Talk:The Assault on Reason/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


I adjusted phrasing to be more NPOV by changing "supposed trend" to "claimed trend" since 'supposed' implies something false (per Wikipedia:Words to avoid). No objections? Spellcast 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Assault on Reason.jpg

Image:Assault on Reason.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln quote

Regarding the article at this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802470.html

It opens with the quote, "You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, "The Assault on Reason" and continues with "I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88" and "The quote is a favorite of liberal bloggers, which is probably how Gore came across it."

The Assault on Reason does use footnotes, however, beginning on p. 277 and ending on p. 296. The quote on p. 88 is referenced on p. 282 of the text and cited as coming from "The Lincoln Encyclopedia" (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p. 40. The problem with citing this article lies not in the idea of including criticism (which is always important in Wikipedia articles) but in the fact that the article does not include the above information. Thus, if this article is to be included, the reference to it should be written in a way which adheres to Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and any kind of statement made towards a living person (even if it isn't on a bio page). See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability. -Classicfilms 15:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that simply including the criticism isn't an endorsement of it. The article says "This person said the quote is a forgery", which is a verifiable fact, not "The quote is a forgery". So, though I understand what you're saying, and that the column feels a little shoddy, I don't see a problem with it staying. The newspaper and author in this case are both notable. Korny O'Near 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, also, for what it's worth, those are technically endnotes, not footnotes. Though clearly Ferguson missed them regardless. Korny O'Near 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Korny O'Near - thanks for your response, you make a number of fair points. However, citing an article is not only limited to the descriptions of the article but to the article itself and if we are to maintain Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Verifiability we should include the points I mention above. Perhaps we can work out a re-write here before putting it back on the page. Here is one possible version -
Journalist Andrew Ferguson wrote a June 10, 2007 column in The Washington Post alleging that a quote by Abraham Lincoln that Gore uses in the book (lamenting that "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow"), is a forgery that was never stated by Lincoln. [1] While Ferguson also states this quote lacks a footnote and that "You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book [...] I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88," [2] it should be noted that The Assault on Reason does use endnotes, beginning on p. 277 and ending on p. 296. The quote regarding Lincoln on p. 88 is referenced on p. 282 of the text and cited as coming from "The Lincoln Encyclopedia" (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p. 40.
-Classicfilms 17:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Though I appreciate what you're getting at, correcting Ferguson's error seems to be original research itself, unless you find a source arguing that Ferguson is in error. How about this instead:
Journalist Andrew Ferguson wrote a June 10, 2007 column in The Washington Post alleging that a quote by Abraham Lincoln that Gore uses in the book (lamenting that "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow"), is a forgery that was never stated by Lincoln. [3] (The quote is cited in the book as coming from "The Lincoln Encyclopedia" (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p. 40.) Korny O'Near 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough about O.R. - however, quoting one part of the article and ignoring the rest is still problematic when looking specifically at this section on reliable sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources
I think that both points of the article must be pointed out to fit within Wikipedia guidelines. If a third party is needed to point this out, perhaps we should wait a day or two to see if an article is posted. -Classicfilms 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I disagree that citing the book itself is original research. Specifically, the point of having verifiable sources is that anyone, without specialized access or tools should be able to go and confirm any statement made on wikipedia. Since the book it the definitive and authoritative source for itself, and since it is publicly available, citing or quoting from the book cannot constitute OR outside the boundaries of what is acceptable. Anyone with $20 in their pocket, or a public library card can go, turn to page 277 and see that the footnotes endnotes begin there. Indeed, anyone with a library card and an extra 15 minutes could probably go and even double check The Lincoln Encyclopedia to verify Gore's citation. More importantly, the review just isn't that substantive, aside from the fact that it's based on a factual error. I mean, come on! Out of a 300 page book, he takes one quote, and writes a whole "review" about that?! There's no discussion of any of the arguments or points that Gore makes, but rather just this one quote. Edhubbard 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Washington Post online cite now carries a correction, above the Ferguson article, clearly stating that The Assault on Reason contains 20 pages of endnotes [1]. Of course, the correction is fairly flimsy, since it doesn't also include the information that the quote is cited in those 20 pages of endnotes, where the citation comes from, and that Andrew Ferguson's "review" is now completely devoid of any substantive, factually acurrate content relating to the book. I think we might want to include the whole thing, in detail with appropriate references, not as a "review" of the book, but as an example of the lengths that some people will go to try and discredit Gore... this is like the whole "I invented the internet thing." First, complain about the accuracy of something that Gore didn't say (either a mis-quote of Gore, or someone else's quote), then let the debate evolve, and during all the time that this non-issue is being debated, say nothing about any substantive points (either the good congressional work to help pass legislation that lead to creation of the internet, or about the importance of reason and argument to a democracy). In this way, nobody actually has to debate the substance of what Gore has done or said; they just get to debate what they wish Gore had done or said... Oh, the irony! Edhubbard 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If this goes into the article, I think there are still a few points related to Wikipedia:Verifiability that need to be addressed. A re-write of this article, with the same title, was posted in today's New York Sun at http://www.nysun.com/article/56457?page_no=1 The comments about lack of footnotes which appeared in The Washington Post version have been taken out. However, the fact that the quote used on p. 88 in The Assault on Reason is cited in the book as coming from a letter in "The Lincoln Encyclopedia" (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p. 40 is still not mentioned. The only comment made on this topic in the revised version of the article states: "The quote is a favorite of liberal bloggers, which is probably how Mr. Gore came across it" without a citation to support this claim (it might be worth noting that short essay on the topic by someone from UC Davis appears prior to the publication of this article, which cites this book as well, appears here: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html) The rest of the revised version of the article is pretty much the same, questioning the reliability of the quote but without offering enough information to verify the claims. One scholar is cited in this sentence: "Writing in 1999 in the Abraham Lincoln Association's newsletter, the great Lincoln historian, Thomas Schwartz, traced the bogus passage to the 1880s, about 20 years after Lincoln's death." However, the full name of the newsletter, the specific issue it was located in, and the title of the article are not mentioned so it is hard to verify this statement. I did look at the website for the association he mentions here - http://abrahamlincolnassociation.org/ - but did not see mention of a newsletter. There is something called "Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association" located here online http://www.historycooperative.org/jalaindex.html but I did not see an article written by this scholar in either of the issues published in 1999. The material might exist in hardcopy offline but without more information, it is hard to tell. Lincoln's son is also quoted in this article, but without a source to verify the quotes. On the same topic, the Daily Kos includes a blog entry which makes a similar claim here - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/11/13459/0880 but (with the exception of another quote on the same topic which another scholar discusses) no sources are given to back up the argument so it is difficult to verify. In addition, scholarly debates always involve more than one person - there can be one article or book which makes a claim but then there are additional voices, some supporting it, some arguing against it. This information is not given here which makes it hard again to verify the nature of this debate. In other words, neither version of this op-ed piece really complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources . Thus if the topic is introduced in the Wikipedia article, somehow all of these points need to be included. -Classicfilms 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Great research there Classicfilms. I think that you're right, the whole debate about the Lincoln quote is a long way from being verifiable enough to be included on wikipedia. Indeed, given that it seems that even the foremost Lincoln scholars cannot seem to agree on the reliability of this supposed Lincoln quote, it may never be. What seems pretty obvious, however, is that Andrew Ferguson is doing quite a job on Gore's book by letting the media tie itself in knots of this entirely non-issue. Is there some way that the quotes you have above would be sufficient to point this out? Something like:
1. A.F. said:
- No footnotes (original cite)
- No reference (original cite)
- Not clear A.L. said what A.G says he did (original cite)
- Implication, Gore is (a) sloppy and (b) no better than anyone else who "claims the mantle" of A.L. (original cite)
2. But as numerous commentators (cites) noted, and the A.F. article now corrects, there were endnotes
A.G. gives citation (footnote from A.G., cites)
3. Major debate as to reliability of quote (cites)
4. However, A.F.'s argument is based on (a) a failure to read carefully and (b) more importantly, fails to engage in a substantive critique of the book. (cites)

