Talk:Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science

message: I removed all but the list item itself from the following list entry:
:* Organic farming, whose leader is dismissed in the "Food Faddists" chapter as a self-publisher who is "even more extreme than the vegetarians"
I removed it because it's deceptively phrased and is likely to create a false impression.  The quote in context shows that Gardner is not referring to all vegetarians, but rather to vegetarians who have created pseudo-scientific theories on the harm done by eating meat, which have to do with meat creating "necrones" in the body.  And while Gardner does not give much credence to the organic farming theories of Jerome Irving Rodale, the context in which he actually says that Rodale is "even more extreme than the vegetarians" is in discussing Rodale's theories on the supposed dangers of eating one's food cooked. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organic farming

message: There's a line in the article that reads "Charles Fort's magazine Fortean Times is still popular, and still even more skeptical than Gardner himself". Is it just me or is this a bit POV?
: Also a bit bizaare given what sort of material is normally in the Fortean Times. JoshuaZ 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fortean Times

message: After your allegation that 'indeed' was POV, I browsed the MoS, but the closest I could come was WP:OPED, which does not quite cover the sentiment.  I used the word to keep the flow of the text going, which means I used it as a rhetorical device, but I don't see how it could insinuate POV.  Please enlighten me. Hpvpp (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your form of words was "Indeed, as Michael Shermer says: ..." which clearly implies agreement with what he says. It should be quoted just as Shermer's opinion, not wikipedia's. We don't need to get hung up about the meaning of the word "indeed" in isolation. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Hpvpp (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This subsection was moved by SamuelTheGost from his personal talk-page.  The main section continues below. Hpvpp (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. What's the point of arguing for the sake of arguing? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, you were "misrepresenting" what you'd said. Don't do that William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  alleged POV words 

message: Before I am blocked as part of the continuing campaign for junk science in Wikipedia, here is the basis of the dispute.  If we are to have criticism of an author or his work, the criticism must be of something that the author has claimed or stated in the work.  The criticism I have removed (by Kodish) is that Gardner is judging theories on the basis of psychological criteria.  This is incorrect.  I have re-read the relevant parts of Gardner's book, and he nowhere makes that claim. In the introduction, he says he will confine himself, 'except in a few cases', only with theories so close to 'almost certainly false' that there is no reasonable doubt about their worthlessness'.  He also is not claiming that there are psychological or behavioural 'criteria' by which we can determine the validity of a scientific theory by reference to its author. That would be clearly wrong.  He is giving 'common characteristics' of cranks.
Note also that the article itself is mistaken about what Gardner actually says.  It is misleading to say that "[Gardner] goes on to list five common characteristics of pseudo-scientists."  What Gardner gives is TWO characteristics.  The first is that they work in total isolation from their colleagues.  The second is that he/she has a tendency to paranoia.  He then gives 5 ways in which the paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited (which are the same 5 mentioned in the article, in the wrong context). Peter Damian VII (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I have made the necessary correction  mentioned above (two main characteristics, not 5, with five sub-characteristics of the second main characteristic, i.e. paranoia).  This is likely to be reverted when I am blocked.  Could anyone with access to the book please read it carefully and unrevert (and then hopefully they will be blocked for helping a banned user, what fun).  Peter Damian VII (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted 'HelloAnyongs' absurd changes.  Can we please address some genuine issues about this article rather than the politics of Wikipedia.  ThanksPeter Damian VIII (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current dispute 

message: Thank you for restoring worthwhile contributions that improve this page.  --mikeu talk 05:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  restored content 

message: Colin Wilson has a wikipedia article, so any argument against him based on notability is automatically invalid without even having to bother to argue it. And the due weight argument is also silly. Up above, WMC asked what made this review important. The answer is that it is being made by a clear critic of the subject (anti-pseudoscience) and thus is important to show that viewpoint. Saying that his criticism is giving undue weight is saying that any critical reception whatsoever is giving undue weight and I don't think we're arguing to remove all critical reception sections on all the articles on Wikipedia. I note that none of you have said anything about the positive reviews, which is hilarious, because it clearly shows the bias here. SilverserenC 11:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one is arguing against CW's notability, by wikipedia standards. But having a wiki article about you does not make your criticism notable, nor does it automatically entitle your words to appear on wiki. I have a wiki article about me (William Connolley) but just because I say "Colin Wilson's words are not worth reading on this subject" doesn't mean *my* words should appear, either. Please drop the spurious arguments and use real ones instead William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin Wilson works within the field of study that is being critiqued by this work, and is notable, thus it seems to me that he would be the perfect critique to have in the article from someone on the other side of this work. We already have comments in the article that I added as well that are on the skeptic side. CW's critique is to show both sides of the argument. SilverserenC 15:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since WMC outed himself, above, we can read a bit about him. It would be interesting to known what he, as an official Green, thinks about Gardner's attack on organic farming, and whether he'd propose the exclusion from this article of opinion from organic farming advocates. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point in referring to that page was to make it clear that being notable doesn't give your views automatic inclusion. You appear to be asking me for my views, as a Notable Person (if you aren't doing so, then please clarify your remarks). I will give you my views, if you wish, but only if you are prepared to make use of those views. If you aren't prepared to use them (and you don't get to know in advance what they are, or on exactly what subject) then it would be better for you not to ask for them, as a Notable Person, but merely as a wikipedian. In which case, my user talk page is open William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop removing a valid review 

