Talk:Edward Klein

Untitled
A number of news outlets such as Oprah... Um, Oprah is a talkshow, not a news outlet. -Fsotrain09 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tag
This article is practically a hit piece, I see almost nothing but various criticisms. GoodSirJava 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think that there are responses to the criticisms (or other favorable statements) that should be added, feel free to improve the article. We don't try to achieve a spurious balance by deleting valid information, though.  Because there are no specifics identified in support of the neutrality dispute tag, I'm removing it. JamesMLane t c 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, he has had books on the NYTimes bestseller list, etc so I assume there is other commentary about this person and his books. Can we balance out the criticisms section to work towards NPOV? Also, the blockquote from mediamatters should be substituted for individual quotes by the sources that are referenced within that quote. regards, --guyzero | talk 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Another embarrassing Wikipedia politics article. The tinfoil hat brigade of the Left has completely taken over this area. 68.246.96.69 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Media Matters is basically a democratic blog using them as source makes article look clownish.

Thoughts on Mr. Klein’s "The Truth About Hillary" book
I'm moving my thoughts on Mr. Klein's book, "The Truth About Hillary," to its more appropriate place on the "The Truth About Hillary" Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Truth_About_Hillary"

New interview on May 14 2012 with Sean Hannity on his new book targeting Obama Radio Interview

DonL (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Horrible Horribly Biased Wikipedia Bio
Speaking about "clownish" this entire biography is pathetic. Obviously the Clinton Defenders have set about essentially vandalizing this page, starting with the intro which uses extremely loaded terminology. "Gossip Columnist". Ed Klein is a journalist, with a degree in journalism from the top J-school in the United States.

The bio still DOES have to meet the *living persons biography* rules, and it comes close to slander.

The cause of all this is crystal clear, the "books" section begins and ends with criticism of his Hillary book. Gee, didn't this author have 4 or 5 NY Times best sellers that proceeded it? Yes, yes he did. Say, wouldn't a normal (non-hatchet job) bio discuss them in order? Yes, yes it would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Sources
The source for the section on his criticism is listed as being part of the 3rd source. In fact, it's an excerpt from the 4th source, but even when you click to the 4th source, which is a liberal media criticism blog, that source doesn't link to the original source. (It is a blockquote without a working link.) Go down to the bottom of the article and you will see the bottom third of the article is a long block of non-working links, and the source quoted in the Wikipedia page is connected to the first blockquote within the non-working link: http://mediamatters.org/research/200504140004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.190.69 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting criticism section
I found this extremely confusing. The blockquote with some complicated references to his texts, the opinionated presentation, all of it was strange and impossible to understand. Now, it seems, it was poorly sourced. I am going to delete the whole section. Whoever wants this information in the article should find sources. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is gone now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to IP editor: if you think this stuff has value then please explain that here, get proper sources, and see that it is presented in an appropriate way. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Note from IP editor: you deleted all stuff under the header "Criticism", which is meant for controversial opinions. Why do you think the two sources are improper? Imbalanced, yes, but that is to be expected from criticism, and it is not outlandish. 6:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.132.178 (talk)

Note from IP editor: I have rewritten the "Criticism" section, without that block quote. The criticism is still one-sided, as expected, but better sourced. 6:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.132.178 (talk)
 * Great, thanks. I didn't know how the Hannity interview was controversial so I deleted it. Something should be added explaining who attacked the book in the manner described. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As 184.97.132.178 pointed out, the criticism is heavily one-sided. I observe that it is a substantial fraction of the article and it relies entire on Politico and Media Matters, which are hardly neutral sources. The need for more balance is patent. --Yaush (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review asked Klein in a June 20, 2005 interview, "Why on earth would you put such a terrible story in your book...that looks to be flimsily sourced at that?," regarding his suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was conceived in an act of marital rape." - This piece of information is an intentional lie by whoever wrote it, it takes ten seconds to read the actual interview where Klein explains this isn't what he wrote ("Let’s set the record straight here. Actually, I don’t make that claim in the book."). Could someone please erase this deception from the wiki page? Literally no idea why this page is so biased either. MKPoosh —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is absolutely hilarious in its attempt to discredit Klein's detractors and prop him up. It is laughable that anyone (let alone multiple people) would point to a book's inclusion in the NYT bestseller list as actual evidence of the validity of the book. Of course the argument did not attempt to discredit the critics or support an opposing view with actual sources, rather insist that the book is factual because it sold well. Well, I guess that's politics for ya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.143.178 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Blood Feud
In the criticism section, the Wikipedia article claims "The British newspaper The Guardian pointed out a number of verifiable factual errors in Klein's 2014 book Blood Feud.[14]"

However, if you read the article it only lists one minor error: the name of the French restaurant owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.173.206 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)