Talk:List of controversial non-fiction books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of controversial non-fiction books article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Previous talk page is at Talk:Controversial book

Contents 1 VfD nomination 2 Science 3 Politics 4 Sociobiology 5 Bible 6 Pihkal 7 controversial vs controversially discussed 8 Explaining my culling of the page 9 A New Kind of Science 10 Additions made

[edit] VfD nomination

This article was recently nominated for deletion but kept by default of consensus not being reached. The archived discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of controversial non-fiction books -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science

There are a few books I think should be added to the philosophy of science section, but since there's a NPOV dispute in progress and I'm new to the Wikipedia community, I'll just list them here for someone more wikisavvy to update:

Karl Popper - "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"
Thomas Kuhn - "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
Paul Feyerabend - "Against Method"

Maybe something by Imre Lakatos too, but I don't know what. Some criteria that might be useful in determining whether a book is controversial enough to make the list is whether 1)it is widely read, or at least it's basic arguments are well known to those familiar with the issue 2)It is in direct conflict with other influential works, or established societal norms and has provoked a response 3)the debate has had an effect outside it's traditional feild (otherwise nearly all of philosophy would be included). I think these criteria would be useful in preventing minor works on controversial issues from making the list without being too restrictive. Please suggest revisions. Perhaps a significant response to the work should be cited for it to be elligible? --AAMiller 03:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add the Kuhn and Feyerabend books. I don't know how well known Popper is outside of philosophy. I also added Elaine Morgan's Descent of Woman to the evolution section. It could just as easily be in the Feminist section. I think it's more specific to put it in the evolution section, since that is what the book's thesis deals with, but I wouldn't mind if someone moved it to feminism, since it's the feminist motivations and interpretations which make the book most controversial. --AAMiller 00:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

I do not think that the books by Michael Moore and Al Franken deserve to be in the Politics Section alongside Machiavelli and Hitler !!

Moore's publisher almost dropped the book after 9/11 and was only published because of an outcry from librarians. Franken's book prompted a lawsuit from FOX news. As the page header states, the bar is a little lower for contemporary works, but these are certainly controversial. Perhaps there should be separate sections for 'Political Theory' and 'Contemporary Politics'? I think this would be appropriate since the content of the books doesn't really discuss politics on a 'meta' level in the way that many of the older books do.--AAMiller 01:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Separating contemporary books on politics sounds like a good idea. Political theory books, I would argue, will have much more longevity. Nowadays pretty much all books on contemporary politics are just picking fights. Evan Donovan 06:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sociobiology

E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" is a much more important and controversial work than Consilience. Neither are about philosophy of science though. "Sociobiology" could be in either the evolution or the sociology category, but it was the sociological implications that caused controversy, so I'm putting it there. The controversy was caused by people who misinterpreted his work as having philosophical implications. This could easily be misunderstood as philosophy of science, but it is most emphatically not.--AAMiller 16:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

I removed "Bible" from the Religion section because claiming that there is a particular "Bible" and calling it non-fiction are both actions which represent a non-neutral POV. Note that adding "Bible" to this list may equally well have been a totally well-meaning, religious action or a snarky act of vandalism; the effect either way is the same.-- DSatz July 2, 2005 10:32 (UTC)

[edit] Pihkal

Is there any reason for Shulgin's PiHKAL being listed here other than the fact that it covers drugs and drug use?

Yes, by publishing the book Shulgin also published the method by which about 150 psychoactive drugs could be synthesized. Subsequently a number of these drugs were indeed produced to be sold both legally and illegally for 'non-medical/research purposes', as in recreational, self-exploration, spiritual, etc. uses.193.67.113.2 10:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] controversial vs controversially discussed

The term controversial book in my opinion reads like an assertion that a book is being controversial per se, that it's identical with the controversy. I'd favor an expression like "controversially discussed book", as it makes a clear distinction between the book itself and the controversy surrounding it. That is because many books that are "controversial" (or banned) in one culture are far less controversial in another culture. And because some controversies are based on popular misconceptions or misrepresentation in other media. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As I received no rebuttal of my argumentation, I unilaterally decided to move the page. One-man-consensus, so to say. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining my culling of the page

I stumbled upon this page a couple of days ago and my eyes bled. The article title includes the word "controversially" but there weren't any references for why almost all the entries were in the list. And some of the books were red links. I thought about AFDing the page, but decided it would probably be kept. So the next step was being bold. I've gone through and written a little blurb for some of the entries, and deleted the rest. The choice of which books to write the blurbs for was completely random, though I did pick the "easy" ones -- ie ones where I understood the controversy. And now the call to arms -- I need others to finish the work. Make sure your favourite controversial book is in the list WITH A REASON. Evil Monkey - Hello 06:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, you may be right that it is a bit sloppy to just post names and leave it at that, but why is this such a problem? Isn't that how things are here on Wikipedia, that often people contribute small additions which others then carry on with? As you know, those red links are often the ones picked up on by people who happen to know something on the subect. No matter how small the additions are, you have removed other people's contributions. Is it your rule or a wikipedia rule that says that each entry must have a reason added? Lebanese blond 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the article contains the word "controversial" in the title, it is always going to be an NPOV problem. As such I thought it would be useful to have explanations of why each book is controversial. Even on books that did have articles, many had nothing in them to explain the controversy, which was part of the reason I thought there should be something here. My main problem was really the complete lack of references, for which there is a policy on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Thinking about it, perhaps a explanation for the controversy could leave this page bloated, but as you said, we can't just add books willy nilly. Of course, no one owns wikipedia articles, so you can just ignore me :-). Evil Monkey - Hello 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A New Kind of Science

Why is a New Kind of Science listed under cosmology? It seems science or math would be more accurate. Rm999 08:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It misplaced. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions made

I have added several pieces of text. More to the introcution, several titles, and an extra reference to one of the titles already listed. I intend to create a wikipedia article called "Error lists", and that is why I have inserted a link to this. I think this article on controversial books is useful, and especially that it may be turned into something more useful if more editing and more information is added. --Kåre Fog (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a page called Wikipedia:List of errors which deals with error lists as a tool to clarify issues treated by controversial books. I also hope that someone will support my suggestion that such error lists should be acceptable as references in Wikipedia articles. Error lists exist for many of the controversial books listed above, but if there is a policy not to accept them as references, no readers will be aware that they exist. --Kåre Fog (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)