This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
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 articles
We should be fair even to financial pundits and mental deficients. It is not inconsistent with Mackay to invoke the central limit theorem and say that the average is - in the long run - better than any single estimator; most advisors fell for the South Sea bubble. Does Surowiecki actually deny Mackay's point or is the comparison WP:SYNTH?SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Surowiecki and Mackay are at all inconsistent with other, for the reasons stated above. I'm not sure whether Surowiecki is important enough to get a mention in this article - someone with more knowledge of his work should probably comment here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article badly needs a critical reception section - part of why there is an article about this book is that it has an enduring influence, particularly in regards to the economy. Currently the critical reception material is inappropriately included in the Bubbles section - the Surowiecki material in particular seems out of place there, since it isn't really about 'Bubbles' specifically; it's really about the whole idea of the decision-making capacity of crowds. Does anyone have any objections to the splitting off of this material into such a section? Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it for some time, it seems to me that "Critical Reception" isn't a great section name for a book that's been around for so long. This would imply how critics received the book when it was published, when instead what's needed is a section called something like "Influence on the Modern World". Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Plazak, I think your heading and edit were helpful here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it important to emphasize that Mackay was not a scholar or scientist, but rather a popular writer trying to make a pound. Could you leave the lede as "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a popular history of popular folly." ? Certainly nobody can disagree with the statement, and the popular appeal is covered in the body of the article. Smallbones (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disagree at all with what you are saying, but I wonder if there's a less awkward way this can be phrased - 'a popular history of popular folly' seems like bad writing to me. I'm not much of a writer myself, so if anyone else sees a way to keep the facts and have this read smoothly, I say go for it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Amazon and Goodreads there are references to a volume 3. In this article there are only paragraphs about volume 1 and 2, how come? 1Veertje (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the references to volume three were to an earlier schema for how the book was divided. [1]. Volume I in this breakdown was "National Delusions". Volume II was "Peculiar Follies" and Volume III was "Philosophical Delusions". As far as I can tell, at least from the titles of the sub-sections, all of the material was at some point re-arranged into the current Volumes 1 and 2, with some of the stuff from the old Volume III going into the new Volume 1, and some going into the new Volume 2. In the current breakdown, there is no volumem 3. BMK (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that it's possible I have the order of events backwards, and the 2-volume version was the original, which was then re-organized into the 3-volume version. The larger point is that I don't believe any information differs between the two schemes. BMK (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "genre" applies to distinctive brands of fiction. Romance is a genre. Science fiction novels are a genre. Mystery is a genre. "Non-fiction" is definitely not a genre, and it makes Wikipedia look pretty stupid to list it as one. Template:Infobox book is quite clear that "subject" applies to works of non-fiction, whereas "genre" applies only to fiction. It was GrahamHardy who drew my attention to this here. So I am perplexed by this unfortunate edit by Beyond My Ken, who as an experienced user ought to be familiar with Wikipedia's conventions on this matter. Believe it or not, Beyond My Ken, I have no interest in pursuing some conflict with you. I am happy to stay out of your way for the most part. I do hope your revert was something more than an expression of petty personal hostility. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it most certainly was. When a book is fiction, the "genre" is science fiction, mystery, etc. When it is non-fiction, it's genre is "non-fiction". Please do recall that we are not here to follow rules and salute conventions, we are here to serve our readers, and by not labeling a book as "non-fiction", we leave them wondering just what the hell kind of book it is, when they should be able to glance at the infobox and tell. Now, if you folks would like to put your heads together and create a different parameter for fiction/non-fiction, that would be peachy, but not to use the genre parameter when it is available is a disservice to the reader and makes Wikipedia that much less functional. BMK (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Non-fiction" is not a genre. I already explained that to you. The template makes it absolutely clear that "genre" is for works of fiction, "subject" for works of non-fiction. It does not serve our readers to include blatant misinformation in articles, for example, the suggestion that "non-fiction" is a genre (which would be comparable to calling atheism a religion, off a television channel, etc). Making proper use of the subject field makes it quite clear "what the hell kind of book" any particular book is. If you have a problem with the instructions in the template, then I suggest you take the matter up with members of WikiProject Books. I cannot imagine that your position is going to win much sympathy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the question? A third opinion has been requested. What (exactly) is the question. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See genre. That article does not make genre restricted to fiction. For instance, documentary films are a film genre. However, please be civil and concise (and the above discussion is marginal as to civility) in stating the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question, simply put, is whether the infobox of this article should include the field genre, the field Beyond My Ken restored here. The WP article Genre nowhere suggests that "non-fiction" is a genre, Robert McClenon. The primary meaning of the term is for genres in literature and the arts. The exceptions are not relevant here. Wikipedia's guidelines make it clear that the "genre" field does not apply to works of non-fiction, as already noted. Please see Template:Infobox book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the third opinion, Robert McClenon. It is a relevant part of the history of this page. If you remove it, I will restore it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Template:Infobox book guideline indicates that genre should be given only for works of non-fiction. WP:CONLEVEL applies: i.e. to include genre here, you must first gain consensus to change the guideline. HTH—Aquegg (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I looked at your link for Genre, and the definition says genre "is any category of literature...whether written or spoken". Then I looked deeper into Literature. "Literature can be classified according to whether it is fiction or non-fiction". That seems to suggest that non-fiction works are allowed. Billyh45 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The only relevant issue is what Template:Infobox book states, and it shows, clearly and unambiguously, that Beyond My Ken is mistaken. "Genre" does not apply to works of non-fiction. