3 ms·

[Citation Needed]

• astine 18y ago
  http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229 http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229 (yes, this is a bit weak, but I have a job :P)
• mhb 18y ago
  To refute a work of fiction?
  • mechanical_fish 18y ago
    A work of fiction that is nonetheless far more credible than this sentence: There was no truth to the health claims... From the Wikipedia entry on The Jungle: After much persuasion from Sinclair as to the seriousness of the situation, Roosevelt agreed to send two men to investigate Sinclair's claims. The men the president chose, Charles P. Neill and James B. Reynolds, had both done investigative work for Roosevelt before, and were thought trustworthy... Even though the meat packers had forewarning and time to clean up, the conditions Neill and Reynolds observed were described as "revolting;" the only claim left unsubstantiated by the report was the sensational claim that workers who had fallen into the giant lard vats were left and sold as lard. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an unimpeachable source. But it's better than one guy's unsourced opinion. I note for the record that, confronted with a historical example from last year, a contemporary work of nonfiction (Fast Food Nation), and a work of muckraking fiction from 1906, we've now become curiously focused on debunking a single famous legend from the 1906 work. Because, of course, if Sinclair stretched a fact here and there out of revolutionary fervor, adulterated cat food must be perfectly good for cats.
    • astine 18y ago
      I don't know anything about "Fast Food Nation." I do know a little about Upton Sinclair. I can only argue with what I know. Edit: You are right, it does seem that Wikipedia with some of my claims, but backs up the my points about the real focus and Sinclair's novel and it's real impact. Either way, I prefer transparency to regulation.