Talk:How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I'm not sure listing the entire table of contents is good policy.

• It might be a copyright violation: quoting more than 300 words goes beyond fair use
• It doesn't add anything encyclopedic to the article

Could someone write a summary of the contents instead? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The original idea of the table of contents was to provide rudimentary info about the book that could stand up to challenges by POV warriors. Inevitably editors will come to this page and try to whittle down anything they do not agree with , the table of contents however would be harder to spin or erase. As far as copyright law , chapter titles are fair use. So that I do not see that as an issue, though someone might prove me wrong as the copyright laws are somewhat ambiguous on some issues related to fair use. I am sure I or someone else will get to the summary at some point--CltFn 05:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you should get to the summary right now. If you want to create articles, write them up in an encyclopedic style before moving on to the next. Stop calling people best-selling authors (whether they are or not), and don't put book titles in bold in references sections (cf. what you did at Daniel Pipes. All you're doing is creating work for other editors who are having to follow you around and tidy up your work. It would make more sense if you'd stop for a day or two, read some other articles to see how they're written, and read our policies, most importantly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, our most important policy, said by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales to be "non-negotiable." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Can't create stubs? That is not what I read at Wikipedia:Stub or at the Wikipedia:Be_bold page
• Stop calling authors bestsellers whether they are or not? Is that really wikipedia policy?
• I read this in the introduction pages of Wikipedia: Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia—anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Worried about breaking Wikipedia? Don't be: it can always be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best source of information on the Internet!
• For your info I have been reading wikipedia for many months , I know how articles are written, and I have read many of the policies.(Though I have not seen them consistently followed by you for some reason).--CltFn 12:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I"m sorry, I beg to differ. The articles are not written well (not written at all, in fact, just copied from publishers) and pay no heed to our neutrality policy. Your efforts to insert a book list into the intro of Daniel Pipes shows you don't know about our style or encyclopedic writing in general. Look, I'm sorry to write to you in this way. I'm not enjoying it. But you're creating a lot of extra work for people, and I wish instead you'd just slow down and take a bit of advice. No one's trying to censor your work or say that book pages don't matter, because they do, they matter a great deal. But they have to be written carefully, so that we're writing in the best interests of Wikipedia, not in the interests of the authors or the publishers, and not in favor (or against) any particular POV, but in a completely disinterested, balanced tone. So yes, even if someone is a best-selling author, we don't use that term, because it's not clear what it means, we'd have to cite a source, and it's anyway unnecessary journalese. The neutrality policy and the encyclopedic style are particularly important when dealing with sensitive subjects that can lead to racial hatred and religious bigotry, because we have a responsibility not to promote prejudice. Please take these comments in a constructive way and try to cooperate with some of the editors who've been deleting or redirecting your material, because you might find they'd be quite helpful if you approached them for advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

CltFn, please stop assuming that anything not prohibited by policy here is explicitly permitted. We are trying to write a usable encyclopedia. This isn't a place for you to hype a bunch of authors and test the limits of your freedom. Many Wikipedians don't use peacock terms as a matter of style - I agree with this. It's just poor writing style to call everyone a "bestselling author", etc. Rhobite 14:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) is a book by bestselling right-wing author Ann Coulter.

The book is a collection of columns written by Ms. Coulter on varied topics, such as liberalism, war on terror and the media.

In the book Ann Coulter sums up liberals in one sentence:"Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States. "

Has the above info all been merged? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It has now. The only usable paragraph is the second one, and it's been added to the book's description in the Ann Coulter article. The first paragraph is unnecessary due to context and the third paragraph is just a POV quote. Rhobite 17:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, there's nothing like a good merge! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The page has now been unmerged as it is a valid page. Nothing like a good unmerge.--CltFn 28 June 2005 12:21 (UTC)

Not going to merge it again as you did add a couple sentences.. but please keep the TOC out of the article. It is useless. Rhobite June 28, 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Umm, can someone explain how a 2004 book contains material written in 2005? Unless there is a subsequent version, the dates appear to be wrong. GRBerry 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)