Talk:A Culture of Conspiracy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Culture of Conspiracy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:Notability

Closed discussion about a resolved dispute

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This text - by a scholar - is one of the few studies about the so-called New World Order (conspiracy theory). And it has been reviewed favorably by Daniel Pipes. The publisher is a University Press. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's evidence that it exists and is reliable, not notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Weekly says this of it: [1] --Ludvikus (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the Review ends like this:

.... Scholarly but fluently written and free of excessive jargon,
Barkun's exploration of the conspiratorial worldview combines sociological depth with a deadpan appreciation of pop culture and raises serious questions about the replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind.

--Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thesis of the book

"The thesis of the book is that conspiracy has replaced democracy as the main paradigm concerning political action in the thinking of the American public, according to Publishers Weekly, Book Reviews."

User:Arthur Rubin, why have you reverted by Good faith edit by deleting the above? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not adequately sourced, and, even if it were stated there, it would be the opinion of that book reviewer, thereby of questionable reliability. It poasibly should be included below, if it were attributed, and were not in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the opinion of the book reviewer carries greater weight at Wikipedia than your opinion, Arthur Rubin - that, according to you, the book is not notable. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we also have the opinion of another Review which contracts your view that the book is not notable - that by Daniel Pipes: [2]

The opinion of a book reviewer carries greater weight than mine, but less than the actual text of the book, in the case of a book by a recognized expert. Furthermore, it's a controversial statement about the opinions of a living person, so WP:BLP comes in play.
Notability is not necessarily the same as real-world notability; there is little mention of book reviews in WP:NB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's sophistry, and a waste of time. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that doing anything with your edits but reverting them is a waste of time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview, Point 2. Perhaps it would be easier on the reader if "climate change denial" were amended to "climate change denialism" (even if it would be creating a neologism as spellcheck seems to imply).Clarence Twiggins (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I join here is my number help +254 700030454 154.159.252.234 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]