Talk:White Girl Bleed a Lot

Untitled
This article needs to be expanded with material about the book itself; right now, it contains a dozen references and statements about what this or that person thought about the book, and barely a sentence about the book itself. The article should also be written in a neutral tone, and should be informative about the subject; this is an encyclopaedia, not a debating forum. I plan to expand the article in the coming days, hopefully making it more useful for Wikipedia readers in the future. Nolens Volens (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can only report on what has been written prior, and that just happens to include a lot of opinions and not much about the book itself. I'm also finding that many of the sources do not discuss the book either. Sowell, Pareene, Nelson, and Abcarian only seem to discuss the book in any detail, with most of the other sources I'm finding simply including the book's name amongst their issues with Flaherty's reporting of the subject in general.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can and does contain summaries of books which it covers, with references to the books themselves. And it will contain a summary for this book, because I will write one. You have very peculiar notions of what Wikipedia will and will not do, which are not shared by other editors or administrators. You have now a) proposed the deletion of this article, which was opposed by several users and at least one administrator, and supported by no one, b) led a bizarre deletion review discussion, in which you were opposed by several administrators and supported by no one yet again, and still c) became the chief contributor to this article. These are not consistent actions, and they indicate the desire to score points against the book and/or those who like it, rather than to inform Wikipedia readers. If you can't approach the subject with any neutrality, then you shouldn't contribute content, or at least not seek to become the chief contributor. Right now, the article consists of a one-sentence description, and a "Responses" section which takes up half a page, which furthermore contains two non-specific sentences about the book from conservative sources (identified as such) and 8 sentences containing various insults and criticisms from liberal commentators (not identified as such). That's an overabundance of opinion over fact, and, moreover, is non-NPOV. Furthermore, several of the opinions apparently relate to Flaherty's blog and/or WND, rather than the book, and some simply don't seem to be reliable or significant sources (e.g. a blog entry on Pathios). This will need to be corrected. Nolens Volens (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply because I believe this article does not actually meet the notability requirements of this website does not preclude me from editing the article as I have. And administrators do not receive a greater prominence in any discussion on this website. They have as much say in its content as you or I. They are simply trusted with the tools to clean up. The DRV is another issue. They were endorsing the closure because they saw nothing wrong with how it went, but it does not preclude me from ever attempting to start a new discussion on the merits of including this book on this website in the future when this knockout game business is out of everybody's minds. My opinion on this book's place on this website is well stated but if the community now decides it should remain, then I may as well make the article presentable.
 * It is also not my fault that very little has been said about the book positively outside of Sowell's writings. Or at least nothing that can be expanded into a full sentence as I had done in my recent edits to this page. This is inherently not a violation of WP:NPOV, which states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If you wish to point out the negative press comes from liberal sources, go right ahead. If sources do not directly critique the book you are free to remove them. If you want to expand text on the book there's nothing stopping that either. Just be sure to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines on writing about books.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

White girl burn a lot.
Jessica Chambers. Absent, as of now, from BBC UK, Guardian UK, France24, De Welt Germany, most MSM in the USA. 2 days, thereafter. Meanwhile Michael Brown has been canonised by Pope Francis. AnnaComnemna (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable critic and source
One of the critics listed under Responses is presented thus: "Christ and Pop Culture writer Alan Noble, while criticizing American news media's focus on the knockout game, brought up Flaherty and his book and said his writing (on WND) was 'absurd', called the project 'one big stacked evidence fallacy', and described the act as a racist conspiracy." Alan Noble does not seem to be notable, nor does his Christian blog "Christ & Pop Culture" seem to be notable. I could find no mention of Noble being published anywhere other than on his blog (Google Scholar shows no mention of him), which describes him as "Assistant Professor of English at Oklahoma Baptist University", nor does his blog seem to have any notability. Unless someone can convincingly argue that these meet WP:N, I'm going to remove that passage. Bricology (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens?
Noted here https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/council-of-conservative-citizens-dylann-roof/396467/: ''The manifesto is wrong on the facts. A 2014 report by the Sentencing Project found that the media empirically tend to over-report crimes with black offenders and white victims. But the group he cited, the Council of Conservative Citizens, has spent a great deal of effort trying to convince people that black-on-white crime is a real menace. (Journalists are often bombarded with publicity materials for White Girl Bleed a Lot, a book purporting to reveal the truth about black-on-white crime.)'' "He" in this case being Dylan Roof. That's mentioned in the CCC article, but not this book or the group using it to promote its ideology. Can anyone find additional sourcing? JamesG5 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Typographical Errors
The print version of the 5th edition of this book, which I own, has HUNDREDS of typographical errors. And this is just the beginning. It looks like it was written by a 'C' student who is 15 years old! This needs to be noted somehow.

Someone reverted my edit of this observation because my statement was supposedly "unsourced" and "original research". But how exactly does one "source" something this obvious, or avoid the alleged evil of "original research"? Is it SERIOUSLY "original research" if you read some book and note its self-evident nature? If the book contained hundreds of curse words, or was written in French, or had 50 pictures or graphs inside, would it SERIOUSLY constitute "original research" to note this?
 * On Wikipedia there is no special consideration of facts that appear "obvious" or self-evident (see WP:NOTBLUE). Are there any articles or book reviews which observe that the book has "hundreds" of typographical errors? Without third party sources, this is original research.--Hazhk (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed this too. Maybe the ebook version is better. But the book does NOT have "hundreds" of typed errors. It has THOUSANDS. KyZan (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)KyZan

added back "see also" and source

 * Race and crime in the United States
 * Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom
 * Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla

Leah Nelson, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog, noted Flaherty's column at WorldNetDaily and labeled him a "white nationalist propagandist."

Moscowdreams (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The SPLC source is fine especially attributed, but I removed the see also links: one was already linked in the lead (WP:OVERLINK) and the others seemed picked to make a point: are those the cases prominently discussed by the book? If so, they should probably be mentioned in the body as prose.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

removed section for original research
This was removed:
 * A broader criticism of Flaherty's argument would seem to be that he presents his numbers on Black crime in isolation. According to the 2018 Bureau of Justice Statistics report from the Donald Trump Presidential administration, Black Americans make up more than 12% of the U.S. population and commit barely more than 15% of crimes against whites. In contrast, white Americans make up 61% of the U.S. population and commit 62% of crimes against whites. Simply put, while Flaherty's website for his book may offer "hundreds" of videos of black-on-white crime, actual crime data indicate that it would be just as easy to compile a lurid list of incidents of black-on-black crime, white-on-white crime, and arguably white-on-black crime. This fact has led a number of mainstream journalists, notably Alex Pareene at Salon, to question Flaherty's motives for focusing exclusively on black/white violence.

The last sentence could be added to the article. Moscowdreams (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * While the Morgan source seems suitable on the topic, using it here seemed to be synthesis without more context, but the others that are about the book and author are fine and are attributed. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)