Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Sourced Material?

LT, the things you put back into the article are not sourced. The entirety of the "sourcing" is a single webpage with absolutely no sourcing. Instead, the only link THAT "source" provides is a link to a non-existent webpage. So while Franken's quote is sourced, any judgment on the truthfulness of that quote is unsourced.

Unless more "sources" can be brought forward, I plan on stripping this article down to the absolute basics--title of book, author, and publishing date. Let's stick to the truth and not, according to CP Commandment #5, "personal opinion on an encyclopedic entry." Oh, and the other site used as a "source" would fall under this caveat of the CP Commandments, "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." --Jareddr 13:55, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

You;ve got to be kidding me.... I spent a pretty good chunk of time working on this and you just revert without discussion... must be nice to be a sysop around here JDavidson^{Leave a message ::BEEP::} 14:33, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a book called Pants On Fire, which goes into detail about how Franken himself lied repeatedly in Lying Liars. What is going to happen now is excerpts from that book in this article, in Franken's article, and any other article related to him. Karajou 14:36, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

"What is going to happen now is excerpts from that book..." I assume you meant to say that you are going to put excerpts from that book in the article. Feel free to add sourced material, and I will add sourced material as well, and we can then proceed.--Jareddr 15:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I have no idea what that has to do with anything, but I would have no objection, so long as they were real critiques.. however, simple Sysop reverting without any discussion because they don't like the subject (and looking at Learn Together's history, it's fairly obvious that he(she?) is Anti-Franken) is completely against what this encyclopedia was supposed to stand for. JDavidson^{Leave a message ::BEEP::} 14:38, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

New Sources

I have just returned the page to my last version, but have gone ahead and added sources, as that seems to be what caused the revert. JDavidson^{Leave a message ::BEEP::} 23:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Recent Edits

Your reversion of NateE's edit is unsupportable. The highest that this site could put such an assertion is that it is denied by Fox. How could this site possibly state unequivocally that the allegation was false? I know that you would like to think it was false, but your wishing does not make it so. I suggest that you reinstate the edit. --Horace42 20:24, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

If a claim is made and the evidence shows otherwise, it is within the scope of this project to note that. Reinserting information that had previously been removed will result in its removal again and will not be tolerated, especially by an old user who has arrived under a new user name. I suggest if you wish to stay this time that you not draw so much attention to yourself in a combative way. Learn together 14:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)