Talk:John T. Flynn

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

Untitled[edit]

I don't think that you can be a "classical liberal" and a "paleoconservative" at the same time. Perhaps whoever chose the latter was looking for "neoconservative", which is very different. I don't think there's any argument that Flynn was a "classical liberal" though. James James 03:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I work at an institution that is often described using both terms. Paleocons arguably borrowed from the earlier classical liberals with regards to economic liberalism (free markets). Both labels are frequently applied to libertarians, and Flynn was pretty close to qualifying for that moniker. Dick Clark 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bothered by writing like this: "In 1944, he wrote a classic and prophetic critique of the American drift toward statism...." which seems pretty blatantly POV. We should provide a summary of the book, not endorse its message. --Christofurio (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who appreciates Flynn's book and agrees with the characterization of it, this seems like a fair point to me – the language does seem unfairly biased in favor. I wish more Wikipedia editors would show similar concern over articles that are full of left-wing or pro-establishment bias. Starchild (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks like the foregoing problem has been fixed, but speaking of POV, this: "The Pearl Harbor 'they let it happen' thesis would remain on the far fringes of FDR-hating right-wing fanatics until suspicions of a similar plot in 9/11 brought it back to attention and, in fact, plausibility." really? in fact? I don't think so. Clocke (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John T. Flynn. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]