Talk:The Way of the World (book)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal[edit]

The article "White House Iraq-War forgery allegations" is entirely about this book and response to it, as are all of the cited sources. For that reason, I believe it should be merged here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it ought to be merged. Evening Scribe (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information is better suited to Habbush letter. — eon, 10:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Every source in the article refers to the book. The article refers to the book and responses to it. There is reference to the book at Habbush letter, which is sufficient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. All three things will be disctinct article subjects as they become fleshed out. The article about the book will be about... a book, and any bearing it has on this scandal if it bears out. The article about the letter will remain significant, as it has been a stand alone article with a significant history predating the book, or knowledge of an alleged scandal. Meanwhile, the alleged forgery true or false will develop a history of its own, triggered by allegations in the book based on the history of the letter. Now, at some point we may merge the scandal and the letter, but the book will remain distinct from the other two. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an issue of eventualism, as this is not a deletion debate and a separate article can always be developed. It's simply a matter that so far as I can tell everything in that article at this point is already connected to the book and should for that reason better be included here. Do you see anything at White House Iraq-War forgery allegations that is not better included here? Any source or information that is not related to this book? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the title 'White House Iraq-War forgery allegations' is a good choice for an article specifically about this subject - as I'm sure you know, there have been other Iraq war forgery allegations e.g. the Niger Uranium documents (which are a different set of documents). I would say that the article 'Habbush letter' should remain, as people should be able to look up information on that independent of the book, whose allegations may be proved or disproved in the time to come.--Lopakhin (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Moon is right that the material in the allegations article 'points to' the book (hence the article). But the allegations article link should go to Habbush letter, and the material in the article can go to the book article. Moon should be satisfied. Issue solved - No dilemma. -Zahd (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's going to be merged, though, it has to be merged by the procedure at Help:Merge. :) Also, it would be good to be sure that there's consensus, since not everyone has agreed to that resolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone on ahead and completed the merge since it was started. If there is significant opposition, it can, of course, easily be undone. Again, it's not about the question of whether or not an article should be on any of these topics, but only of whether the contents of White House Iraq-War forgery allegations as it was were better suited to the book article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Weapons of Mass Destruction and Other Imaginative Acts"[edit]

New York Times reported[1]:

Yet another scandal-whether in the business, economical, or in the political arena! I wonder why people put so much of their intelligence and mind towards committing scandals, crimes, and other wrong-doings when they ultimately get caught, whether the scandal was small or big, intelligently-executed or not. Even if they don't get caught, people become against them and they create enemies. Don't you think that these people like politicians, businessmen, etc. caught in scandals could have put their intelligence to better use by doing something productive for society rather than harming it? Economies worldwide would be booming today, rather than going bust, only if everything had been well-planned meticulously because we've made so much progress since even the beginning of 20th century. And still people, at all levels, commit crimes! Why?

When science and technology has enabled us to such a stage that we can all work together and enjoy the fruits of our work peacefully and progress as well (economically, morally, and technologically), why are some of us (yes, these alleged criminals are humans too, whether presidents, senators or not) lay more attention towards harming others? Literally, about all the ills in the world today are caused due to human lust, greed, impatience, and laziness, and they would be away in a minute if all of us started behaving like humans co-operating and helping each other, rather than harming each other. Our ancestors did so much hard-work just to make sure that their progenies live happily and progress, and still most of us are misusing our assets at some level, misusing the trust that even Fathers of our Nation bestowed upon us. Even Iraq War misappropriations of billions of dollars are similarly related. Even Abu Ghraib prison abuse shows that some of us lack love for our fellow brothers and sisters.

I believe that it's all because today all the people lay more attention towards getting money, than towards creating assets. They don't seem to understand that money will only get transferred from one hand to another, whereas assets created through hard-work and intelligence will stand there forever (just think about the Statue of Liberty or the Pyramids of Egypt that are still standing there even after more than 200 and 2000 years respectively)! Only if people could understand that our work is not a burden that we've to put on others through money but a responsibility that we have to do together, could this world become a better place. Otherwise, disasters are on their way as the world globally is experiencing. --Bugnot (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/books/27danner.html

Book reviews[edit]

Possibly too much? Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Way of the World (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Discuss please? This is so npov it is a joke

Lets start with this: The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism is a 2008 non-fiction book by Ron Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, describing various actions and policies of the George W. Bush administration. Most notably, it alleges that the Bush administration ordered the forgery of the Habbush letter to implicate Iraq as having ties to al Qaeda and the organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The book, published on August 5, 2008, by Harper, met mixed reviews but received considerable media attention and created controversy. Anticipation of the commercial success of the book was high, with The Wall Street Journal reporting that it was the "biggest release" of a crop of late-summer "big titles"

  • not important that the author won an award
  • he isn't "describing" any actions at all, he is "claiming" they took place
  • Reviews weren't mixed, they were 90% bad
  • Commercial success "before" it was published is not relevant at all as it has now been published!!

NINE CHERRY PICKED REVIEWS WITH CHERRY PICKED PARTS ABOUT A BOOK THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL!! Now that is overkill. Even classics dont have these many hand picked reviews. I will balance this section out in the next 2 days

Reviews[edit]

Please do not insert apparent reviews with no links or dead links, not allowed by wiki and npov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:20E:E800:90EE:6EA0:ACF:EA24 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Way_of_the_World_(book)&oldid=1205676617"