Talk:Killing Lincoln

The mistakes are minor

In the reference used for the "multiple errors," the examples given are so trivial it's really a moot issue and goes to show the liberal bias here and in the media. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to remove the biased language in the article, instead just reporting the facts. Instead of it being "banned" is is not being carried in a store. Instead of "contraversary" there are corrections to the book. Mathewignash (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The mistakes are not minor and if not revealed will show up in other works in the coming years and decades by unwitting authors and students doing reports. As I write this neither the publisher's or O'Reilly's official web page for the book mentions the book's mistakes, which is shameful. No errata sheet is available for libraries to download and insert into their copies. I read that the publisher now wants O'Reilly to write about other U.S. presidents. In defense of the editor who used the word "banned," that was likely because numerous mainstream news organizations worldwde used that word in their reporting. 5Q5 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Errors should be listed

The errors need to be listed, as many as can be, because there are nearly or over a million copies of the inaccurate books out there in existence and there is no guarantee the publisher will print a fully corrected edition someday. There may exist partially corrected versions. My local library has five of the inaccurate books and one audio version. As of this date I have not yet seen any alleged corrected version in stores. And for the record, I am neutral on Mr. O'Reilly. I don't even watch his TV show. This is about making an effort to prevent the rewriting of history. Witness the list of fake memoirs on Wikipedia where the controversy about those books is also noted in their articles. 5Q5 (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that errors can be listed, but I think saying it's an attempt to re-write history is taking a side, there is no proof any of the errors are anything but just that... errors. There was no attempt to re-write history. No conspiracy exists to try to make people think the Oval Office was built earlier than it was, they just meant the current President's office and named it wrong. However, if you want to present your corrections as truth, you need to source them.Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

After a talk on the wikibooks project, I removed the list of errors. You can certainly have it mentioned that other sources have talked about the errors, but listing them yourself in Wikipedia is original research. If you find a REALIBLE source that has a list of errors, feel free to link to it externally. Mathewignash (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't you trying to delete the article Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code? You keep interfering with the neutral writing of this article. Are you connected with the subjects of this article? 5Q5 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not connnected to the subject of the article, it's simply original research to make this list up and add it to an article. The DaVinci Code article, which similar, does cover a subject that came to a trail. Nothing like this has happened for Killing Lincoln, it's simply criticism, which is covered in the contraversy section adequitely. Mathewignash (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my Inaccuracies list at this time due to undue weight it gives the controversy, per Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_14#Killing_Lincoln. The book was published less than 90 days ago; an external link may develop in the future listing all the errors in detail, last seen in the archive here. Mathewignash I wish you would stop using the catch-all excuse of Original research (please review the definition). Wikipedia articles require some original writing; otherwise it would be nothing but copying and pasting. The errors I listed were high-quality sourced. The problem is that there aren't any external websites yet discussing the errors in detail to justify creating a new and separate article. Maybe there never will be. The publisher/editor of North & South informed me that they will post the Steers four-page book review on their website. When that happens, the link will be included in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Controvery"[sic] vs "Corrections" section title

I reverted the section title back to "Controversy" for the second time after editor Mathewignash changed it to "Corrections. "Controversy" is the appropriate section title as can be found in the list of examples below of Wikipedia book articles. The section is about the controversy of inaccuracies. Has anyone seen a partially or fully corrected version of the book yet? When that happens, we should check to see if there is a quick way to identify it and state it in the article. Books.Google unfortunately scanned the inaccurate one. Here is an interview with O'Reilly that uses the term "controversy."

Wikipedia book articles with "Controversy" sections (sampling):

• The Story of Little Black Sambo (1899).
• In the Night Kitchen (1970).
• The Satanic Verses (1988).
• American Psycho (1991).
• The Bookseller of Kabul (2003).
• The Man Who Would Be Queen (2003).
• A Million Little Pieces (2003).
• The Higher Power of Lucky (2006).
• Odd Man Out: A Year on the Mound with a Minor League Misfit (2009).

Further, if there is sufficient evidence to justify a dedicated article on the topic, here is an example of how other editors did it for another best-seller: Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

O'Riley himself doesn't use the word contraversary, just the politico writer. Moreover perhaps we should seperate the sections on contraversary and corrections. The section on "contraversary" will talk about what people said (on both sides), one side saying the book is bad, others saying it's an overblown charge because they don't like his politics, the section on "corrections" will simply list any factual and gramatical errors and their corrections. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't you remember, I did have them separated until you removed them in an edit described in the log as: 15:37, 14 December 2011‎ Mathewignash (talk | contribs)‎ (9,406 bytes) (redendant headings removed.) Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Go with "Corrections". There is an essay on this topic here: WP:CSECTION. Ideally, I'd see this "Corrections" as a sub-section in a more general "Reception" section. maclean (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No recall of books - mention?

I would like to include a line saying that the publisher's parent company, Macmillan, "As of [date], the publisher has not recalled any of the books containing the errors" and source it to the publisher's Announcements page where they have listed other recalls due to inaccurate content. (PDF link) If you are going to tell me, no, that would be "original research," well, here are other Wikipedia articles that currently mention no recall of a product (Google phrase searches):

• "no recall of beef was ordered"
• 250 ml cans were not recalled" (energy drink)
• "no recall was initiated" (automobile)
• "no recall was ever issued" (automobile)

It is factual and encyclopedic to state that there was no recall; to not would be to participate in a cover-up (there is no mention of the controversy at all on the publisher's website) and therefore be non-neutral article writing to favor the subjects of the article. If there is a recall someday, as through a class-action lawsuit, the article could then be updated to reflect the new status. Anyone agree? 5Q5 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disgree. You are reporting a non-issue. It would be insane to list every book with a error in it that has not been recalled. Those first two articles you site mention recalls in the article, so they have to differentiate in the lines mentioned that there was no recall. The third one talks about how a replacement part was made for a car but no recall was made. Mathewignash (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Killing Lincoln is a best-seller and the story of the inaccuracies made international news, even involving the US Government. That makes it encyclopedic to mention. 5Q5 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that's it's a best belling book makes the book encyclopedic, it does not make the fact that it didn't get a recall encyclopedic.Mathewignash (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unless there is a reputable third party source demanding a recall of the book, then we should just stick to noting that subsequent printings included corrections. This inherently means that no action was taken on the previously distributed books. maclean (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I concur. The book was published less than 90 days ago. This is still a developing story. Additional critical discussion might surface in news magazines and journals that have longer publishing schedules. 5Q5 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Partially corrected edition released

Yesterday I encountered a revised version of Killing Lincoln in a Wal-Mart and a Books-A-Million chain store that only has the following corrections:

• Page 83: Deletion of the line that says Grant and Lee will never meet again.
• Pages 131, 146, 154: "Oval Office" deleted.
• Page 278: Deletion of one mention of Mary Surrat being in a cell aboard the Montaulk. No deletion of the previous lines saying all were held aboard and no deletion of her wearing shackles and a hood.

All the other inaccuracies remain and there is no other way to identify the book as a partially corrected version. 5Q5 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps by the edition or printing? It's not Wikipedia's job to print a corrections list for every book or movie.Mathewignash (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as i can see there is no real controversy, just a bunch of pretty minor errors that have no relevance to the content of the book. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Edward Steers book review lists at least seven additional errors than the three of his that were included in the now removed list. Steers, by the way is mentioned as a Lincoln expert in the end notes of Killing Lincoln. This is all important because the United States Government felt compelled to note that the book contains too many inaccuracies for it to be associated with by selling it to the public in an official museum. 5Q5 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This 5Q5 guy is on some kind of crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.147.96 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

deleted inaccuracies - added back

Killing Lincoln inaccuracies was deleted. Moscowamerican

These are well sourced. I added these inaccuracies back. (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)