Talk:Godless: The Church of Liberalism/Archive 2

"Accusations of plagiarism, distortions and falsehoods" should be removed

Not only does this section not describe any actual plagerism, but the citations do not meet wiki standards. Everything is biased right down to the existence of the section. I think that we should follow the example of Ann Coulter's bio article and remove this section.

Why? Just because you happen to like what Coulter writes does not mean that she should be immune from criticism. I would hardly expect an article about another book to remove prominent criticism, so it shouldn't happen here.--NeoNerd 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, because the "accusations" are trivial, meritless, and irresponsible. They DO, however advance a certain point of view, so some editors and administrators are reluctant to see them removed. Lou Sander 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to be drawn into a conflict here, but as far as I can see, the article mentions the criticism, but also the response of Coulters publisher. The article already states that Coulter's publisher considers the accusations trivial, meritless, and irresponsible. Feel free to expand the section on Coulter's response, but entirely removing the section creates the false impression that there have never been allegations about the book's orignality.--NeoNerd 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Lou Sander 02:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A book without critism, now that what i call bias.78.86.150.93 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Critics have accused Coulter of plagiarism in writing the book. Even though her publisher has dismissed the accusations, liberal/left ideologues have continued to obsessively repeat their charges"...POV bias? It's the "ideologues" bit thatI think needs changing. I just wanted to point this one out, as I would rather someone a bit more skilled cleared this one up as I'm still learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kije (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased

This article is very biased. It takes a sarcastic tone on almost everything the book mentions. Whoever wrote it has trouble hiding their views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.102.254.33 (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be biased in the books favor citing that evoultionary examples have been proven to be untrue (ie. miller urey experiments) when this is untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.208.239 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Or the presumption of Liberals have false messiahs as well: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama are examples of criticism or verbal attacks by conservative talk radio hosts such as Sean Hannity referred to Barack Obama the "anointed one". Also that liberals emphasized a gender-neutral or even female deity instead of the monotheistic god often portrayed male or masculine in nature. +71.102.3.86 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Godless Cover.JPG

Image:Godless Cover.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) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)