Talk:Secrets and Lies (book)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Secrets and Lies book cover.jpg edit
Image:Secrets and Lies book 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) 14:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Confusing lack of POV edit
I can't figure out who's calling whom a liar. Or better to say, the article is about a certain book. Does the article consider the book truthful? (Maybe one of the article's editors believes the book) Or do we believe the critic who stood up in a legislative assembly meeting and called the book's author a liar? I suspect that overzealous pursuit of NPOV is the culprit. If this article had been run in a proper journal of reviews the reviewer would have taken some position and there would be less of a muddle. --Cardiffman (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not take a stand on an issue. WP outlines all the facts and lets the reader makes up their own mind about it. As WP editors we should not take a stance on the truthfulness of the book, instead we have to rely on what has already been said about the book by other. Personally, I believe the book and as someone who had a role on the Native forest campaign I can claim to some knowledge of the issue. Can you be more specific about you concerns? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)