Talk:The Revolution: A Manifesto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unnecessary section

I took out "about the author" section I dont think its necessary doesn't do justice to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.103.197 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut & Paste direct from Amazon - terrible article

this junk is directly copied from amazon's site - what crap! Hype for a book doesn't make an article. Berean Hunter (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you & Well done to the contributors. This article has taken a complete 180,looks very good, and has balance now. I withdraw my previous statement....Berean Hunter (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NY Times Best-Seller and #1 Best-Seller on Amazon

Should we include this information in the article?

Definitely. With the book released the article can now go beyond debatable "ad" status. Here's the links for someone to start: [1][2]. See also [3] but it might help to wait for this to be confirmed elsewhere. JJB 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already scoured some refs and added them to the article. Buspar (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Goldwater's view of Paul's book

The following unsourced sentence was removed from the article:

Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., former member of Congress, is quoted as saying, "The real truth about Liberty. This book takes a wrecking ball to the political establishment. Senator Goldwater would have loved it -- it's The Conscience of a Conservative for the twenty-first century."

I ran a LexisNexis search, but I was unable to find a reliable third-party source which made this statement. I know that Goldwater endorsed Paul's presidential campaign bid, but that's separate from reviewing Paul's book. If a reliable source published this comment, by all means, please re-add it to the article. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

J Readings, it's on the back cover of the book. However, I don't know that the book has sourced it, so I won't be replacing it.Search4Lancer (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Book Summary

The book sounds interesting (I haven't read it), but the article currently suffers a bit from a lack of general detail. Would it be possible to explain how the book is structured? How many chapters does it have? How does Paul outline the book? What was the overall conclusion? Does Paul explicitly identify a dominant theme?

I could be wrong, but the summary section of this article is allowed to be the one place where you don't have to worry about original research or independent, third-party reliable sources. The book is the actual reference. As long as we don't make any conclusions or arguments that Paul explicitly does not make in his book, then the summary section is similar to the "Plot" section of any film article on Wikipedia, I think. I'm not suggesting writing a lot. But 400 to 700 words describing the basic arguments of the book and the general theme would be very useful to the reader. What do others think? J Readings (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum) The Rape of Nanking (book) is a great example of the outline summary that I was suggesting. Best, J Readings (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have a copy of the book, but I haven't finished reading it yet. I'll see if I can expand the section later unless someone else does it first. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

canvasing

oh dear.Geni 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless they vandalize the article, there's nothing wrong with people discussing an article on other sites. They should be commended for being interested in improving the article and - by extension - Wikipedia. Buspar (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You did notice that they are discussing how to use the Tor network to evade a block, right? Burzmali (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as they're not advocating vandalism (like that professor from NIU) it's fine. They clearly aren't, since the discussion was started by a person whose IP was apparently blocked by accident. And you can't use Tor to evade blocks because Wiki doesn't allow Tor IP's to edit it in the first place, so I found that discussion more amusing than threatening. Buspar (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tor nodes are blocked as they are detected, so yes, you can use Tor to evade a block, at least for a while. But, more importantly, he got block in the first place, so his behavior is suspect already. Burzmali (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd want to know why he was blocked before making a judgment on his worth as an editor. Again, unless they explicitly says, "Let's vandalize Wikipedia!" then we should assume they mean well and encourage them to contribute in a constructive manner when or if they come here. (Also, he says "flagged," not "blocked," so he may not have been blocked just made a mistake and gotten a warning. Another reason not to make assumptions here.) Buspar (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So if he was blocked he is trying to evade a block, if he was warned then he is using a sock to hide his connection to his prior account. Either way, he should just stand up and take responsibility for his actions and this whole problem goes away. Blocks are easy to appeal, and warning templates are much of a stigma around here. Pulling stunts like that when there is a straight-forward method of dealing with the situation is why Paul supporters have the reputation they do. If you want, email the guy and get his user info and I'll help you get him unblocked or whatever he needs. Burzmali (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I was wondering what exactly needs more specific citations? Mapletip (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. It was a leftover from earlier versions...I've removed it. Thank you,

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copies Sold

I'm curious to know how many copies of this book were sold. Please include that info if it can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.13.97.10 (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)