Daily Kos is a blog which certainly makes it less reliable, but in those posts there are some adidtional third party citations which could be used to construct this section. The thing is that putting this all together in this form really would start to border on original research, and probably goes beyond our role as wiki editors. I don't know... I'm really irritated by this, and I think that I am not thinking quite clearly as an editor... Other opinions? Edhubbard 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some very fair points here. I think that the place to begin would be the library - if other editors would be willing to track down the debate over the Lincoln quote - who is writing on this, what is the existing scholarship, and what are the variety of viewpoints? In general, a scholarly debate involves more than one voice so it's important to find more than one citation on the topic. Once this is clarified, it might be possible to create an addition to the article which could comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources -Classicfilms 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It would also help to track down the source of the quotes given by Lincoln's son. -Classicfilms 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've found a third party response and have written another draft. Please take a look (I've removed the "ref" tags for now so that the links can be seen here- the links can be reformatted once this section is reinserted into the article).
Journalist Andrew Ferguson wrote a June 10, 2007 column in The Washington Post alleging that a quote by Abraham Lincoln that Gore uses on p.88 in the book (lamenting that "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow"), is a forgery that was never stated by Lincoln. [2]
A. Siegel responded to Ferguson's article in a June 11, 2007 column for the "Political Cortex." addressing Ferguson's claim that the quote on p. 88 is not substantiated by a citation ("You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, The Assault on Reason [...] I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88".) [3] Siegel notes that the text does cite all of its sources via endnotes which begin on p.277 and that the quote on p.88 is referenced on p. 282 of the text as coming from "The Lincoln Encyclopedia" (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p. 40.[4]
-Classicfilms 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, now we're getting into quoting blogs... look, I see your point that Ferguson's mistake about the citations damages his credibility. How about we just leave the column out, then? If there are doubts about the Lincoln quote, they will probably emerge elsewhere. Korny O'Near 13:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine. -Classicfilms 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to note that the column by "A. Siegel" quoted above also appears in the Daily Kos at this URL:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/11/0537/82782
-Classicfilms 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)