Talk:Democracy: The God That Failed

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

Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

The article Democracy: The God That Failed, along with other articles relating to Austrian economics, is currently subject to active community sanctions. The current restrictions, which were implemented by community consensus, are:

Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions.

Untitled[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Proposal :	Democracy: The God That Failed → Democracy: The God that Failed
Rationale :	Proper capitalization.
Proposer :	-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey and discussion[edit]

Please add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation and then your signature ("~~~~").

Not moving this, we use caps as in the original title. Ashibaka tock 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon: That's not how it's listed at Amazon, and there's no reason to think that the mis-capitalization is intentional or necessary like in iPod. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think we should go with the capitalization as the publisher has it on the book cover, which is Democracy: The God That Failed. Dick Clark 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If, as well as on its cover, the current capitaliz/sation is used on the title pages in the book, don't rename. David Kernow 05:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also capitalized that way (first letter of every word capitalized) on the title page. I can post a snapshot of that page if anyone is in doubt. Dick Clark 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep name per Dick. Regards, David 23:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per User:DickClarkMises. Intangible 15:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per my copy as well. -- RayBirks 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is "controversial" an injection of POV?[edit]

An edit today added the word "controversial" to the opening sentence of this article. Some would describe the book as "rigorously reasoned" rather than "controversial." Does this description belong? --RayBirks (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not POV as long as it's referenced, as it refers to the reception rather than the content. I'd be interested to learn more about how this book was received, though. Leushenko (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

The book is notable, perhaps even enough for its own page (though it was the remarks about gays, rather than the more substantive theoretical stuff about monarchy, that got most of the RS reaction). But I think the merits of a merge to the Hans-Hermann Hoppe page should be discussed. Steeletrap (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the DTGTF material we see in H-H H would be better presented in this article. E.g., this venue could present more of the controversial debate stuff and (perhaps) avoid balance problems in the main BLP. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sure all the neutral info would be purged if it was merged. CM-DC talk 16:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support It should be merged per WP:GNG unless more independent reliable sources are found and cited. Llll5032 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TFD re H-H H book invite[edit]

For editors who have interest in H-H H, I invite you to look at this TFD. – S. Rich (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]