Talk:Liberty Lobby

Whoever is writing this article needs references

This article fails the fundamental test of including verification of its sources.

An editor can't simply write several paragraphs of opinions about a subject but not include the citations. The web site doesn't care about your personal opinions about the "Liberty Lobby." What it does care about is your referenced information about the Liberty Lobby. You must be able to understand this distiction before you contribute.

Please read the web site rules.

This is written with the full understanding that there are a few committed individuals and, at least one organization, that doesn't want readers to think well of the "Liberty Lobby."

That doesn't matter. Either come up with citations or take the unreferenced material out.

If you want to contribute to the web site you need to follow the rules.

RPJ 04:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources are listed at the bottom of the page. I have read all the sources cited, and the page summarizes the information in an NPOV way. I have removed the tags.--Cberlet 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

¶ I deleted a mention that the Drew Pearson lawsuit lost in the Supreme Court when it denied certiorari because I could not find, in LEXIS, any such disposition. On the other hand, I added a citation to a case involving the Wall Street Journal which included a recital of several defamation cases where Liberty Lobby had lost. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Problems

This article is the biggest train wreck of unsourced claims of racism I have ever seen, with a dash of weasel words on top. Someone needs to do some serious research on this mess. Jedibob5 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A rough rewrite

OK--I have rewritten this article and attempted to clean it up a bit; it is still "rough" but it is in better condition than when I found it. Can we look for more source material? Regards. ProfessorPaul (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Liberty Lobby"

Most of the references to this group in the article now read "The Liberty Lobby". Is this anything like "The Google" or studying "the calculus"? Can we change it back please, it looks ridiculous. Or was that the point? 71.176.173.192 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The organization's proper name was simply "Liberty Lobby", and that's how it referred to itself in its publications.—Quicksilver^{T @} 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole page remains ridiculously POV; it is entirely composed of critical renunciations and condemnations. One does not have to be a LL partisan to recognize the one-sided review here. I expect that the principals involved are too old and/or non-computer-literate to defend themselves. Meanwhile, it's also ridiculous that this page remains on Wiki Religion watchlists. Overall--a hatchet job. ConradArchguy (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)