Talk:An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:AnEndToEvil.jpg edit
Image:AnEndToEvil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What's with the spelling mistakes in the second quote? I see no (sic) anywhere, so I can only assume it's not an exact quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.33.185.8 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
POV edit
This book has been highly criticized in the RS. So much so in fact that one of the authors has found it necessary to write an entire article dedicated to its criticisms. The wikipedia article is in effect promotional material for the book. It includes a few token praise for the book (from a colleague of one of the authors with a clear conflict of interest, without even mentioning any of it) and it actually includes the author's rebuttal to their many critics, without actually including any criticism whatsoever. I have put a POV tag for this reason. Poyani (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Requested move 11 September 2018 edit
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 05:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
An End to Evil → An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror – WP:SUBTITLE is just a guideline, not a policy. Per WP:COMMONNAME, seems original name is a common name Hhkohh (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support/Restore pre 9 September 2018 (AlexTheWhovian moved page Talk:An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror to Talk:An End to Evil without leaving a redirect: WP:RM/TR) these truncated title rarely if ever serve the reader. Also note that a technical restore could have been used here rather than using a full RM starting from the wrong end. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support Another case of the IP editor seeking to undertake a controversial move without discussion after misinterpreting the spirit of WP:SUBTITLE. The original title was more unambiguous and also the WP:COMMONNAME. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I see no issue with the initial requested move, and it abides by the given guideline. Seems to be a case of editors not liking the IP editor, based only on the facts that they are solely an IP and that they are abiding by guidelines. -- AlexTW 04:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Again? It is really not on to copy paste on multiple Restore RMs starting from the wrong end a blanket accusation of bad faith. I assume none of those who are objecting to the IP's mass TRs have any previous dealings with him/her. The issue is clearly bulk misinterpretation of a guideline against following a policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- It would seem that the book guideline established a local consensus and wrongly stated (assuming a simple good faith mistake) that other forms of media do the same (
Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name
) - which is just wrong. Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America: Civil War, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Flintstones: Jogging Fever, Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun, Command & Conquer: Red Alert, Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge, Young Lust: The Aerosmith Anthology, Tough Love: Best of the Ballads. --Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC) - I would agree with that @Gonnym: and I think part of the problem is the selection of a disproportionate group of classic older texts as examples in the books guideline. The guideline needs editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- It would seem that the book guideline established a local consensus and wrongly stated (assuming a simple good faith mistake) that other forms of media do the same (
- Again? It is really not on to copy paste on multiple Restore RMs starting from the wrong end a blanket accusation of bad faith. I assume none of those who are objecting to the IP's mass TRs have any previous dealings with him/her. The issue is clearly bulk misinterpretation of a guideline against following a policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Unsure. I see this one as somewhat problematical so far as reader experience goes. The current (shorter) title is quite recognisable IMO, perhaps even more so than the proposed (longer) title, but procedural considerations favour restoring the long-standing name. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - per nom. That guideline is based on false assumptions that all media does that, which in fact they do not. Also, please note that the name was changed to the shorter version without discussion so in case of a no-consensus the title should be restored to the former name. --Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - after 10 minutes of searching I could not find a single source that references this book without the subtitle. Clearly the name by which this subject is most commonly known includes the subtitle. That said I don't see anything necessarily wrong with the initial technical request to move to the shorter title (reasonable, per WP:SUBTITLE/WP:CONCISE), and subsequent move. So I think we do need to show consensus to override that guidance in this case per WP:COMMONNAME. --В²C ☎ 19:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.