Talk:The Assault on Reason

Removing Reason (magazine)

User:The Enlightened has been removing [1] [2] the review by this periodical from the article, citing that it is not notable enough to be mentioned here. I would say that if it's notable enough to have an article, it's plenty notable to be mentioned here. The magazine has a circulation of around 60,000 and has been named among the U.S.'s top 50 magazines. This sounds fine to me, and I would ask other editors' opinions on whether it deserves inclusion or not. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

One publication (i.e. the Chicago Tribune) named Reason among the US's 50 best magazines, noting that it has a circulation of around 40,000[3]. I do not feel strongly whether the review should be included or not. 138.192.140.22 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is notable enough to have an article, than it should be there. I think a consensus has been reached. --haha169 (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Misprint?

"for being so complacent in the process". Does the article mean that, or does it mean 'complicit'? Generally if you are 'complacent' you are not in the process. 199.71.183.2 14:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Limited reviews - and only reviews

The article consists almost solely of book reviews, many of them negative and unsourced. The reviews themselves are mainly visceral reaction and not engagement with the contents of the book. By the way, the article also includes very little discussion of the contents of the book.

Moreover, the reviews are taken from a very limited segment of mainstream American media. An interested editor needs to add reviews from other publications, or better, to remove most or all of the review discourse and replace it with text that engages with the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.231.225 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and the reviews overlook his one-side focus on bashing the Bush administration of 2001-2009 and his questionable use of the climate change controversy as a primary case in point. Uncle Ed (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• So, what is the point of his book? That we American have dumbed down the human faculty of reason? And that (unlike Democrats) Republicans like George Bush Jr are leading us by our noses like cattle? I think I'd like the book better if it gave examples of both major parties violated the "rules" that Gore sets forth - instead of accusing only Republicans of "assaulting reason". --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Balance of reviews vs. no reviews at all

R. Fiend had deleted all the reviews (with the comment "done"), but I think the article is better with a balance of negative reviews and a few positive reviews. At some point, I'd like to summarize the reviews or digest their information into substantive information about the book's contents. Who wants to help? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

= There are many positive, negative, neutral, and bogus reviews of the book to be found at the Barnes and Nobel site, Amazon-dot-com, and elsewhere. What is the point of adding a few of them here? How does someone (editor) select which to add? --Desertphile (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete link removed

"commonsense2.com" is parked at a Cyber Squatter host, where it is for sale.

http://commonsense2.com/2008/02/book-reviews/the-assault-on-reason-a-review-of-al-gores-book/ A Critical Review by Timothy Bossard

I tried to find another copy of the propaganda and just change the URL, but Google's first 5 pages didn't show anything like what the broken URL might have linked to. --Desertphile (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)