Talk:Rules for Radicals

Subtitle
Why does it say "(Communists)" the title is "Rules for Radicals" not communists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.164.30 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I made this stub using a copy of the book I have. I am uncertain about the subtitle of the book. On the cover and title page, it is "A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals," but in the copyright information and in the Library of Congress it's "A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals." My solution was to include them both with an AKA. If someone knows better how to clarify, please do!

--JordanLyons 10:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for idiots like me who waste time trying to spot the difference, it is Pragmatic v. Practical --Rumping (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will someone please put the real rules on here? I forget how to make a proper refrence on here, but this website has the rules with basic explanations: http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html A lot of talk goes on about current members of the democratic party follow these rules at times, so it is important to include them in this entry 136.160.191.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Prince
Why is "The Prince" a related item?

-John

Because both the Prince and the Rules of Radicals deal with realpolitik political tactics. 207.191.204.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Lucifer comment.
It seems that Gamaliel 2011-08-22 would like to claim that there is consensus on whether or not to post Alinsky's comment about the first radical. Talk is talk. If there is a valid concern about posting or not posting the quote from the book, then make it part of the discussion on record.

It seems to me that the material is valid and informative, whether it was jocular or not. Looking at the discussion-of-record, it at least does not appear to be a settled issue as to whether to include the quote.

PoqVaUSA (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

By-the-way, this is the material in question:

The book opens with a mention of Lucifer. In the prologue Alinsky writes: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

PoqVaUSA (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been consistently removed by a number of editors over a long period of time, so I'd say there was in fact consensus against inclusion, though you are welcome to make your case here. Two unrelated points concerning your edits:  1) The Prince has nothing to do with community organizing, so I'm removing it from the see also section.  2) Wikipedia strongly encourages the use of secondary sources, which are definitely lacking in this article, so I'm restoring the one source template. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Alinsky himself is the one who compares his book to "The Prince." He seemed to find it relevant. This article is not about "Community Organizing," it is about the book "Rules for Radicals." What does it matter that "The Prince" has no bearing on community organizing? That's not the topic here.

2. I can see that a page on "Community Organizing" should have multiple sources. Absolutely! This article is about a single book. What additional sources are required to talk about a book besides the book itself? If there is a need for more references, then add them. That would be fine. I don't see why the article is flagged for being single source. Maybe there should be (or maybe there already is) a page for Community Organizing?

3. If multiple people have been deleting the author's reference to Lucifer, then is it also true that multiple people have been adding it back in? If it's only a single die-hard who keeps adding it back, that's one thing. But if multiple people are adding it back then it doesn't seem to me to be a consensus by any means. I only looked back through the most recent 50 edits and looked at the discussion page before putting back in some of the stuff added by others that had been removed. If there are problems with the content, isn't it appropriate to work them out on the discussion page?

There was also a time when the rules themselves were part of the web page. That was removed as being too much of a direct copy from the original work. I agree with that being removed, for that reason. Why is the discussion page so sparse? If I had seen a discussion I probably would have left things alone.

PoqVaUSA (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and thus should be, by definition, Encyclopedic in scope. While the reference to Lucifer was an "Acknowledgement" and not a "Dedication", nevertheless, it is important to the work, either as an example of the sense of humor of the author, or the deliberately provocative tone of the book itself.


 * In my OPINION it should be included, but in a section labelled "Controversial Acknowledgement of Lucifer as 'The First Radical'" with a notation that both sides of the political spectrum have either lambasted the book for it, or excused it as satire.


 * Thus, the entry would debunk the claims that it was a dedication, while acknowlegeing that it is there, and has been controversial. 108.247.178.128 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Do you have a citation for this? I might see the relevance if there are serious points of comparison, but I'm not sure an offhand comment would justify a link here.
 * 2. Wikipedia strongly encourages the use of secondary sources.  Have a look at other articles about books on Wikipedia.  There are many citations to such things as reviews, books, and articles about the subject of the article.  This is pretty much standard here.
 * 3. You are absolutely right, the talk page is where we should discuss this issue. Isn't that what we are doing? Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should Not be removed. Why? By omitting certain words, sentences, quotes, facts or opinions from a book or any literature it is no longer 100% truth about the authors character as to who THEY are. Markbone6811 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Alinski's Book Is Dedicated to "Lucifer," so why not mention it??
I am shocked to find that there is not a single reference to this book being dedicated to the devil! There's no mention of it in Alinski's personal page, either! Coincidence? Highly doubtful!

Don't you think this fact is noteworthy? I do. At the very least, it's interesting that someone would include a quote from Playboy about the man willfully electing to spend eternity in Hell (since the quote about siding with the have-nots in Hell is, what? Saintly?)  But then, amazingly, they happen to neglect to mention the fact that the work Alinski's most remembered for was dedicated by the author to Lucifer in the opening pages!

A fact is a fact, and those trying to paper over it are trying to hide the truth! Let's just call this what it is, shall we?: a whitewash of an inconvenient truth by his obviously uncomfortable liberal supporters. Thanks122.25.227.230 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Dwall's reply at Talk:Saul Alinsky. Rostz (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The stupidity and hypocrisy of right wing ideologues never ceases to impress me. And the book was not dedicated to the devil. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rules for Radicals was not dedicated to Lucifer; it was dedicated to Irene, Alinsky's third wife. On the page following the dedication are three epigraphs, from Rabbi Hillel, Thomas Paine, and the third from Alinsky himself.  In this third epigraph, which Alinsky describes as an "over-the-shoulder acknowledgement" (not a dedication), he characterizes Lucifer as "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively he at least won his own kingdom."  As neo-conservative historian Ronald Radosh wrote in "Saul Alinsky: A Complicated Radical,"  in the August 11, 2010 issue of National Review Online, Alinsky's reference to Lucifer was done "clearly facetiously" and "tongue-in-cheek."  This is a bogus controversy with little underlying significance, except to highlight Alinsky's quirky sense of humor. Dwalls (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See the Radosh review at . Dwalls (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rules
A few of the rules were misquoted (though I only have access to the 1989 edition, not sure if anything changed from the first edition). Also I removed the subjective paraphrasing of the rules that are not in the book, which seem to have originated from a newsletter in 2000. They have since crept into many later publications as being from the book itself. If it's not a copyright issue, we could include the book's actual paraphrasing of it's own rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.111.179 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)