Talk:Culture Warrior

Untitled

would not the critic section violate NPOV? its an encyclopia article. A seperate article possible titled critics of Culture Warrior maybe. Maybe this is where it starts for me. NPOV isn't keeping score of for and against or pro and con its listing the facts and thats it, critics and proponents, sorry either view even balanced in showing is POV. --Xiahou 00:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I've merged in material from two other articles, Secular Progressive Movement and Secular-progressive. -- Cat Whisperer 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

Edited the first few sections for style. I have not read the book, and am not familiar with the material. All of my edits were meant to be for writing style only; if I inadvertently changed any of the meaning, please fix it. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of facism against the ACLU

I can't make sense out of this section. It's one huge paragraph that just sort or rambles and repeats iteself. Worse, I can't tell what parts are direct quotes from the book. It sort of reads like one huge direct quote. I suspect this can be about half as long as it is now without loss of clarity, but I don't know where to begin. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Balance

Here are some negative reviews that may help balance out the article: [1] (includes text of Publisher's Weekly review), [2] (points out factual and rhetorical errors in the book). -- Cat Whisperer 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Putative group

Given that there is no such group as the "Secular Progressive Movement" outside the imaginings of Bill O'Reilly, the sentence as reverted is incorrect. If you don't like "putative", how about "postulated"? -- Cat Whisperer 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd never heard of "putative" before; looking up the definition, I'm just not sure it fits... "postulated" isn't bad. Shall we change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAATi88 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 December 2006

• There is no such thing as the S-P movement? Sir what world have you been living in and whatever drug you're using give some to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.38.244 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Deletion

This article is just an explanation of one Author's point of view.

None of the information contained in the article is backed up by multiple sources (and doesn't seem to be intended to be).

The ideas discussed in this book have no backing by any source other than the book, are seemingly worthless, and considering they remain the loan view of one man (and his fans), don't warrant a wikipedia article about them.

For a better example of a wikipedia article about a book : Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them or My_Life_(Bill_Clinton_autobiography).

(2 articles with actual encyclopedic information in them)

Just my two cents... if no deletion is made... I'll check back and might rewrite the article meself.

--Jon Ivy 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Secular Progressive" articles went through the deletion process, and the contents of those articles were merged here, leaving this article very one-sided. If you have ideas on how to make this article more "fair and balanced", then by all means go ahead. -- Cat Whisperer 11:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditionalist?

there should be a section that explains traditionalists as well. also there should be a section to what separates a liberal from a secular progressive and a traditionalist from a conservative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.68.204.177 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 April 2007

DoneArnabdas 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This Article Violates NPOV

There are a lot of weasel words contained within this article which should be removed or replaced, so this article reads less like an attack on the traditional movement. These movements represent philosophies, so they do not need to be qualified by O’ Reilly say all the time. If they hold a progressivism philosophy or traditional philosophy, then they fall under the label. If O’ Reilly is wrong or lying in the book, then there needs to be more adequate proof provided of this. If he is not wrong then these views are understood to be his. Additionally, it is an accepted fact that the KKK and Neo-Nazi’s do not represent the right wing, unless you are on the left. So to qualify the statement about the KKK with a weasel word is unnecessary: “Right-wing extremism can be equated neither with National Socialism nor with neo-Fascism or neo-Nazism. Neo-Nazism, a legal term, is understood as the attempt to propagate, in direct defiance of the law (Verbotsgesetz), Nazi ideology or measures such as the denial, playing- down, approval or justification of Nazi mass murder, especially the Holocaust. The term "right- wing extremist" is applied here primarily to describe, on the basis of passages in books and magazines, the political-ideological profile of such organizations and how their representatives and activists act and react in the political arena.”http://www.doew.at/english/right/englre.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.8.77 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words are used to weaken an uncited claim to the point where it is obvious, in an attempt to obviate the need for a citation. The appropriate way to deal with weasel words is to delete the entire claim, not just the weasel words. For example, if the article contained the sentence, "Some people think that O'Reilly is a complete idiot", then "some people" is being used as weasel words, and removing just the weasel words results in the sentence, "O'Reilly is a complete idiot." The solution is to provide a citation to a definite person who claims O'Reilly is a complete idiot, or to get rid of the sentence altogether. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If O'Reilly says something that is not generally accepted, then per WP:NPOV it needs to be qualified as "O'Reilly says". Because O'Reilly postulates a great conspiracy of "Secular Progressives" as the only possible explanation of why so many people disagree with him, this is naturally going to result in a Wikipedia article that contains "O'Reilly says" every sentence. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

References

My edits

Hey all, just wanted to say that I came across this article from the Wikiproject Fact & ref check....it was listed as needing reference clean-up which I have done using the citeweb template. I didn't change any of the content. Let me know if you guys need anything. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad Evidence

Ok we all know media matters is a huge left wing group, and using a quote from one of their people is not good in the criticism section. If it is not from a balanced paper/organization do not post it here. Using the quote from MM gives a false impression to people who don't know that they are far left and will never like an O'Reilly book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.38.244 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 March 2008

Postmodernism

I noticed that a link to the Postmodernism article was included under the "See Also" heading. This seems odd to me. If postmodernism is indeed a topic that the book covers, shoulden't it be discussed in the body of the article somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.59.218 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the reference, as nobody bothered to explain why it was there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.59.218 (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How did this book do on the Bestseller list?

As the title asks, how well did this book sell? I believe it was #1 on the NYT bestseller list and it was definitely in the top 10. That would be important to add to this article.PokeHomsar (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture Warrior. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070928222135/http://www.giveline.com/productdetail.asp?V=V068735117&p=0767920929&mc=MC001&s1=&s2= to http://www.giveline.com/productdetail.asp?V=V068735117&p=0767920929&mc=MC001&s1=&s2=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)