Category talk:Non-fiction book stubs

This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting articles

Books Category‑class

	Books portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Untitled[edit]

Books like Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions should be moved to a different category. All political polemics engage in factual distortions, and there are clear differences between genuine, scholarly nonfiction books such as British Plant Communities and János Bolyai, Non-Euclidean Geometry, and the Nature of Space, and childish mudslinging like Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man or Unfit for Command, whose authors write things like "Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote 'gays in the military.' RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together". —Sesel wa 22:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New stub cat[edit]

Category:Political book stubs. Fill 'er up. Her Pegship 16:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pol books don't belong in 'non fiction'[edit]

i realize that book publ, distrib, and sellers have traditionally categorized pol books as nonfic, but most ppl know they are (overall) fiction (at best, they consist mostly of opinion).

so, i ask rhetorically: why can't wiki-p represent more accurately? Sesel (discusser above) is correct. i like pol humor, and believe it needs to be honestly categorized as such. (btw, it's just luck i chose to edit this page's discuss tab.) 2z2z 07:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]