Talk:William S. Lind

message: Should there be any mention of him favouring monarchies for the west? Purpleslog 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Favouring monarchies!?

message: This comment seems a little suspicious and a bit out of place:
:"Like most of the Bush administration, he has no real military experience, and has never served in the US Armed Forces."
First of all, what does the Bush administration have to do with Lind? Is he a member of the Bush administration? Secondly, it is not relevant to the section of the article I found it in. Finally, this sounds like a classical chickenhawk argument. Yes he never stuck his hand in a pile of goo that was a moment ago, his friend's face but the military seems to take his word. He does give lectures for Israeli military academies after all, and those people don't screw around when it comes to their national defense.72.195.158.95 18:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chickenhawk argument?

message: I have not heard of this, but I'm not all that knowledgeable on Lind. If you have sources to back this up, you should add that information to the article and in greater detail.72.195.158.95 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think evaluating Lind's writing might be a violation of Wikipedia guidelines on the use of Primary sources here: Wikipedia:No original research, another source on Lind's political beliefs should be found. KAM 14:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a a criticism  by Thomas E. Ricks [] KAM 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Southern Poverty Law Center has some criticism as well KAM 03:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarchies? Coup?

message: 'He is a self-proclaimed Communist and particularly admires Stalin.[5][6]'
He is a self-proclaimed monarchist, and particularly admires Wilhelm.
Check the sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.203.8 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He does seem to have some articles Wilhelm Reich here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.86.130 (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchist, not communist 

message: User:TMDrew I request comment from you as to why you reverted my edits found in this previous version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_S._Lind&action=edit&oldid=637849691&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro
As you can see I clearly referenced all my changes, added bibliographic information to other users references, and removed content that had failed verification. Seeing as I only ever quoted the subject verbatim I feel your reversion was unfair, and in fact ideologically driven on your part (actively denying/censoring the truth) rather than on my part (as I used appropriate references quoting Lind in his own words).
Please comment below.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.86.130 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:TMDrew Please stop edit warring with me. If you're going to make reversions, cite actual reasons after checking the references I've added (they're all legitimate and substantially relevant to the topic). I've now contacted you on your talk page, in my edit/reversion summaries, and on the talk page of this article. My edits are in good faith (like I said, check the references) and if your persist in warring I'll have to report you as per wikipedia's policy. Consider this notification of that fact.
--60.241.86.130 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hilarious. Lind has a Master's in history from Princeton, and you put in the lead that he is a non-academic. You use the page to advocate for the idea that Cultural Marxism is an invention by the right, and turn the article into a hatchet job. No way will I ever let this stand. And I doubt that the Wikipedia admins will be all that sympathetic with a single-purpose IP address.--TMD Talk Page. 16:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, you're quite right, I didn't notice that (as I was thinking in terms of academia for political qualifications). I'll make the necessary corrections now. Feel free to mention anything else you feel is a problem with my edits. Thank you for responding. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  TMDrew policing this page 

message: Wow this article is bad, I don't even know the guy, I'm not from the US but I get he's an usual guest to talk about politics, but this merely looks like an attack page for him being conservative. I'm the last guy that would defend a conservative, but most of the lede seems to be made to ridiculize him, like quoting him on saying "Lind has publicly stated that 'Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS'", is that relevant for a lede? And this is sourced from an editorial by him, who judged the relevance?
Aside from this I can figure out that the main writer of this didn't know much Wikipedia since all sources have a space before the last word and there's a lot of formatting errors like having two double spaces between sections. Also is pundit the correct way of labeling someone? Excuse my language barriers but I'm fairly certain pundit is a derogatory term. Loganmac (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to stop the page from becoming like this, but it was mainly and editor at -60.241.86.130 who has turned the page into a hatchet job. I am in agreement with you on this.--TMD Talk Page. 03:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  https://www.traditionalright.com/victoria/ -The book exists, was written by him (claiming to be the same Thomas Hobbes who's been dead for over three hundred years), most of it may be read online, and is far, FAR more crazy than that little summary would indicate. This is a book that opens with the burning alive of an elderly clergywoman, and treats this action as laudable and even heroic. No one is hatchet-jobbing anyone. This man is crazy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.27.63 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Firstly, read the thing. He does take sides. He refers to burning a churchwoman (and other, far worse acts by his protagonists) as "the right thing". Secondly, he does not use Thomas Hobbes as a mere psuedonym; he has referred to "Leviathan" and "Victoria" as being two books by the same author.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.27.63 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just my two cents 

message: Can we get a neutral and verifiable citation for the claim that he is an "expert" on light rail? All three of the citations are from books that the author wrote himself! You can't cite the person making the claim of expertiseNothing-Significant-to-Report (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps changing the wording might be a better way to go. Aficionado perhaps? Enthusiast? I'll put enthusiast for now, but more apt suggestions/changes are welcome. --Jobrot (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Changing wording isn't the solution. The solution is to use the words used by a reliable 3rd party source. Ashmoo (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for "light rail" expertise 

message: You're misundertanding Lind. He doesn't say that marx invented Political correctness. He says that marx is behind PC because the ones who invented that were marxists but he says that cultural marxists contradict him in several points. He says that marx is the one that is behind because political correctness is cultural marxism which is a new form of marxism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.108.108.145 (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Give us a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is the one you put in the article. http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm I was only saying that the article is a wrong interpretation of what Lind has written. He never says that Marx is behind politcal correctness in the sense that he invented that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.108.108.145 (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx 

message: This article is still pretty bad and very difficult to comprehend. The main problem is that almost of the sources are primary. For example, the source for identifying him as the author of the 4th generation war theory is a link directly to an article that he wrote about it. This is not the source wikipedia expects. We need a 3rd party who identifies him as such. This helps us establish notability and ensures that the article isn't just a puff piece from himself, or an attack piece by his detractors. As it is the article doesn't make it clear whether he is a respected author or just a loon on the internet. The lede is almost all primary source links to videos, which is just about the worst source possible. Ashmoo (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is still bad