Talk:Democracy: The God That Failed: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Steeletrap (talk | contribs) →Merge?: c.e. |
Srich32977 (talk | contribs) revert old nonsense |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
An edit today added the word "controversial" to the opening sentence of this article. Some would describe the book as "rigorously reasoned" rather than "controversial." Does this description belong? --[[User:RayBirks|RayBirks]] ([[User talk:RayBirks|talk]]) 03:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
An edit today added the word "controversial" to the opening sentence of this article. Some would describe the book as "rigorously reasoned" rather than "controversial." Does this description belong? --[[User:RayBirks|RayBirks]] ([[User talk:RayBirks|talk]]) 03:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Not POV as long as it's referenced, as it refers to the reception rather than the content. I'd be interested to learn more about how this book was received, though. [[User:Leushenko|Leushenko]] ([[User talk:Leushenko|talk]]) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
:Not POV as long as it's referenced, as it refers to the reception rather than the content. I'd be interested to learn more about how this book was received, though. [[User:Leushenko|Leushenko]] ([[User talk:Leushenko|talk]]) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
== How does this article not include the notable endorsement by famed character Richie Rich? == |
|||
Bullshit, is what it is. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.203.15.19|68.203.15.19]] ([[User talk:68.203.15.19|talk]]) 03:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Merge?== |
==Merge?== |
||
Revision as of 05:23, 8 November 2013
 | Books Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
| Proposal : | Democracy: The God That Failed → Democracy: The God that Failed |
| Rationale : | Proper capitalization. |
| Proposer : | -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
Survey and discussion
Please add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation and then your signature ("~~~~").
- Not moving this, we use caps as in the original title. Ashibaka tock 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Amazon: That's not how it's listed at Amazon, and there's no reason to think that the mis-capitalization is intentional or necessary like in iPod. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think we should go with the capitalization as the publisher has it on the book cover, which is Democracy: The God That Failed. Dick Clark 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- If, as well as on its cover, the current capitaliz/sation is used on the title pages in the book, don't rename. David Kernow 05:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is also capitalized that way (first letter of every word capitalized) on the title page. I can post a snapshot of that page if anyone is in doubt. Dick Clark 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, keep name per Dick. Regards, David 23:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per User:DickClarkMises. Intangible 15:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per my copy as well. -- RayBirks 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Is "controversial" an injection of POV?
An edit today added the word "controversial" to the opening sentence of this article. Some would describe the book as "rigorously reasoned" rather than "controversial." Does this description belong? --RayBirks (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not POV as long as it's referenced, as it refers to the reception rather than the content. I'd be interested to learn more about how this book was received, though. Leushenko (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Merge?
The book is notable, perhaps even enough for its own page (though it was the remarks about gays, rather than the more substantive theoretical stuff about monarchy, that got most of the RS reaction). But I think the merits of a merge to the Hans-Hermann Hoppe page should be discussed. Steeletrap (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)