Content deleted Content added
JereKrischel (talk | contribs) |
JereKrischel (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 126:
::::::::::Obviously, a dust-jacket selectively quotes to make the most favorable impression of the reader. It would be more credible to simply find the original source, and take the quote from there. Relying on the public relations media put out for a book as a neutral source of reference is probably poor form. We can do better than that, I'm sure. --[[User:JereKrischel|JereKrischel]] 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well seeing as the section is devoted to "favourable opinions" selectively finding positive quotes is kind of the point. [[User:Saturdayseven|Saturdayseven]]
::::::::::::Of course putting positive quotes there is the point, but putting positive reviews as listed in the marketing materials for a book on the book's page in Wikipedia doesn't quite seem right, don't you think? Something tells me we avoid the issue of conflict of interest if we cite the sources from their source, not from the dust-jacket blurbs. --[[User:JereKrischel|JereKrischel]] 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, please provide citations before adding in your favorable quotes. Unreferenced text should not be included in the article. I'll wait until tomorrow before removing the text, if you can't find references. --[[User:JereKrischel|JereKrischel]] 00:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
| |||