Talk:I, Libertine

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

So...

The genre listed is "Fake novel, Literary hoax" -- the novel is in fact real and its genre likewise can't be nested into its hoax origin. The genre is in fact libertine.

Was it a bestseller or not? Skomorokh ^incite 13:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really needs to be more detail on how the book went from being a hoax to being a real book. --Mr. Snow (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd eventually proved his point that the process of choosing bestsellers was flawed. How? This is really light on detail. Fumblebruschi (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "how?" It was listed as a "best seller" when it didn't exist. Its actual sales would inevitably be zero. Thats a pretty big flaw in the best sellers list. --203.4.253.174 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hoax continues. I read every best seller list published in 1956 by the New York Times, which carried the list in its Sunday book section. I, Libertine appears on none. And even though the NYT and Wall Street Journal ran several articles in 1956 about the hoax, they never mentioned the book appearing on any best seller lists. Indeed, to my knowledge, no source in 1956 mentioned it. It wasn't until years later that the unsupported claim appears, probably initiated by Shepherd himself, who frequently bent the truth in favor of a good story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Columbia (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccessary quote

"Here is the text describing Ewing and the novel's storyline as it appears on the back cover:"...okay? why? There is no commentary on it. In addition to that, I don't see how this is really a hoax. He told people to ask for a fake book, then when stores started looking for it, he had someone write one up.. sounds like clever marketing.--58.230.124.16 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the article. It started as a hoax. Eventually it was brought into reality, but this was, in a way, still part of the hoax because they wanted to pretend the book had been real all along. It wasn't marketing. --DearPrudence (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, while that may be there is still no explanation for copying the text wholesale off the back of the book. With no commentary or anything else, this doesn't qualify as fair use.--58.230.124.16 (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it did. :) You brought up two different issues and I responded to the second.

In any case, I'm removing the blurbs, but next time be bold and take it out yourself if you suspect it violates copyright. --DearPrudence (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on I, Libertine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for //flicklives.com/Articles/Wall_Street_Journel/8-1-56/8-1-56.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I, Libertine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020427051336/http://flicklives.com/Articles/Wall_Street_Journel/8-1-56/8-1-56.jpg to https://flicklives.com/Articles/Wall_Street_Journel/8-1-56/8-1-56.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]