Talk:The Paranoid Style in American Politics

message: Don't know if anyone will ever find their way to this page, but I've started it up... Comments? Anyone? Bueller? MastCell 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's up with the writely link? Is the text the same as here? Tom Harrison Talk 01:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it... MastCell 03:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: notability?? reliable sources?? seriously, we have an article on a single op-ed? Bonewah (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting up 

message: The Sunday Edition did a piece this morning on modern recurrence of the essay's themes; this link is not currently valid, but it will be as of next week (check the timestamp on this message). Think it'd be a useful source? DS (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's up; there's a link so you can listen to a stream of the show. The relevant section is in the first hour. DS (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBC 

message: I changed the name "Reviews" to "Legacy" and added a reference to a couple of relatively recent articles citing Hofstader. I will be back to expand this section, as Hofstader still gets mentioned and discussed frequently and the article would benefit from more information on how influential the essay has been.
I moved "Historical Applications" above "Legacy" but think the section is garbled and redundant. It mentions two viewpoints but doesn't explain what the second one is, and covers some of the same material as the preceding paragraphs. I think any unique content in this section could be merged into earlier ones. The whole article has quotes from the essay which are perhaps a little too extensive and could use some shortening, paraphrasing and more secondary sources as well. Your thoughts and comments please. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sections: Reviews and Historical Applications 

message: I removed the OR added by Rjensen and restored a previous good version. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of OR 

message: I am expanding this section, in order to provide more recent examples of where this application was initially applied incorrectly. This is not so much a criticism of Hofstadter's methods or a takeoff on conspiracy theory, but rather actual documented instances where Hofstadter was incorrect in his thinking and in his theoretical work, or where those who applied Hofstadter's theories were incorrect. 10stone5 (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy section

message: I came here to see what the content of the essay was, and came away knowing nothing about it, but plenty about its applications and legacy. 76.119.114.192 (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I came here to say that the article should include a section simply stating a clear summary of the content of the essay. JohnMason (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neither an administrator nor editor for this article, but if the subject of the article is considered a primary source, then WP:RSPRIMARY (as you're undoubtedly aware). That stated, a synopsis section is almost required, WP:SS, so I retitled the "Historical themes" section as "Synopsis and themes" with an "empty section" or "section needs expansion" (?) heads-up for users. I'm sure someone out there will put it at the top of their priority list. If anyone has an additional recourse or resolution, fire away. Bustamove1 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the essay actually say?