Talk:Rules for Radicals

message: Why does it say "(Communists)" the title is "Rules for Radicals" not communists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.164.30 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for idiots like me who waste time trying to spot the difference, it is Pragmatic v. Practical --Rumping (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtitle

message: Why is "The Prince" a related item?
-John
Because both the Prince and the Rules of Radicals deal with realpolitik political tactics. 207.191.204.56 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince

message: I am shocked to find that there is not a single reference to this book being dedicated to the devil!  There's no mention of it in Alinski's personal page, either!  Coincidence?  Highly doubtful!
Don't you think this fact is noteworthy?  I do.  At the very least, it's interesting that someone would include a quote from Playboy about the man willfully electing to spend eternity in Hell (since the quote about siding with the have-nots in Hell is, what?  Saintly?)  But then, amazingly, they happen to neglect to mention the fact that the work Alinski's most remembered for was dedicated by the author to Lucifer in the opening pages!
A fact is a fact, and those trying to paper over it are trying to hide the truth!  Let's just call this what it is, shall we?: a whitewash of an inconvenient truth by his obviously uncomfortable liberal supporters.  Thanks122.25.227.230 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Dwall's reply at Talk:Saul Alinsky. Rostz (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The stupidity and hypocrisy of right wing ideologues never ceases to impress me. And the book was not dedicated to the devil. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rules for Radicals was not dedicated to Lucifer; it was dedicated to Irene, Alinsky's third wife.  On the page following the dedication are three epigraphs, from Rabbi Hillel, Thomas Paine, and the third from Alinsky himself.  In this third epigraph, which Alinsky describes as an "over-the-shoulder acknowledgement" (not a dedication), he characterizes Lucifer as "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively he at least won his own kingdom."  As neo-conservative historian Ronald Radosh wrote in "Saul Alinsky: A Complicated Radical,"  in the August 11, 2010 issue of National Review Online, Alinsky's reference to Lucifer was done "clearly facetiously" and "tongue-in-cheek."  This is a bogus controversy with little underlying significance, except to highlight Alinsky's quirky sense of humor. Dwalls (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

text: See the Radosh review  at . Dwalls (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alinski's Book Is Dedicated to "Lucifer," so why not mention it?? 

message: A few of the rules were misquoted (though I only have access to the 1989 edition, not sure if anything changed from the first edition). Also I removed the subjective paraphrasing of the rules that are not in the book, which seem to have originated from a newsletter in 2000. They have since crept into many later publications as being from the book itself. If it's not a copyright issue, we could include the book's actual paraphrasing of it's own rules.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.111.179 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rules