthy in that regard.  There are more substantive criticisms (and praise) to be found. Шизомби (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I would support removing the Crichton quotation; it's a throwaway line without any argument or support. He's also no expert. Any objections?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordanob (talk • contribs) 02:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Crichton

message: A lot of Faludi's claims are given in Wikipedia's voice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice