Talk:The Rebel Sell

Much of this is lifted from my insertions to the culture jamming page, but the first paragraph under 'Conformity' was added in. However, I must say, this paragraph isn't a very accurate reflection of the book. I'll see if I can fix this in the future, but if others familiar with RS want to go ahead too... 38.112.113.242 23:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

hi 38.112.113.242, i wrote this page a while ago and noticed the overlapp with culture jamming. i apologize if you feel i have poorly transfered your material. I believe the conformity work on this page is an accurate reflection of the 2nd and 3rd chapters, but contibute your interpretation, there is alot to be said about the material.Spencerk 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

what about a list of names of people or organizations that this book attacks? is that too childish an idea? this page definetly needs a criticism section, didnt adbusters run something in their mag against this book? Spencerk 20:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kalle Lasn was very angry with the authors because they pointed out his hypocrisy, so I'm sure he did run something. 65.95.203.166 04:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several factual errors and strawman fallacies throughout the book. This probably should be noted in the article. [Here http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June05/OKeefe0623.htm] is a review that shows many problems with the book. -- LGagnon 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is surprising to see the above review (by Derrick O'keefe) given such prominence in the article. The publication the review was published in is obscure, the reviewer a marginal figure. Anyone can review a book: typically, not everyone who does so is afforded the status of a reviewer. This aside, the primary issue is that the review itself doesn't so much show the 'many problems with the book', as it appears to 'have' a problem with the book. The critiques, though strident, often miss the author's points, and missing the point is fatal to a critique. The particular charge of racism with regards to the Detroit riots is tenuous, and doesn't account for the context in which it is discussed in the book; however, at least this criticism references something as it appears in the book. The reference to Eminem, made in this wiki entry, is completely misunderstood. The authors merely state that Eminem is heavily criticized for lyrics that routinely appear in the music of black hip-hop artists, to a much greater degree than black artists. Hardly a racist statement. To label it as such is patently bogus. Indeed, it can be read as the opposite: the statement points out a cultural expectation of vulgarity on the part of black artists, while a white artist is expected to demonstrate greater restraint. On account of this, I've deleted that section of the article. Bad and even scathing reviews can be valuable. However, bad reviews that are poorly done, and in their criticisms, miss the author's point entirely are useless. Surely a better negative review of this book is available for citation; a book that has received such wide distribution, and critique and acclaim from nationally and internationally respected figures and publications ought to warrant more than a hack review on its' wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Obscurity does not count against sources on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia deals with a lot of obscure material. Scholarly journals, for example, would be considered obscure by general public standards, but any serious writer would know that they are legit sources. Only self-published sources are excluded. Your argument that "anyone can review a book" is pointless. He's a professional writing for a publication; that's good enough for us.

A negative review is not grounds for deletion. A scathing review is not grounds for deletion. Poorly written reviews are not grounds for deletion. A negative review of a widely acclaimed book (assuming it actually is widely acclaimed) is not grounds for deletion. And again, you only present your opinion that he is wrong about it, not any verifiable facts that disprove him (and no source backing that). -- LGagnon 03:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that he's wrong: the lack of the racist content in the book under review is evidence enough. The argument as put forward by the authors is the verifiable fact, and the fact doesn't match the claim. Very simple. Not opinion: clear evidence. The source is the book. It's really not that complicated. But you continually miss this simple point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to not know the difference between opinion and fact. It is your interpretation, your opinion, that the book is clearly not racist. You have not cited anything to back this claim, and merely saying "the book is proof" is not a real citation. A citation of the book is not "see the book"; you have to give pages & passages that back your argument if that is the case. And no, their arguments are not verified as fact; they made big errors, as O'Keefe pointed out. -- LGagnon 20:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To anonymous:

If you have a problem with O'Keefe's criticism, find a counter-argument and cite it in any new addition to the article. Otherwise, do not censor it or add your own opinion to the article, as both are violations of Wikipedia's rules. -- LGagnon 23:57, 11 July 2008 (UTCT)

The only problem I have with O'Keefe's criticism is that it misrepresents/misunderstands the book it reviews. This should exclude it from inclusion in this article at the outset. The charge of racism is serious, and potentially libelous. Which is fine if the book content is demonstrably so. In the case of this book, it is not. O'Keefe has profoundly misunderstood the book he reviews: he is leveling charge of racism when there is no racist content. He doesn't attempt to demonstrate the claim in his review, merely lists the instances where the authors cite black individuals/issues as evidence of his claim. This is racial content, not racist content, and there's a rather large difference between the two. The claim of racism is unsubstantiated opinion on O'Keefe's part. Are you honestly suggesting that because O'Keefe's misreading happens to have a weblink that it is somehow worthy of inclusion in this article, whether or not it is an honest review? You are responding as though I have a personal problem with O'Keefe's review. I don't. I find the other negative reviews in the article helpful, and clearly related to the arguments the book presents. You're not honestly telling me that anything goes in this article, as long as it has a citation? If that's the case, I'll publish my 'opinion' on a blog, re-insert into the article with a link to the blog, and by your measure, it'll be worthy of inclusion. Does one really have to engage in such silly games, simply to point out that a reviewer has fatally missed the point, and therefore grossly misrepresented the book, and that said review should be deleted in favor of those that actually review the argument as forwarded in the book ? Or do the hallowed "Wikipedia Rules" only apply to technical details, and not the more salient points of accuracy, intellecutal honesty? Deleting inaccurate content isn't 'censorship'; it's called editing. Your deletion/reversal of my reasoned edits are much closer to censorship. And "that's a violation of Wikipedia's rules", as you've mentioned. So, once again, I've deleted the portions that refer to "Loreena Bobbitt, etc" and Eminem. Both of these critiques reflect a misreading on the reviewer's part of these points as they appear in the book. The portion regarding the Detroit Riots, while itself a problematic interpretation, at least engages specific claims made in the book; because of this, I've left it intact. Overall, however, I'm of the opinion that O'Keefe's review is a very sloppy one that levels a serious accusation without supporting evidence, and wouldn't pass the editorial standards of anything other than where it appears: a webpage, perhaps the author's own. At the very least, Wikipedia should maintain a basic standard of accuracy in considering reviews for inclusion in articles. I think the entire review should be deleted, and a better negative review found, in line with the others listed in the article. You seem to be privileging the wikipedia rules over and above the basic standard of journalistic integrity, and it puts the whole enterprise in a questionable light.

It doesn't matter if he misinterpreted it, or if he libels them; that's his problem, not Wikipedia's. Note that we already have articles that mention misinterpretations and libelous statements made by people without having them deleted (as these statements are relevant to the subject). As for you using a blog for a source, no, you can't. We use sources that were not self-published. O'Keefe is not self-published, but published in a periodical (Seven Oaks Magazine is an actual magazine, not a website only, and not O'Keefe's), and thus his review works for the article's purpose as per Wikipedia's editorial standards.

Again, you are just arguing for your opinion, not against a legit problem. You think it's a misreading; I don't. Either way, you haven't provided a counterargument from a non-self-published source; you have only provided your opinion. We are not deleting anything just because you want to censor the article.

And for the record, I studied journalism, and have an equivalent BA. I know what journalistic and scholarly standards are. You seem not to. -- LGagnon 03:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, excepting your juvenille snipe about my grasp of standards at the end. But hey, you might actually be a juvenille, so perhaps you can't help it. Clearly no point in continuing with this cycle of deleting and restoring. You say you don't think it's a misreading: I'd like to hear you back that claim, and describe how it is not, based on the book. But that's a matter apart from the main body of the article. Thanks for sharing your educational background; a BA...wow. I've got a couple myself, and a few letters after that, but it's all rather beside the point, n'est pas?

I don't have to back up my opinion; unlike you, I'm not trying to insert my opinion into the article. I merely added O'Keefe's review, which speaks for itself. You, on the other hand, are pushing an opinion. And I am not being juvenile; I am pointing out the fact that you don't understand something as simple as the difference between fact and opinion, let alone journalistic standards. You clearly do not have the education you claim to have, and most likely never attended college at all. You're just a biased editor, one of the many Wikipedia refuses to purge to maintain a decent encyclopedia. -- LGagnon 20:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the review. I can see how reportage of O'Keefe's review can be problematic. On the one hand, it is indeed information, and pertinent to the article. But on the other hand, if the racism assertion is biased or incorrect, there is no way for an editor to demonstrate this in the article without venturing into WP:OR - unless, of course, someone can source a reply to this review by Potter & Heath themselves.

Now, I just finished reading this book last week, and the two O'Keefe racism assertions provided seem to give completely undue weight to minor asides by the authors. If there is valid criticism of this book by O'Keefe, then print it; some quotes would be really nice. I'd like to know more about O'Keefe's defense of Gramsci and Naomi Klein. I'd like to see more details about his complaints about Potter & Heath's pro-capitalist stance.

If there is good criticism of the book, it's great to have it in this article. I'd like to suggest, though, that this O'Keefe racism assertion is simply the reprinting of what was maybe just a "nyah-nyah" by an unfriendly reviewer who, unhappy with simply addressing real points, decided to also call Potter & Heath racists. It certainly comes across that way.

So, accept an opinion from an outsider, or suddenly decide to be peaceful and friendly to each other and sort it out yourselves, or do neither and find some better critiques of the book. As far as I feel, that racism assertion in the O'Keefe section won't be here 6 months from now if this article continues to be improved. It'll disappear of its own accord eventually, cos better criticism can be found.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

================================================================================================================

Can't find the field to enter in my own comment seperate from the others without accessing the all-encompassing "master edit button", but yeah, just wanted to add one other theorist. Trying to go around adding little edits, so I can get a feel for how this site operates. I apologize if i have somehow broken protocol. There should be a saliently visible "add a comment" button. Anyway, hope you are fine with my tinsy edit.

--ToasterCoster (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't find the field to enter in my own comment seperate from the others without accessing the all-encompassing "master edit button", but yeah, just wanted to add one other theorist. Trying to go around adding little edits, so I can get a feel for how this site operates. I apologize if i have somehow broken protocol. There should be a saliently visible "add a comment" button. Anyway, hope you are fine with my tinsy edit.

Hope this is the right page....and pressing the save page button now.

--ToasterCoster (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops my bad

k the two last comments are me, i have just learnt something new. Thanks to trial and error on your page. Je m'excuse stranger :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToasterCoster (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

and here's my signature sorry....(:p i'm totally incompatent)

here's my signature for the redundancy i take full responsibility for.

--ToasterCoster (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)