Talk:Hating America: The New World Sport

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Fair use rationale for Image:Hatingamericabook.jpg

Image:Hatingamericabook.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 May 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: consensus not to discuss these changes as a multimove, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:SUBTITLE, WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Note that Hating America: A History was deleted for lack of notability. 174.5.227.8 (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Hhkohh (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these seem fine as is, although some of the moves make sense. But many of the suggested moves would be complicated or confuse readers by their shortened names (i.e. Nuclear Terrorism, Big Coal, Arab and Jew, A Full Life, Nuclear Weapons, American Jihad, A Call to Action, etc.), most of which could not be used without a further descriptor. Ideas? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Often the full page name is needed to make it clear what the article is about. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively support the moves to the redlinked titles and those that already redirect to the works in question (e.g. Bloody Nasty People). Oppose the others that do not (e.g. Nuclear Terrorism). However, these need to be checked on a case-by-case basis as some of the proposed titles such as Keepers of the Flame appear OK but are also ambiguous (nb Keeper of the Flame and the redirect, Keepers of the Flame Fraternity). Overall, this is an unwieldy multi-move and might be better broken up. — AjaxSmack 16:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

..............we can't evaluate this pile all in one lot. Let the nom do some homework, check in books and article content, and then propose those that pass WP:TITLE and WP:DAB one at a time. The above bulk multi-nom is clearly unresearched. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all for now - there are too many individual issues to handle these in a batch like this. Some suggestions are fine, others like Arab and Jew could easily be confused for other topics. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong procedural oppose each of these should be discussed separately, they all of separate issues. The other articles potentially ambiguous with or other candidates for primary topic are different in each case where those other topics exist. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator has provided no evidence of primary topicness, for every single case as each case is different. Thus this is a defective nomination -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all: shortened titles will confuse readers. – Lionel^(talk) 08:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all and WP:SNOW speedy close. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: We cannot WP:SNOW close due to the partly support vote of AjaxSmack. Hhkohh (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - but @AjaxSmack: also said "Overall, this is an unwieldy multi-move and might be better broken up." so this would be SNOW for a break up, not a close and don't come back. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close this. — AjaxSmack 04:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all - They need to be discussed separately, this is much too large of a move nomination when each case is potentially different._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all - agree that these should be discussed separately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldous1 (talk • contribs)

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.