message: I removed the chapter listing from the article.  It seemed weird to have all the chapters listed and I checked a couple other featured articles on books (The Slave Community, Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Country Wife) and none of them have chapter listings.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The other articles aren't comparable; note especially that the last two you list are fiction. In the present case the chapter headings are helpful in describing the book's specific coverage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example of a high level article that is formatted the same way? SilverserenC 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SBHB: You can check yourself.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the listed books are remotely similar in structure or content to the present one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, none of the WP:FA on books has a chapter listing.  And this book is different because? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You really see no difference at all between this book and, say, Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Really? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I asked you to articulate why this book is different. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the good old "I asked you first!" game. For a start, it isn't a novel. Your turn... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my reason for removing it in the OP of this thread.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And I refuted that reason by stating that the examples cited are irrelevant to the present case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You said that this book was different than all the other books that have featured articles about them.  I asked how this book is different and I have not yet received answer.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not yet received answer. That is simply untrue. I already mentioned that it is not a novel. I am attempting to engage in constructive, cooperative debate but it is difficult in the face of continued intransigence and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Typing a reply is not the same thing as answering a question.  The very first book I mentioned, The Slave Community, is not a novel.  Can you please explain why this book is different?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with that, though we should probably make a themes section or add a paragraph to the summary section that discusses the main subjects that the book focuses on. SilverserenC 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As AQFK has left it, practically the whole of the article is about chapter 1. "Weird" has been replaced by very much weirder. Comparison with other articles should be restricted to articles about books that themselves have a similar structure. If there is some better way of doing justice to the contents of the rest of the book, that's fine, but just deleting it all isn't very constructive. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think a themes section would be the best way to deal with it. SilverserenC 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Silver's suggestion is the right approach.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good approach. If you can list themes without engaging in WP:OR. If. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted AQFK's edit, because the article is under heavy discussion and such a removal should have been proposed on the talk-page first. Hpvpp (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The chapter listing is significant, because it informs the reader which pseudo-sciences are being discussed.  The overall theme is probably given in the preceding sections and could perhaps be stated explicitly, though I doubt if that would improve the article much. Considering other books that have chapter listings, check out the various books of Aristotle in the Corpus Aristotelicum. Hpvpp (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Corpus Aristotelicum is a start class article like this one. We were asking for an example of a higher level article that uses a chapter listing, such as a GA or FA class book article. We have yet to find one, which indicates that such formatting is deprecated. The common practice is to represent such listings instead with a themes section that discusses the major subjects of the work. SilverserenC 18:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We have yet to find one, which indicates that such formatting is deprecated. That's strictly your own interpretation. Can you find a clear statement regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of chapter listings? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can and it only took a few seconds to find it.  WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article states that chapter listings should be avoided.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have misrepresented the text at WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article -- it says "avoid if you can convey this in the synopsis" (emphasis added). Are the contents adequately conveyed in the synopsis?  Can they be adequately conveyed without listing the individual chapters, whether in tabular form or as a running narrative? I'm not convinced, but am open to alternative formulations. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we can include this information in the synopsis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for doing this.  The annotation is what makes or breaks it in terms of encyclopedic content. Since two people agree that makes it consensus, right? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that this discussion is a bit surreal.  The guidelines at WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article are pretty clear and the fact that no one can produce a single featured article that violates them speaks for itself.  I've been assured that this book is somehow different from all the others, yet no one can explain why.  This should have been a routine change, but it's not.  What's going on here?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, what is going on here is part of the war on pseudoscience. Hpvpp (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, the above comment made me laugh and also revealed your own advocacy. SilverserenC 15:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I take offense at this post. As for my position, that should be clear from my user-page. Hpvpp (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if what I said was offensive. But, to call this discussion a "war on pseudoscience"...don't you think that's a little bit of an exaggeration? Or...not even accurate at all? SilverserenC 05:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: None of us are calling for a perpetual removal of the information, we're just discussing the proper way to present it. For example, I am thinking that the information would be better presented as prose in a Themes section, while others think it would be better presented as prose in the Summary section, which needs restructuring anyways. No other book article that is of a high level (GA or FA) has a chapter listing section and, if we want to improve this article, something needs to change with said section in this article. SilverserenC 02:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The best thing for us to do then would be to go and start a discussion on Wikiproject Books to see what they think about chapter listings. SilverserenC 07:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that the phrase "Unless the list has encyclopedic value ..." qualifies what they say there. "Fads and Fallacies" isn't structurally like a normal book, in that after the introduction the remaining chapters are each like separate essays. It could easily be reorganised to put the subjects into alphabetic order and called an encyclopedia. We need to look for comparisons with articles about books which are similar in that respect. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate essays? You mean sorta like Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass, the GA article I wrote? SilverserenC 11:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To some extent yes, but there are differences. Gardner's book is full of references to particular movements and particular people, most of which and of whom have articles in wikipedia. Our readers are best served by retaining these names and the corresponding links which are there in the chapter listing. To do this while going over to a style of continuous prose, rather than the current note form, will cause the material to lengthen substantially, which is perhaps acceptable. Then since this article has attracted a lot of conflicting views, it is going to be hard to get consensus where descriptions are fuller. Which I suppose is not a reason against trying.--SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Rather than starting a discussion at Wikiproject Books why don't you ask for help there?  Then, bringing this article up to GA status would effectively be creating the standard for however you want to classify this book. Meanwhile, I have requested an assessment (here) so let's wait with any further edits until we get the result. Hpvpp (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter listing 

