Talk:America Alone

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the America Alone article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

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 articles

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Author faces tribunal for hate speech

Slashdot is talking about this book. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/10/1850248&from=rss - 76.28.64.227 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redflag

The only citation in the article raises a WP:REDFLAG. President Bush is considered having endorsed the book of someone whose views have recently been found Islamophobic by the Ontario Human Rights commission.

The source isn't quite reliable. The Weekly Standard isn't a newspaper, but an opinion magazine. It is also quite partisan. Per WP:BLP, we keep such contentious information out until it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that Bush says what we claim he says.Bless sins (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject Unclear

This article has a review, and a bit about the background of the book's recommendations, etc, but doesn't actually state any type of overview of what the book is about, which would usually be more important for a summary of a book in wikipedia. Eriol Ancalagon (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe is better today, than in any other time

This book is unfair with European Union.Europe is better today, than in any other time of its history.One european burns the half of oil, than an American.See the deficits of Europe; they aren't big.Europeans have a big standard of living.Religion?No problem in having none.Crime?Crime rate in Europe is lower, than in the United States and there's no death penalty.France closed all of its coal, gas and oil electricity power plants, more than twenty years ago and replaced all of them with nuclear power.United States, not Europe is adicted to oil and to give money to oil tirants, such as Hugo Chavez or Saudi mullahs.Who invented anticonception and eugenics feminism, were Americans such as Margaret Sanger(1879-1966).The majority of abortists/malthusian foundations are Americans:Ford Foundation,MacArthur Foundation, Carnegie Institution, Kellogg Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation,etc.In the other side, Europe not United States is investing in wind power to replace natural gas.Europe has some diseases, but America isn't in good health too.Agre22 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Too right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.40.184 (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for Deletion

The article about this book adds nothing to what's already in the author's main article, and doesn't give any reason why anyone should care about its content. Should be deleted and merged into main Mark Steyn article. The main point of this article seems to be that the book was a New York Times best seller, but it doesn't even say how well the book sold. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Might be keep as redirect to en:Mark Steyn per WP:LINKED and WP:PERPOLICY. 89.2.241.2 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cancelled the proposed deletion. (If anyone still wants to delete the article, please start an AfD.) The book is notable in both the normal and Wikipedic senses of that word. (BTW, publishers normally do not give out sales figures, so it's normal for Wikipedia articles about books to not report sales.) Actually, I'd like to see this article expanded, not deleted. Cheers, CWC 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this book should be preserved. It was widely discussed in global media.--Bagration1944 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a wide discussion in global media. Deletion or partial merge might be warranted. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added reviews by prominent writers such as Christopher Hitchens and martin Amis and as the subject of a significant human rights court case it's not just a bestselling book. The subject matter at hand is also significant in current affairs as of 2017.She'll need more tests. (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

We've recently had edits adding and removing two tags, {{Advert}} and {{Confusing}}. For what it's worth, I think "appears to be written like an advertisement" is an overstatement but I agree that the article is too positive, whereas I think that saying the article "may be confusing or unclear to readers" is a massive understatement. I suspect a substantial rewrite is needed to make this article good enough to be called 'encyclopedic'. I'm too busy ... any volunteers?, he asked hopefully. Cheers, CWC 09:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't as bad as all that. The chief problem was that the article was written from Steyn's POV; once it is re-stated as his opinion, one gets a clear view of a somewhat extreme and alarmist book. If you're watching, see what you think of this version. I've taken out the tags Chrismorey (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous link “Section 13"

"The case has been cited as a motivating factor in the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act” The “Section 13” link refers one to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not to the Human Rights Commission.Orthotox (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]