Talk:M. Lamar Keene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M. Lamar Keene 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

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Flim-Flam 2 Category change 3 Merge 4 New article idea

[edit] Flim-Flam

Flim-Flam says that he was shot in the midsection and was recuperating after a long hospital stay. Randi's Encyclopedia says that the rifle shot missed him. I don't know which is right, but perhaps "missed" means "missed killing him". On the other hand, the encyclopedia is more recent. In Flim-Flam Randi says that he interviewed him. Bubba73 (talk), 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

It has been suggested that True-believer syndrome be merged here, as the page doesn't really have any sources.

• Agree, Google query returns few hits, most of them refer to Keene. Article lacks content and notability outside the scope of Keene. Dreadstar † 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, one article is about a person, the other is about the true-beleive syndrome, which is not limited to this person. Bubba73 (talk), 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Are there sufficient sources to support an article separate froom Keene? Perhaps there are some good psychology references? A few sources, more content, and we have ourselves an article! Dreadstar † 02:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are three references and two "further reading" items in the true believer article, and only one of them is Keene. Bubba73 (talk), 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at those, and I'm not certain they give the subject sufficient notability to sustain a Wikipedia article. The "Carlos" reference makes no mention of "True Believer Syndrome", the other reference is to two pages in a book, which is -unfortunately- not available online - I'll see if I can find a copy. And the further reading links are apparently also not online and would have to be researched as well.

The subject is fairly obscure even according to the article itself, "The term "true believer syndrome" is not used professionally by mainstream psychologists, psychiatrists or medical professionals and it is not recognised as a form of psychopathology or psychological impairment." It's more like a phrase than a true medical syndrome.

I'm not certain that those references make it notable outside the subject of Keene..or indeed that they mention "TBS" at all. I was hoping someone might provide some clear, online sources. Perhaps I will look around when I get some time. Dreadstar † 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The skepdic entry provides references of wider use. Also, while it may not be used professionally the term is fairly popular among skeptical writers. ornis (t) 04:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Right - the term is used fairly frequently in writings, but it would be hard to track down uses of it, but I've seen quite a few over the years. It is more common to see "true believers" than "true believer syndrome". Bubba73 (talk), 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"True believer syndrome" is what we're talking about- a specialized term. If there aren't sources, there aren't sources. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 12:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But there are sources, and some are given in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 22:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I support the merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article has no outside sources. It can be redirected, and fully explicated in the bio. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge Bad faith, POV pushing and borderline trolling. ornis (t) 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a bad faith nomination, nor POV-pushing or trolling. What is your reason for opposing this move? Dreadstar † 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge as per Dreadstar's notability explanation. Absentis 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer has also written about "true believer syndrome". Editors should consider whether the article should cover both writers, in which case a merge with the Keene article would be inappropriate. 1Z 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Eric Hoffer book The True Believer has its own article, and I don't see where it refers to it as a "syndrome". That seems specific to Keene. Dreadstar † 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keene coined the term, but "true believer" has been used by many writers. I think it means the same thing, just as someone suffering from paranoia is called a paranoid or someone with diabetis melitus (sp?) is called a diabetic. Bubba73 (talk), 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. We'd just need some sources for that perspective or history, else it's just OR. Dreadstar † 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keen medicalized the thing- that is the basis of this article. True believer might be able to sustain an article. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It might be better to move it to True believer, I need to think about it some more. Bubba73 (talk), 01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article idea

Some examples of use by writers other than keene, notice that the use of the term "true believer" falls into three broad categories

Religion

• Dick Sutphen
• James Haught
• scientology
• refering to creationist
• a review of god delusion
• a book by dennett on the subject

Skepticism

• as used by a true believer as a self description
• Randi
• refering to a john edwards fan
• cancer quackery
• an article by carroll
• NESS article on denialism
• reasononline article on quackery
• used in reference to conan-doyles credulity
• article about steven novella

Polics

• Guardian, in reference to tory voters
• Andy Gallagher Uses the term for conservatives in general.
• article about ollie northe

There are plenty more, search term "true believer" nets around a million and a half ghits, of which this page is number three. Rather than a merge, this article needs to be renamed something like "True believer ( psychology )" or something similar and expanded greatly to encompass the main definitions by Keene and Hoffer. ornis (t) 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These are good examples for an article titled True believer, but this article is specifically about True believer syndrome, with the key emphasis placed on the medical word syndrome. I'm sure we can find millions of sources for "True Believer", but it's irrelevant. Dreadstar † 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No actually it's not irrelevant at all. If you'd actually read my comment you'd realise that I'm suggesting as an alternative to merging, that the article be moved and the focus broadened. ornis (t) 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you are agreeing with me and Dreadstar that the current article doesn't have enought sources, but a True believer article might. Of course, you're claiming it was your suggestion to begin with, and doing so in an uncivil tone. But agreeing nonetheless. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You listen carefully mate. The article is practically a stub because of your hacking it to pieces, in a minitrue style attempt to make a phrase you don't like disappear. I've always argued that the term is notable and should retain an independent article. ornis (t) 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you knew how you just made me laugh!!! Especially the edit summary. Well, if that is your point, you are sure making the opposite one. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, I see what you mean now, Ornis. Yes, re-orienting and renaming the article may be satisfactory, then we could put a section in there "True Beliver Syndrome" and give some details to the main article of its creator, Keene. Yeah, that pretty much fits with my view. So your vote is to rename and broaden the scope of the article to "True Believer". You've plenty of sources, so it may fly! Dreadstar † 01:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems Dreadstar took the same view of your argument as I did. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the nub of it yeah. ornis (t) 01:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. If you'd like to write up a draft, that would be most welcome! What would it be, True believer (psychology)? Once you've got the basic outline, I'm sure everyone would jump in to help..I would. Maybe you could create a sandbox off your user talk page and give it a go. Dreadstar † 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True believer (psychology) would limit the sources to psychology. Just "True believer" might be better. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There has to be some connection, or else it would be deleted per WP:NOT#DIR. I'm not sure that just the phrase "true believer" would be sufficient to hang an article on. Dreadstar † 01:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It can't be called "True believer" for the simple reason that there's already a dab page with that name. If (psychology) is too specific, then perhaps (idiom), (phrase) or (expression). ornis (t) 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We can turn the Dab page into an article, the question really is, are there enough sources and what exactly would the article be about. Dreadstar †

OK, but what sources are there, other than the ones about "True Believer Syndrome"? Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

None really, the problem is when dealing with literalists, nothing but a source that calls it "True believer syndrome" will do. So in my opinion, the best solution is to move the article to its most general form ( true believer ), and expand it to include the specifially religious and political uses. So rather than having an article just about keene's formulation, we have one about hoffers as well. ornis (t) 02:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is a problem - the article could say "for other uses of T. B. see" and the other page could be "true believer (disambiguation)". Bubba73 (talk), 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Dreadstar † 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We could do that. "True believer" is the wording we will get the most sources on, I think. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a True belief article, specializing in that pathology. I'll go ahead with it soon unless someone has an objection. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick google check shows true belief gets about a third of the hits of true believer, and I'm willing to bet good money that a significant percentage of those have nothing to do with the topic. ornis (t) 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

True believer is good. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)