Talk:Culture of Corruption

• First week at #1
• Second week at #1

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Third week at #1 Grundle2600 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Fourth week at #1 Grundle2600 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Fifth week at #1 Grundle2600 (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sixth week at #1 Grundle2600 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During week seven, the book has fallen to the number two spot. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 6, 2009, in an opinion column titled, "Michelle Malkin and Culture of Corruption can't be discredited"," Michael Gaynor wrote that amazon.com had 47 one star customer reviews of the book, and that "The Far Left finds Ms. Malkin far too formidable and thus reflexively resorts to baseless personal attacks against her because they can't refute her on the facts and don't want people paying attention to her." Source. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that so many people are claiming that the book is full of lies, without citing any specific examples of such lies, is notable. Why would people claim the book is full of lies, but not cite any examples? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little reminder: WP is neither a forum nor a soap-box.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. This article is too short, and I want to discuss how to improve it. Perhaps an image of the book's cover would help. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting or describing reviews of a book like this is kind of pointless. It's not written to gain mainstream acceptance in the literary establishment (who will trash it, if they review it at all), but to appeal to the conservative media market (who will rave about it). The long Salon review quote that was here, no matter how entertainingly snarky, had undue weight presented by its own in a separate section and I've removed it. Somebody could add a bunch of reviews for and against and include that one back in, but as I said, it's kind of pointless; we already know the reviews without even looking at them. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another editor started a "Reception" section and restored an appropriately brief summary of the Salon review. I dug a favorable review of the article history and restored that as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of corruption should have the tag {{otheruses4|the phrase "culture of corruption" as used by Democrats to refer to events that happened during George W. Bush's presidency|the book by Michelle Malkin|Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies}}

which would show up as:

Likewise, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies should have the tag {{otheruses4|the book by Michelle Malkin|the phrase "culture of corruption" as used by Democrats to refer to events that happened during George W. Bush's presidency|Culture of corruption}}

which would show up as:

I cannot make these edits myself as I have been banned from political articles. I'm sure that people are doing searches for this book based on just the first three words of its title. If anyone else thinks that adding these tags would improve the articles, please add them. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are supposed to be terse. I've restored the old one on the Culture of corruption article, which simply says "For the book by Michelle Malkin, see Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies". That's all that need be said. And no hatnote is needed here on this article, since the other article will be the landing page for the general search. However, I have moved your hatnote text into the article itself, to help explain the origin of the title she is using. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]