Talk:The Politically Incorrect Guide

Not neutral

The tone of the article fails to maintain a neutral encyclopedic viewpoint. Furthermore, it does not provide adequate reactions and/or reviews on the provided material other than a website mocking the works. It can be argued that the large portion of the article reserved for describing the books' lay-out and range of available titles in detail make it sound promotional.85.146.124.73 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit tag

• Copyedit tag added. The article is poorly written, and perhaps after cleanup the NPOV issues can be addressed. -66.31.203.147 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How? I just read it, it describes whats going to be in it, unless that's illegal, this is the correct form. 71.91.71.50 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral: Why only criticism and no "public reactions" or "reviews"

Why does it have an entire section devoted to criticism? I think that part ought to be rewritten as "public reactions" or "reviews" so as to be more neutral. Whoever wrote this article does seem a bit biased against the series. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Critique of the Criticism

Some of the Criticism may need some critique, for instance on how certain circles proclaim a monopoly on being "scientific". --41.16.225.24 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not impartial, criticism weights more

This article is not good; criticism weights more than the description, which makes the article unbalanced in the matter of impartiality. Who reads it already catches a negative impression of the books in a matter I cannot explain through which fallacy, but it simply makes the works look untrustworthy where personal opinion shouldn't be apparent. And the terms "liberal" and "libertarian" have different definitions - depending of the source - than the ones set in Wikipedia. Most people in the middle of the wall won't notice the slight tendency of the article for a negative connotation, but it discourages their interest.

And some terms are confusing to understand their connotation, like:

“Liberal”; As I learned a liberal also rejects State interventionism, therefore, stating that the "Politically Incorrect Guides" oppose the liberal point of view sounds like saying that Ludwig von Mises was "politically correct", as he considered himself a liberal (in the classical tradition), but was one of the socialists'/communists' greatest rival, criticizing a lot the fact that socialism became a "moral imperative" which the books often complain alongside him. "P.I.G" opposes Progressivism which is confused with Liberalism, – if I’m not mistaken even the article about Progressivism points that (at least some years ago).

Briefly, progressivists believe that motivating the loss of traditions, and certain institutions and moral views, is an spontaneous attitude of a contemporaneous society, thus leading in advancement; BUT, rather than believing that a libertarian society separates itself from the State, they actually believe that it makes it more dependable, and, in their point of view, a people dependent on the State is an "advanced" one, thus the term "progressivism". So, they are LEFTISTS, while "liberals" are not necessarily, due to the fact that usually the term is misinterpreted.

A Conservative opposes Radical ideas, like making experiments in society to test the functionality of a theory or ideology; opposes using the State in order to pass over democratic decisions to implement a rule no matter by which means in defence of "social justice"; a conservative opposes the extinction of millennial institutions, cultural values, property and their replacement for new cultures and/or new political ideals. So, the conservative conserves, preserves and the radical changes, modifies, making them respectfully antonyms. A liberal in this sense is more conservative than radical, who is a totalitarian or an anarchist. As I know, a Libertarian is more related with Anarchy, a Progressivist is more related with Socialism, and a Liberal with the right-wing, thus conservative.

Thing is: this article and other Wikipedia’s articles related with this subject trip beyond the meaning of these definitions, or are not very coherent when refer to these terms. And the article must perfect it’s impartiality as the reader has an inclined potential to interpret that the books are unreliable due to the manner it’s presented, when positive or negative publicity is not the point of Wikipedia. The Criticism Section must be criticized in order to retrieve the balance of impartiality.

Another thing: the “Politically Incorrect Guide” is also used in Brazil, and probably other countries also published similar things as well, but there is no reference in the article that this attribute was used elsewhere. I don’t know if P.I.G. is a trademark or something, but, or the authors were given permission to use it or they are infringing copyright - or it’s no trademark at all. There are three (I guess) more P.I.Gs which were published in Brazil:

           1. The Politically Incorrect Guide of the History of Brazil by Leandro Narloch;
           2. The P.I.G. of Latin America by Leandro Narloch and Duda Teixeira;
           3. The P.I.G. of Philosophy by Felipe Pondé.

Are there other countries which use the same invention? Like: the Politically Incorrect Guide of Armenia? LoL. I don’t mean to be a 'multiculturalist', this is the English Wikipedia after all, but the information about this creation is a bit short. It’s more important to say that the idea was expanded rather than explaining the English books were translated to Spanish. --201.6.197.7 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #72: "ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Coven of Aire by Nathaniel Beck (2013) ISBN 1-49088-490-1

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Zero google hits on the title. Only one google hit on "Coven of Aire". Not listed in WorldCat. The publisher's website does not even list this title in the "Politically Incorrect Guide" series. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have removed this yesterday. I have now. There's clearly no such book. There may be a "Coven of Aire" despite it getting almost no Ghits, but that's explained by its size, at most 350.]http://new.spring.me/#!/user/CovenofAire] Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Politically Incorrect Guide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Biased: There is no "reception" or "criticism of criticism

To make it a balanced article, those who are more well-versed or passionate about this topic, please rephrase the "criticism" to "reception" (or include "reception" section) with inclusion of both good and bad (criticism), and within criticism also add counter to criticism. Several others have also highlighted the same issues way back in 207, 2011, 2013 and so on. As seen above, this is the most often mentioned feedback by several editors on this article. Please improve it. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

---

NOTE: Creating a false balance would only serve to undermine the neutral tone of the article. If the majority of the criticism is negative and the preponderance of available sources indicate the books in the series are full of factual inaccuracies and misleading claims, that's just how it is.

It's not Wikipedia's fault that reality contains an inherent bias. 2001:56A:7665:1800:D580:EB76:458:9668 (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. —PaleoNeonate – 08:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Failing to see how this subject meets notability criteria. Article seems to just list books in the series and provide an advertisement-like blurb to the series. Nothing substantial or of note here, in my opinion. Any thoughts? Submitting to AfD to hopefully get some extra opinions on this page.Boredintheevening (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to take part in the deletion discussion can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Politically_Incorrect_Guide Boredintheevening (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Merged, should be deleted

I've merged the relevant material into the Regnery Publishing article, as per the deletion discussion, so I will redirect it to that page. 2601:19C:4601:4C40:6DCE:EED1:CDF2:F820 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

First time I have seen a redirect page containing the original text as well. Shouldn't it be deleted? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)