Talk:The New Inquisition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-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.) |
|
[edit] POV
"those third rate scientists who try to fob off fourth rate garbage as science"? Sounds very POV to me. Is that a direct quote from the book? Then it should have quotation marks. Otherwise it should be deleted. --Hob Gadling 15:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
FFS, the quote is on the back of the book. If you haven't read the book don't comment, - the issue for this page at least is not whether RAW or his fans are right, but what they actually said in the book. EdwardEvershed.
It seems perfectly reasonable for an editor to encapsulate a theme in a book with a sentence like the one you quoted, without using a direct quote. So your word "should" seems to be one of those summary judgements made by someone swooping in and demanding that something be changed that is, on reflection, perfectly suitable. The POV rule needs and deserves to be used with some subtlety, rather than like a meataxe. --Twang
- Ok seriously? Obviously some major grammar issues that you guys should've taken care of when you first saw the article. I mean seriously, this article is like a paragraph, you see something wrong, fix it. --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of this is nonsense, if I can't make any sense of it soon it should be nominated for deletion. That first sentence you mentioned to me doesn't make any sense, but the implied message was clear so I re-phrased it and removed a bit of the POV. Fob off means to decieve, to my knowledge you could "fob off the scientific comunity into believing garbage was science," but you can't "decieve garbarge as science." Maybe it makes sense and I just don't know, maybe it doens't , point is, it's better now. --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
i'm concerned that this article includes three reviews, two negative and explicitly from the skeptical community (which is to say, the specific people the book criticizes), and one negative but completely unattributed (unless the article is by Kristin Buxton, but there is no indication of that). is this due to a lack of positive reviews of the book being available on the web? if so, why are so many negative reviews needed? why not just pick the best one of the three, and leave it at that? Whateley23 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
