| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John T. Flynn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1095 days  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editI don't think that you can be a "classical liberal" and a "paleoconservative" at the same time. Perhaps whoever chose the latter was looking for "neoconservative", which is very different. I don't think there's any argument that Flynn was a "classical liberal" though. James James 03:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I work at an institution that is often described using both terms. Paleocons arguably borrowed from the earlier classical liberals with regards to economic liberalism (free markets). Both labels are frequently applied to libertarians, and Flynn was pretty close to qualifying for that moniker. Dick Clark 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm bothered by writing like this: "In 1944, he wrote a classic and prophetic critique of the American drift toward statism...." which seems pretty blatantly POV. We should provide a summary of the book, not endorse its message. --Christofurio (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- As someone who appreciates Flynn's book and agrees with the characterization of it, this seems like a fair point to me – the language does seem unfairly biased in favor. I wish more Wikipedia editors would show similar concern over articles that are full of left-wing or pro-establishment bias. Starchild (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
looks like the foregoing problem has been fixed, but speaking of POV, this: "The Pearl Harbor 'they let it happen' thesis would remain on the far fringes of FDR-hating right-wing fanatics until suspicions of a similar plot in 9/11 brought it back to attention and, in fact, plausibility." really? in fact? I don't think so. Clocke (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)