This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Politically Incorrect Guide was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 July 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Regnery Publishing. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Washington, D.C. may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I deleted the part about leftists considering Regnery to be part of a fascist theocratic scheme to take over America, as that's obviously not sourced. BarrettBrown 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be something here about their "Politically Incorrect Guide" series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.222 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, July 18 2006 (UTC)
It is blatantly obvious that various editors are smuggling in ridiculously POV'd general smears and hatchet-jobs under the aegis of (seemingly legitimate) criticism. In fact, the entire entry consists on nothing-but. Consequently, I'm pulling the chain on it.-- Mike18xx 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have one name. Cmr924. So that would be a no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 ( talk • contribs) 00:27, October 26 2006 (UTC)
Any news on your "Request for CheckUser"? Should be interesting to hear about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 ( talk • contribs) 00:24, October 29 2006 (UTC)
User:DGG "condensed" the article, but I am not sure why the removal of information was helpful. I am partially reverting/rewording that deletion for now, but I hope DGG will consider explaining his rational for information that seems to be notable (i.e. the involvement of notable individuals in the company). DickClarkMises 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the section on him should be removed from this article. It is not about Regnery at all and gives us no more information on it. Steve Dufour 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
References
The article includes the quote: "... manages to connect the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones." However no source is given and we are not told who said it. Can this information be added? Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The quote is from the editorial review of Amazon.com. NYCicero ( talk) 23:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Regenry Publishing is obviously controversial yet this article mentions nothing but praise. For example intelligent design is widely considered pseudoscience and the South was the premier source of racism in America(and still is). I found criticism of them from experts while search online so I will add them to my user page You very nice place 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of the edits here are legitimate (the correction about Eagle Publishing and the removal of the list of books), but others are plainly POV-pushing, and violate NPOV and OR by including unsourced opinion and blog opinion. THF 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wonkette said "a source said X". This is a comment on the inner workings of the company, not a living person, so BLP relevant here.
To begin with, these are course notes, not blog posts. In addition, this text documents Ernest's opinion - the opinion of a University of North Carolina "Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies".
No, he doesn't. Really.
He was fired from Regenery for this, so yes, it's relevant, much like the Jayson Blair scandal is relevant to NYTimes. Guettarda 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have protected the page to prevent further violations of our policy on biographies of living people. Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Before lodging such accusations, editors should be aware that the admin in question was likely responding to the first of multiple reports on the BLP noticeboard. If we are going to beat BLP patrollers who happen to be admins over the head because they end up having to protect a page that they were trying to bring into compliance due to a noticeboard report, then we might as well stop trying to enforce BLP at all. Editors may not agree that there is a BLP issue, but a BLP issue was reported. - Crockspot 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am the uninvolved admin. I came here from the noticeboard, saw and removed the blp violation, protected the page to prevent reinsertion, and posted to the blp noticeboard inviting review. Having been abused for that by experienced administrators who should know better for supposedly misusing my admin tools, I think a request for comment on my behavior is a good idea. Tom Harrison Talk 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Noroton:
Comment. WP:COATRACK immediately comes to mind with the insistence that an article about a publishing company include an extensive and questionably-sourced indictment of a former employee. An RfC for admins violating policy is needed, but Tom isn't the one who has violated policy. THF 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Attenuated relationships like that do not violate COI, but, per WP:COOL, I am withdrawing from editing this article. THF 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence again because the sources still don't support it, unless I'm missing something in the sources which is entirely possible.
The only mention of Regnery in the first source is the sentence, "The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot, 7th edition (1953; Henry Regnery, 1986) is an American classic.", the second source is a speech by Buckley where he is reading two pages from a currently unpublished novel and the third doesn't mention Regnery in the source. -- PTR 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I hate it when I get this interested in something. I've looked over the Google results for Regnery and "John Birch" and I don't find credible sources. Regnery did publish books by the founder of the JBS and one was conspiricist.
In the early 1950s, Regnery published two books by Robert Welch, who later founded the John Birch Society in 1958. [13]. In 1952, Regnery published "May God Forgive Us". Regnery came out with "The Life of John Birch" by Welch in 1954. [14]
May God Forgive Us appears to be a call to anti-Communism. John Birch was a Baptist missionary in China who later worked as an intelligence officer there for the U.S., opposed the Chinese Communists and was apparently killed by them. Actually, I read a brief review from The New York Times of "May God Forgive Us". The reviewer criticizes the author for charging conspiracy when ineptitude among foreign policy types would be more accurate.
There's a sentence still in the article that says some Regnery books "have been called pro-Nazi". I've been looking at New York Times citations for Regnery in the 1950s and 1960s, and I'm finding nothing (although I'm not looking at the little notices the Times published about upcoming books, and maybe the Times just didn't review them).
Regnery did publish books sympathetic to Germans and their experiences during the war, including one by Rommel's chief of staff and one by a German general. Neither were pro-Nazi and both criticized Hitler. The second one got a glowing review from The New York Times.
Regnery was a respected publisher back then. It published the memoirs of Konrad Adenauer and, when Ezra Pound was in disrepute (he was held in a mental hospital, basically for making pro-Fascist radio broadcasts from Italy during WWII -- the prosecutor or judge didn't have the heart to imprison him), Regnery published a book by him, apparently about culture.
In the paragraph with the "called pro-Nazi" line there is absolutely nothing in the footnotes to back it up. Sounds slanderous to me and I'm removing it. Noroton 01:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I took the above sentence out of the article. First, it needs a citation. Second, if we get a citation, we can evaluate how much prominence to give it, if any. Being critical of wartime actions of the Allies, as some of the books apparently do, does not make one pro-Nazi. Noroton 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If you do a search for just the word "Regnary," this article doesn't show, and it ought to. Perhaps someone could do a redirect? I myself don't know how. CC.
The image Image:Unfit for Command.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just finished reading a book they published and noticed their logo. Is that the Porta Negra? 70.109.61.103 ( talk) 06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is any way to do so that both sides accept as NPOV, the article ought to mention Regnery's publication of books associated with Rev. Moon's Unification Church: To Bigotry, No Sanction: Reverend Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church by Mose Durst, Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon by Carlton Sherwood, and Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design both by Jonathan Wells, a Unificationist theologian. 207.68.243.40 ( talk) 03:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The American Prospect did critcize the Publishing Co. and a criticism section is only fair, the NYT has one as does every Liberal point of view. 99.13.118.232 ( talk) 23:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Regnery Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this book deserves a mention in the history section among the best known conservative books published by Henry Regnery. Regnery published the American edition of the English translation of art historian Hans Sedlmayr's controversial work, Verlust der Mitte, in 1958, as may be verified by searching the Library if Congress catalog. The Austrian Sedlmayr's connections with Nazism and his Catholicism are well documented; see /info/en/?search=Hans_Sedlmayr . The book deals (disapprovingly or provocatively, depending on one's taste) with the 19th-century origins of Modern art. Regnery appears only rarely to have published books on art, being perhaps motivated in each case by their author's political position. The only other clear example I can find in the Library of Congress of a Regnery art title from the 1950s is Picasso and the Bull, by Vincente Marrero (American edition in English by Regnery, 1956). The Spanish author is described here as a "traditionalist": https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Marrero_Su%C3%A1rez ; cf. /info/en/?search=Traditionalism_(Spain) . The Library of Congress also, however, holds Henri Gheon's Mary, Mother of God (posthumous American edition in English by Regnery, 1955), which appears to deal largely with imagery and might therefore be considered to be an art book. Gheon is described here as a Catholic writer: /info/en/?search=Henri_Gh%C3%A9on Together these three books (all translations into English representing conservative European viewpoints) demonstrate Regnery's Cold War-era involvement in what in the late 20th century came to be called the Culture Wars (mentioned prominently in the quotation from Nicholas Confessore that is currently incorporated into this article). The facts of their publication may also shed light on Henry Regnery's personal interest in art, evident in his membership in the Cliff Dweller's club of Chicago; see /info/en/?search=Cliff_Dwellers_Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 ( talk) 12:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Suggest dedicated paragraph as to the significance. Wikipietime ( talk) 04:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Politically Incorrect Guide was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 July 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Regnery Publishing. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Washington, D.C. may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I deleted the part about leftists considering Regnery to be part of a fascist theocratic scheme to take over America, as that's obviously not sourced. BarrettBrown 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be something here about their "Politically Incorrect Guide" series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.222 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, July 18 2006 (UTC)
It is blatantly obvious that various editors are smuggling in ridiculously POV'd general smears and hatchet-jobs under the aegis of (seemingly legitimate) criticism. In fact, the entire entry consists on nothing-but. Consequently, I'm pulling the chain on it.-- Mike18xx 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have one name. Cmr924. So that would be a no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 ( talk • contribs) 00:27, October 26 2006 (UTC)
Any news on your "Request for CheckUser"? Should be interesting to hear about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 ( talk • contribs) 00:24, October 29 2006 (UTC)
User:DGG "condensed" the article, but I am not sure why the removal of information was helpful. I am partially reverting/rewording that deletion for now, but I hope DGG will consider explaining his rational for information that seems to be notable (i.e. the involvement of notable individuals in the company). DickClarkMises 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the section on him should be removed from this article. It is not about Regnery at all and gives us no more information on it. Steve Dufour 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
References
The article includes the quote: "... manages to connect the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones." However no source is given and we are not told who said it. Can this information be added? Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The quote is from the editorial review of Amazon.com. NYCicero ( talk) 23:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Regenry Publishing is obviously controversial yet this article mentions nothing but praise. For example intelligent design is widely considered pseudoscience and the South was the premier source of racism in America(and still is). I found criticism of them from experts while search online so I will add them to my user page You very nice place 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of the edits here are legitimate (the correction about Eagle Publishing and the removal of the list of books), but others are plainly POV-pushing, and violate NPOV and OR by including unsourced opinion and blog opinion. THF 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wonkette said "a source said X". This is a comment on the inner workings of the company, not a living person, so BLP relevant here.
To begin with, these are course notes, not blog posts. In addition, this text documents Ernest's opinion - the opinion of a University of North Carolina "Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies".
No, he doesn't. Really.
He was fired from Regenery for this, so yes, it's relevant, much like the Jayson Blair scandal is relevant to NYTimes. Guettarda 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have protected the page to prevent further violations of our policy on biographies of living people. Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Before lodging such accusations, editors should be aware that the admin in question was likely responding to the first of multiple reports on the BLP noticeboard. If we are going to beat BLP patrollers who happen to be admins over the head because they end up having to protect a page that they were trying to bring into compliance due to a noticeboard report, then we might as well stop trying to enforce BLP at all. Editors may not agree that there is a BLP issue, but a BLP issue was reported. - Crockspot 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am the uninvolved admin. I came here from the noticeboard, saw and removed the blp violation, protected the page to prevent reinsertion, and posted to the blp noticeboard inviting review. Having been abused for that by experienced administrators who should know better for supposedly misusing my admin tools, I think a request for comment on my behavior is a good idea. Tom Harrison Talk 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Noroton:
Comment. WP:COATRACK immediately comes to mind with the insistence that an article about a publishing company include an extensive and questionably-sourced indictment of a former employee. An RfC for admins violating policy is needed, but Tom isn't the one who has violated policy. THF 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Attenuated relationships like that do not violate COI, but, per WP:COOL, I am withdrawing from editing this article. THF 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence again because the sources still don't support it, unless I'm missing something in the sources which is entirely possible.
The only mention of Regnery in the first source is the sentence, "The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot, 7th edition (1953; Henry Regnery, 1986) is an American classic.", the second source is a speech by Buckley where he is reading two pages from a currently unpublished novel and the third doesn't mention Regnery in the source. -- PTR 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I hate it when I get this interested in something. I've looked over the Google results for Regnery and "John Birch" and I don't find credible sources. Regnery did publish books by the founder of the JBS and one was conspiricist.
In the early 1950s, Regnery published two books by Robert Welch, who later founded the John Birch Society in 1958. [13]. In 1952, Regnery published "May God Forgive Us". Regnery came out with "The Life of John Birch" by Welch in 1954. [14]
May God Forgive Us appears to be a call to anti-Communism. John Birch was a Baptist missionary in China who later worked as an intelligence officer there for the U.S., opposed the Chinese Communists and was apparently killed by them. Actually, I read a brief review from The New York Times of "May God Forgive Us". The reviewer criticizes the author for charging conspiracy when ineptitude among foreign policy types would be more accurate.
There's a sentence still in the article that says some Regnery books "have been called pro-Nazi". I've been looking at New York Times citations for Regnery in the 1950s and 1960s, and I'm finding nothing (although I'm not looking at the little notices the Times published about upcoming books, and maybe the Times just didn't review them).
Regnery did publish books sympathetic to Germans and their experiences during the war, including one by Rommel's chief of staff and one by a German general. Neither were pro-Nazi and both criticized Hitler. The second one got a glowing review from The New York Times.
Regnery was a respected publisher back then. It published the memoirs of Konrad Adenauer and, when Ezra Pound was in disrepute (he was held in a mental hospital, basically for making pro-Fascist radio broadcasts from Italy during WWII -- the prosecutor or judge didn't have the heart to imprison him), Regnery published a book by him, apparently about culture.
In the paragraph with the "called pro-Nazi" line there is absolutely nothing in the footnotes to back it up. Sounds slanderous to me and I'm removing it. Noroton 01:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I took the above sentence out of the article. First, it needs a citation. Second, if we get a citation, we can evaluate how much prominence to give it, if any. Being critical of wartime actions of the Allies, as some of the books apparently do, does not make one pro-Nazi. Noroton 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If you do a search for just the word "Regnary," this article doesn't show, and it ought to. Perhaps someone could do a redirect? I myself don't know how. CC.
The image Image:Unfit for Command.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just finished reading a book they published and noticed their logo. Is that the Porta Negra? 70.109.61.103 ( talk) 06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is any way to do so that both sides accept as NPOV, the article ought to mention Regnery's publication of books associated with Rev. Moon's Unification Church: To Bigotry, No Sanction: Reverend Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church by Mose Durst, Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon by Carlton Sherwood, and Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design both by Jonathan Wells, a Unificationist theologian. 207.68.243.40 ( talk) 03:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The American Prospect did critcize the Publishing Co. and a criticism section is only fair, the NYT has one as does every Liberal point of view. 99.13.118.232 ( talk) 23:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Regnery Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this book deserves a mention in the history section among the best known conservative books published by Henry Regnery. Regnery published the American edition of the English translation of art historian Hans Sedlmayr's controversial work, Verlust der Mitte, in 1958, as may be verified by searching the Library if Congress catalog. The Austrian Sedlmayr's connections with Nazism and his Catholicism are well documented; see /info/en/?search=Hans_Sedlmayr . The book deals (disapprovingly or provocatively, depending on one's taste) with the 19th-century origins of Modern art. Regnery appears only rarely to have published books on art, being perhaps motivated in each case by their author's political position. The only other clear example I can find in the Library of Congress of a Regnery art title from the 1950s is Picasso and the Bull, by Vincente Marrero (American edition in English by Regnery, 1956). The Spanish author is described here as a "traditionalist": https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Marrero_Su%C3%A1rez ; cf. /info/en/?search=Traditionalism_(Spain) . The Library of Congress also, however, holds Henri Gheon's Mary, Mother of God (posthumous American edition in English by Regnery, 1955), which appears to deal largely with imagery and might therefore be considered to be an art book. Gheon is described here as a Catholic writer: /info/en/?search=Henri_Gh%C3%A9on Together these three books (all translations into English representing conservative European viewpoints) demonstrate Regnery's Cold War-era involvement in what in the late 20th century came to be called the Culture Wars (mentioned prominently in the quotation from Nicholas Confessore that is currently incorporated into this article). The facts of their publication may also shed light on Henry Regnery's personal interest in art, evident in his membership in the Cliff Dweller's club of Chicago; see /info/en/?search=Cliff_Dwellers_Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 ( talk) 12:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Suggest dedicated paragraph as to the significance. Wikipietime ( talk) 04:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)