Talk:Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower

Table of contents dump
An anon. dumped the table of contents in the article. I don't know if that is a copyvio, or that it needs to in the article. I'll paste it in below, in case it can be used: The following is a table of contents of the book:

Table of Contents

Introduction

Ours and Theirs: Washington's love/hate relationship with terrorists and human rights violators:
 * 1. Why do terrorists keep picking on the United States?
 * 2. America's gift to the world -- the Afghan terrorist alumni
 * 3. Assassinations
 * 4. Excerpts from US Army and CIA training manuals
 * 5. Torture
 * 6. The Unsavories
 * 7. Training new unsavories
 * 8. War criminals: Theirs and Ours
 * 9. Haven for terrorists
 * 10. Supporting Pol Pot

United States Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction:
 * 11. Bombings
 * 12. Depleted Uranium
 * 13. Cluster bombs
 * 14. Chemical and Biological Weapons abroad
 * 15. Chemical and Biological Weapons at home
 * 16. Encouraging the use of CBW by other nations

A Rogue State versus the world:
 * 17. A Concise History of US Global Interventions, 1945--present
 * 18. Perverting elections
 * 19. Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy
 * 20. The US versus the world at the United Nations
 * 21. Eavesdropping on the planet
 * 22. Kidnapping and looting
 * 23. How the CIA sent Nelson Mandela to prison for 28 years
 * 24. The CIA and Drugs: Just say Why Not?
 * 25. Being the World's Only Superpower means never having to say you are sorry
 * 26. The US invades, bombs and kills for it ... but do Americans really believe in free enterprise?
 * 27. A Day in the life of a free country ... or ... How does the United States get away with it?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Keane (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd sure love to see that in this article. Stars4change (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think its useful, too, for an understanding of the contents of the book. Doesn't appear that the dumping of this info was done with consensus either? 67.180.77.106 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RogueState.jpg
Image:RogueState.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Add?
I would like to see the rest of that quote in the article: "If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently.  I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism.  Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end" [& continue from there with...] >> and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born." Stars4change (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you include this, you should also include the final sentences: "That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated." Because it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.47.254 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm for the full quote too. Its a good one. 67.180.77.106 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. We have clear consensus not to move the article. Cúchullain t/ c 14:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower → Rogue State – Per WP:SUBTITLE and WP:DIFFCAPS. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested teochnical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The name "Rogue State" by itself looks more like an article about rogue states than an article about a book. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could the same not be said of most any application of WP:DIFFCAPS? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this book is definitely not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Rogue State". As past experience with your nominations have shown, you are going to keep on asking so here: I WP:IAR WP:SMALLDETAILS as that is, and always will be, a garbage guideline. No reader will even give it one thought how he wrote it, as caps don't matter in almost anywhere regular users are concerned and it's stupid to think Wikipedia should be otherwise. --Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * this book is definitely not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Rogue State". Why, bearing in mind WP:DIFFCAPS?
 * WP:IAR WP:SMALLDETAILS as that is, and always will be, a garbage guideline. No reader will even give it one thought how he wrote it, as caps don't matter in almost anywhere regular users are concerned and it's stupid to think Wikipedia should be otherwise. Just because you don't like the central consensus doesn't mean we can disregard it. If this is per WP:IAR, on what basis are you arguing this circumstance to be exceptional, such that it wouldn't have been specifically taken into account in the drafting of WP:SMALLDETAILS? Because if it is not exceptional in any way, to merely disregard a central consensus because we disagree with it would be in violation of WP:CONLEVEL. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Seems a common name. Better is a discussion (see also: Talk:The Purple Revolution: The Year That Changed Everything and Talk:Gods and Kings: The Rise and Fall of Alexander McQueen and John Galliano Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile your position with our book-specific guideline, WP:SUBTITLE, which states:
 * Seems a common name. Of what relevance is the fact that it is a common name?
 * Better is a discussion I have no idea what that means. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this is a bold move. Also, WP:SUBTITLE is not a policy, just a guideline, see also WP:COMMONNAME and other related policy Hhkohh (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this is a bold move. Also, WP:SUBTITLE is not a policy, just a guideline, see also WP:COMMONNAME and other related policy Hhkohh (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per my comment at the other RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhh, which other RM? There are nearly 200 open right now. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Rogue State" does not mean this book by either long-term significance or common usage, so is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose cited guideline does not apply as disambiguation and long title are clearly beneficial to readers here, and in cases without (book) WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT works for short titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again, this is not an "uncontroversial technical request", and should not have been listed as one. The nom cites WP:DIFFCAPS but ignores the section that says "However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered" - using the subtitle is a perfect form of natural disambiguation. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.