Talk:Smith County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

An article at Wikileaks mentions this entry:


 * But now there's another problem for the city of Tyler: The Internet. Again, law firms have been employed in a whitewashing effort whereby they troll on-line sources and attempt to eliminate references to the book. They have been especially vigilant in policing Wikipedia articles about Tyler and Smith County where they usually delete references to the book in a matter of hours (or even minutes in some cases). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangerine Cossack (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the SCJ addition that has been perpetually added and deleted from this page doesn't have anything at all to do with "whitewashing," or anything of the sort. It's a big chunk of completely unsubstantiated WP:NPOV, without a single reference to back it up. If there are proper references and it's written correctly, it'll stay on the page. If not, any editor can delete it. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is the source, it's notable because of the Wikileaks article, the link comes back. Someone should read the book and expand this article. 12.216.169.187 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have at it. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on it, but a native English speaker would probably be able to do it faster and better than I. 12.216.169.187 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wikileaks article reads like a typical conspiracy theory. There may be a conspiracy, or it may all be a pack of lies. If the book is genuinely being suppressed by "the authorities" then perhaps it's more likely that there's something substantial behind it. Suppression could be confirmed by finding threat letters, legal rulings etc. Tangerine Cossack (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some interesting history on the book, but I'm having a tough time tracking down any reliable sources on it. The link in question used to direct to a very low quality rant site, which has recently been simply replaced with a 'coming soon' placard.  I see little value in it.  The political rant that often accompanied the link is completely unacceptable here.   Kuru  talk  00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. It should be replaced with the link to the Wikileaks article. I'll do that now. @Tangerine Cossack: The book's sources aren't the point. The fact is that the book is itself a source for content that should be in the article. 12.216.169.187 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)