message: Should we be using the word 'crank' in Wikipedia's voice?  It doesn't sound very encyclopedic or professional.  Is there another term we can use?  Or perhaps we can word things differently?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that the word is in Gardner's voice, not Wikipedia's. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All uses of crank in the article should be in quotation marks, since it is neither a professional nor an encyclopedia word. Currently, there is one use of it that is in quotation marks and six uses that are not. This needs to be rectified. SilverserenC 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary after the first such usage within the same block of material, unless the goal is to imply skepticism toward Gardner's views. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The subsequent, continuous usage of it makes it seem like it is a word that Wikipedia is advocating. Truthfully, four of those six uses in the article are unnecessary and could be replaced with a different term. That would probably be better. SilverserenC 19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems WP:LABEL would apply.  Value-laden labels are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'crank' in Wikipedia's voice 

message: I'm reverting the See also link to Baloney detection kit because it has no relevance to the article. Gardner's criteria are quite different from those that Sagan suggests. (Sagan's are better.) SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the link then be useful if it were presented with some context, rather than a See Also, and explaining what this difference was? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, if the comparison could be sourced, but otherwise we'd be open to the accusation of WP:OR. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Putting it in as a reference to the book is different, and perhaps more justifiable. But it's interesting that although Sagan in his book acknowledges Gardner as a source of inspiration and help he never mentions Fads and Fallacies. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

text: And if Sagan, why not also the books by Robert L. Park, Donna Kossy, Christopher Evans etc.? Ed Regis, Michael Shermer and Louis Lasagna are already mentioned, but not specifically itemised as authors of books on the same topic. I think the sensible approach would be to name those authors who themselves acknowledge Fads and Fallacies as their spiritual ancestor, but not others. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  why not also the books by Robert L. Park - dunno, which books do you mean? But anyway, WP:NOTPERFECT applies William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Voodoo science, Kooks and Strange Creations, Cults of Unreason for those three authors respectively. And I repeat that we need to adopt a  sensible, and reasonably consistent approach. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would seem reasonable to link those two with articles William M. Connolley (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, not worth further argument, anyway. I wouldn't revert that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baloney detection kit 

message: A disagreement has broken out about whether to say "what it described as pseudosciences and cult beliefs" or just "pseudosciences and cult beliefs", The latter clearly inplies that every topic in the book is, objectively, a pseudoscience or cult belief. This is obviously a question of POV. I really can't see any way this can honestly be disputed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wording adds unnecessary editorializing based on preconceived notions. What is your source? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The front cover has "The curious theories of modern pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing and alarming cults that surround them. A sudy in human gullibility". That wording must be Gardner's own, or his publisher's with his consent. So clearly we can use those words in a way which attributes them to him or his publisher. What we cannot do is use those words, or words like them, as unconditional description of the book's subjects, since that is a POV matter. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Sure we can. He's a reliable source for it. You are making attributions when no source does it. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that a book can be used as a WP:RS for the accuracy of its own content? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "what it described as"