Talk:The Carpetbaggers

message: Quote: "Like many of Robbins' other novels, The Carpetbaggers combined good writing, a strong story, and numerous more-or-less-gratuitous scenes of explicit sex. The sex scenes were at the extreme outer boundaries of acceptability for a mainstream novel at its time of publication; The Carpetbaggers was probably the first New York Times bestseller to include scenes in which characters engage in fellatio." That is POV. Mike∞Storm 20:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that you are citing movie critics' reviews. Erm... isn't it a little obvious that those reviews are opinions? Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. And furthermore, if you must include quotes, attribute those quotes, otherwise you might have just made them up. Also, please sign your name after you post by inserting four tildes (~~~~). Mike∞Storm 18:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as noted above most of them are from Amazon reader reviews. (However, those movie reviews I was able to find are also in good accord with my assertions). As such, they are easily verifiable, although the persons who posted them are not easily identifiable and not particularly authoritative. As for opinions, Npov does not mean absence of opinion. It rather means "assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves." Thus, the above discussion is an assertion that Amazon readers who have chosen to post reader reviews hold certain opinion about Robbins.
But you still haven't answered my question. Which are your objections:
*the description is inaccurate;
*the description is biased, in that it gives too much weight to the sex/profanity/shock aspects of the book and not enough to its literary merits;
*the description is unsubstantiated and unreferenced. As noted, I acknowledge this and plan to work on it.
*(or something else)
dpbsmith (talk) 19:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is hard to write anything meaningful about literary topics without presenting material that cannot be fully objective; the best that can be done is to synthesize consensus views, substantiate them, and fairly present opposing views. 
The original article contained this sentence, to which User:Mike Storm objected.
:"Like many of Robbins' other novels, The Carpetbaggers combined good writing, a strong story, and numerous more-or-less-gratuitous scenes of explicit sex. The sex scenes were at the extreme outer boundaries of acceptability for a mainstream novel at its time of publication; The Carpetbaggers was probably the first New York Times bestseller to include scenes in which characters engage in fellatio."
Since Mike didn't articulate his objections very well, I have to guess. There are two likely possibilities. The sentence makes a number of assertions. I don't honestly believe that the truth of these assertions is seriously disputed by anyone familiar with the book or its history. Therefore the basis of the objection could be:
*I didn't substantiate the assertions
*The paragraph is out of balance and dwells too much on the sex scenes.
I've now written a great deal more. For the time being I've left out the claims that it has "good writing" and "a strong story" until I can substantiate these by references to contemporary reviews, etc. I have made the point about the book's sex scenes by quoting a 1961 New York Times review of the book, and have tried to put it into context in a section about the sexual revolution. The book was regarded as borderline-pornographic at the time and this is a relevant feature of the book. On the one hand, you had the books that landed into court—Lady Chatterley, Memoirs of Hecate County, Tropic of Cancer, Fanny Hill. On the other hand, you had the books that almost landed in court: Butterfield 8, Peyton Place, The Carpetbaggers, The Story of O.  The Carpetbaggers was a famous example of the latter category.
I'd appreciate comments here and I'd appreciate it if someone could see their way to removing the  notice, or make constructive suggestions on things that could be done to make the article neutral without totally removing important things that ought to be said about the book. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for discussion leading to resolution

message: On August 2nd, Mike Storm placed an  notice on the page, with this comment:
:Quote: "Like many of Robbins' other novels, The Carpetbaggers combined good writing, a strong story, and numerous more-or-less-gratuitous scenes of explicit sex. The sex scenes were at the extreme outer boundaries of acceptability for a mainstream novel at its time of publication; The Carpetbaggers was probably the first New York Times bestseller to include scenes in which characters engage in fellatio." That is POV. Mike∞Storm 20:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ...what I care about is you asserting your own opinion about the author's writing style. You're misinterpreting my complaint. By the way, how is the consensus opinion if the book a "good story and strong plot," when you cited the New York Times review of the book as saying that it was terrible? The "consensus" opinion seems to be more like your opinion. Mike∞Storm 16:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Just a caution to other contributors. I didn't like staring at that notice, and it's a relief to have it gone, but if anyone puts it back let's not be in any hurry to remove it. (Or vice versa). Me, I want to keep tinkering with this article myself, and I'd rather not have a silly revert war over the  notice that might end up with the page being protected. Of course anyone who inserts or removes an  notice should give reasons here, and in an ideal world we might discuss them here before inserting or removing a notice, or edit the article to add balance in places that need it.  It is very hard to say anything meaningful or useful about a literary work without getting into iffy areas. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Robbins is always described as a "storyteller." Typical blurb copy for a Robbins book was usually something like "the new blockbuster from the master storyteller." I or somebody else can insert that with proper attribution sometime. Unfortunately my paperback copy of "The Carpetbaggers" came out at the same time as the movie Nevada Smith and devotes all of its promotional space on the cover to the movie, and oddly enough there are no reviews quoted. The important point—that the book is, dare I say "surprisingly," well-written—is already made now by the quotation from the New York Times review that says "In the sections in which he avoids the lurid, he writes graphically and touchingly; on these pages, his dialogue is moving and his people have the warmth of life." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute: summary and current status

message: this is a pretty fameous movie--Ezzex (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  there should be an article about the movie too 

message: Lots of sexual scenes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.26.4 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Artifact of the sexual revolution" 

message: Any light on the title  -  why is it called The Carpetbaggers? 86.183.206.77 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Carpetbaggers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041205040059/http://www.salon.com:80/media/1997/10/16robbins.html to http://www.salon.com/media/1997/10/16robbins.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Carpetbaggers. 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/20040908145545/http://publicity4u.com/new_yorker.htm to http://publicity4u.com/new_yorker.htm
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) 18:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article explains who the characters are, but it doesn't summarise the story. Valetude (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything except the plot 

message: The entire article consists of nothing but original research and personal opinion. There is only one citation and that is merely to confirm the definition of the word carpetbagger. This is a particularly acute and egregious example of an article that has gone unreferenced for 16 years. — O'Dea (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing but original research and opinion