This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
A reference for the quote "chronicles..." would be nice. -- Kenyon 01:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I have reworded the overview section to try to make it NPOV. As long as no one objects, I plan on removing the sermon tag. If there are any problems with the current revision, please discuss here, or even on my talk page as I would like this article to become neutral despite its subject. Thank you. -- Will Mak 050389 04:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the subject of this book should remain as Conservative ideology, and not Conservative propaganda. Please note the difference, according to the article on propaganda: "Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid." whereas ideology is "an organized collection of ideas." This book utilizes facts, though some may disagree with them they are sourced facts, to organize ideas. It is not meant to be misleading, illogical, or invalid. Unless opposed, with a viable reason, I plan on reverting this change to the article. -- Will Mak 050389 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please explain to me, someone, why this WP:COAT is allowed to be in this article. Unless it can be shown not to violate undue weight is has to go. To insinuate that Savage is somehow responsible for this act is rediculous at best. Arzel ( talk) 14:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Why? Our BFF the shooter attacked the church because he wanted to kill liberals that were ruining the country, and did so at a church that had amongst other things founded a chapter of the ACLU and welcomed gays and performed marriage ceremonies for them. One might somehow link the actions of a man striking out against certain groups and a book claiming those groups are mentally ill and attempting to destroy the country. A similar list is on the article for The Turner Diaries; there is also a mention of John Lennon's assassin in The Catcher in the Rye.
Moreover, this doesn't actually violate said policy, which reads: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the 'coats'." This article offers ample discussion of its subject, and then offers a succinct, well-sourced section at its end discussing the social effects of its subject: perfectly relevant and appropriate to the article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.41.186 ( talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is wholly unacceptable and will be removed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vonnegut56 (
talk •
contribs)
14:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to find criticism of this book, but failed. Usually, articles about books with obviously stupid premises, such as this one, have sections that refute them. "Everybody who does not share my opinion is mentally ill" must be one of the worst reasonings of all time. Maybe critics have completely ignored this one as too easy? Or maybe someone else is better at searching than me? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
A reference for the quote "chronicles..." would be nice. -- Kenyon 01:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I have reworded the overview section to try to make it NPOV. As long as no one objects, I plan on removing the sermon tag. If there are any problems with the current revision, please discuss here, or even on my talk page as I would like this article to become neutral despite its subject. Thank you. -- Will Mak 050389 04:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the subject of this book should remain as Conservative ideology, and not Conservative propaganda. Please note the difference, according to the article on propaganda: "Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid." whereas ideology is "an organized collection of ideas." This book utilizes facts, though some may disagree with them they are sourced facts, to organize ideas. It is not meant to be misleading, illogical, or invalid. Unless opposed, with a viable reason, I plan on reverting this change to the article. -- Will Mak 050389 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please explain to me, someone, why this WP:COAT is allowed to be in this article. Unless it can be shown not to violate undue weight is has to go. To insinuate that Savage is somehow responsible for this act is rediculous at best. Arzel ( talk) 14:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Why? Our BFF the shooter attacked the church because he wanted to kill liberals that were ruining the country, and did so at a church that had amongst other things founded a chapter of the ACLU and welcomed gays and performed marriage ceremonies for them. One might somehow link the actions of a man striking out against certain groups and a book claiming those groups are mentally ill and attempting to destroy the country. A similar list is on the article for The Turner Diaries; there is also a mention of John Lennon's assassin in The Catcher in the Rye.
Moreover, this doesn't actually violate said policy, which reads: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the 'coats'." This article offers ample discussion of its subject, and then offers a succinct, well-sourced section at its end discussing the social effects of its subject: perfectly relevant and appropriate to the article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.41.186 ( talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is wholly unacceptable and will be removed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vonnegut56 (
talk •
contribs)
14:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to find criticism of this book, but failed. Usually, articles about books with obviously stupid premises, such as this one, have sections that refute them. "Everybody who does not share my opinion is mentally ill" must be one of the worst reasonings of all time. Maybe critics have completely ignored this one as too easy? Or maybe someone else is better at searching than me? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)