Talk:Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

A reference for the quote "chronicles..." would be nice. --Kenyon 01:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
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)


 * It's been a week and no one has expressed any concern, so I removed the tag. Feel free to put it back if still unsure about it. -- Will Mak  050389  21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda vs. Ideology
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)
 * No this is propaganda.99.169.66.28 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just have a mental disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.138.3 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Church Shooting
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)


 * Well put. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also want to point out that WP:COAT is not a policy. It is an essay. Dock Hi 15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, if it were a coatrack, we should be wary, but it obviously is not for the reasons stated by 64.190. And the article existed for three years before the sad events at the church, so it clearly doesn't apply. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Dock Hi 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article itself doesn't have to be a coatrack, only that there is an implied connection between two or more things, when any connection is spurious at best. The implication here is that this book is somehow partially responsible to the shooting simply because the book was in the house.  Please state how it is relevant to the article, and you still haven't addressed the weight issue.  The only report was that the shooter had the book in his house, no other connection was made.  It is clearly a case of guilt by association, where some are trying to tag Savage's book with these shootings.  After looking at the Turner Diaries it is clear that at least two of the so called connections should be removed for similar reasons.  Now if it turns out that the shooter specifically stated in words, or states in the future that this book was used as a reason then you have a different story.  But to make a causal relationship based purely on what was in his house is poor reporting, and a symptom of the poor journalism that is done today.  Ironically, by including the information like this you are excusing the shooter's behavior as a result of the books he may have read, and only strenghtening the belief of Savage that Liberalism is a mental disorder, with one of the aspect being that liberals want to blame others for their actions.  Just ask yourself, "Who is responsible for these deaths?"  The Shooter or some Books, because as it is right now, there is much greater focus on the books (between several articles) than there is the shooter.  Gamaliel here is a similar example of the same situation, you should find it familiar, I'm guessing that article was around even longer than 3 years, and another book was inserted, but you said it was a coatrack issue.   Arzel (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont want you to get us distracted, let us focus on wikipedia policies. It is simply mentioned that the book was located in the person's house. There is no implication that the book was responsible for the crime commited. As the IP explained, though there is a connection between what the criminal did and what the book talks about, it is not mentioned in the article. Dock Hi 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, another book was not inserted, a user inserted fringe commentary about a book that was already mentioned, hardly the same thing. In this case we are merely noting a simple fact that many, many articles in professional news publications have noted, and wish to draw no conclusions. Same thing as Chapman and Catcher in the Rye. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So I will ask again, why is it relevant? Either it is an attempt to draw a conclusion, or it is triva, either way it does not belong in this article, it belongs in the article about the shooting.  If the shooter later states that this book was the motivation for the shootings, then yes it does belong, as in other examples.  Arzel (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me try one more time. I hope you will be able to get it this time. The title of the book is "liberalism is a mental disorder". The person who commited the crimes owned the book and he commited the crimes against liberals. Above all, it was reported in a reliable source and thus is here. I guess the rational for relevance is clear. Unless you want to discuss about some newly researched wikipedia policies, the discussion is done here. If you are not convinced, please ask for an RFC. Thanks. Dock Hi 15:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So, if anyone owns the books and people find out about it and report on it then it is worthy of inclusion? Sorry, if your logical rational for relevance is what I think it is, then it is an implication of guilt against Savage, and undue weight.  Arzel (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the shooter claims to have had these beliefs for the past ten years, and the book is only a few years old. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your opinion on the books title and the actions of the criminal? Dock Hi 15:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides, like I mentioned, unless you are raising specific wikipedia policies for discussion, you are wasting my time. Dock Hi 15:42, 2 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)

Criticism
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)