 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Original Research edit
This 'article' is a mess. There are no references and it all looks like original research and opinion, again all unreferenced. JettaMann (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow! You wrote that comment five years ago, and it's as true now as it was then. (I suppose that shows how popular the book is!)
Look at the whopper of a second sentence:
Some laud the book as progressive while others brand it as reactionary.
Does the author really think that's a neutral point of view? It doesn't even occur to him or her that some people might laud a reactionary book, or 'brand' a progressive one, or that there might be a more nuanced, even individualistic point of view beyond the black-and-white 'reactionary vs. progressive' idea this writer seems fixed in.
Having begun so obtusely, the article ends in a bizarre way:
Mencken often espoused views of politics, religion, and metaphysics that stressed their grotesqueness and absurdity; in this context, escape from the fraud of such somber subjects was welcome to him.
What does that even mean? His views of politics etc. stressed their own grotesqueness and absurdity? Or that he espoused them in such a way as to stress their grotesqueness and absurdity?
And what fraud?
But who cares? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not an editorial. If someone could give a genuinely neutral, factual summary of Mencken's actual words in the book, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.14.250.194 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Time edition edit
There is no mention of the Time edition of the book, which must have been the biggest seller by far. Nicmart (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)