Talk:Democracy: The God That Failed

Untitled

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)

Requested move

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)

Survey and discussion

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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

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

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?

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)

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)

Merge?

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)

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)

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

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)

TFD re H-H H book invite

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)