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be mistaken. I checked your link Template:Infobox book, and it says, "genre/genres (for fiction) See literary genre". I checked Literary_genre#Genres, and it says, "Nonfiction can cross many genres but is typically expressed in essays, memoir, and other forms that may or may not be narrative but share the characteristics of being fact-based, artistically-rendered prose." I followed all of your links, and I keep seeing nonfiction. The person who made the template might only be trying to help with the construction of a webpage for books, but he or she may not be an expert in literature itself. He may have used "for fiction" in parentheses, only as "advice" but not a "rule". He then linked to "literary genre" for further information. Do you want the parentheses to trump the linked WP article? Billyh45 (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox book states that genre is "for fiction". How unambiguous can anything be? It is a widely accepted guideline, and there is no reason whatever to make an exception for this particular article. The contents of the article Literary genre are not relevant. You ask, "Do you want the parentheses to trump the linked WP article?" That's really an absurd question. Wikipedia articles are frequently inaccurate or contain low quality or otherwise misleading material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm grateful to you for pointing out that Literary genre contained that passage. It was nonsense, and I have removed it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NAC: No consensus. Recommend another RFC, better publicized neutrally via WikiProjects. The editing has been marginally civil. Editors are advised to reread the civility policy. If discussion remains uncivil, editors may report edit-warring at the edit-warring notice board or uncivil behavior at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No The relevant guideline is Template:Infobox book, and it is perfectly clear: "genre" does not apply to works of non-fiction. It misleads and misinforms readers to suggest that "non-fiction" is a genre. Nor is there any need to specifically label the work non-fiction, as there is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests the book is fiction. The article makes it perfectly clear that the book is a non-fiction history book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Our primary responsibility is to our readers, not to magic words on a template documentation, and it is a service to our readers (who really don't give a damn about Wikipedia in-fighting, and just want information about the subject they've looked up) to tell them that a book is non-fiction. That could be accomplished through another parameter, but with the template in its current state, the "genre" parameter is the most convenient way to provide this information to our customers. BMK (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, our primary responsibility is to our readers, which is why infoboxes should not incorrectly suggest that non-fiction is a genre. We do not help readers by offering them misinformation. Of course, it ought to be obvious that essentially everything about the article indicates that it is about a work of non-fiction and that no "non-fiction" label needs to be applied to it. Nevertheless, I am glad that you have realized that a parameter other than "genre" could be used to indicate that the article is about a non-fiction book. Did it also occur to you that could simply have done that and thereby avoided this entire exasperating debate? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that I have now made it explicit in the article that the book is a work of non-fiction, so whatever excuse you might have had for ignoring the accepted guidelines at Template:Infobox book has now been removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, of course, that is not necessary, since the sentence is explicit that the book is "a history". Except for rare occasions, a "history" is assumed to be non-fiction. For those unusual circumstances "A fictional history of..." would be appropriate, but here it is redundant, unlike in the infobox. For these reasons, I have reverted your addition, and ask that you please stop playing games. We're here to improve an online encyclopedia, not to practice our one-upmanship. BMK (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The addition was made in good faith, in an attempt to resolve the dispute, and I think other editors watching this discussion would realize as much. Your comments are pointlessly insulting and rude, and you should apologize for them. If it is not necessary to state in the article that the book is non-fiction then, of course, it is not necessary to state it in the infobox either. Is there a need for the infobox to state that the book is non-fiction if the lead already makes that clear? In a word, no. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you're both right. I think the subject field is supposed to be used for non-fiction descriptions of the topic instead, however, the use of the genre field could also be used for non-fiction genres. See list of writing genres and Category:Non-fiction genres. Ideally, both fields should allow non-fiction genres and non-fiction subjects. But general genre terms such as "fiction" and "non-fiction" should be avoided in favor of more specific genres. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can think of a way to use the "subject" field to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of all concerned, then please do so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the genre listed could be something like history, popular history, or economic history, all of which would be more specific than non-fiction. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's simply no good. As pointed out several times, "genre" applies only to works of fiction, as per Wikipedia's guidelines. If the subject was listed as history or popular history, that should settle the matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added history to the info box, under subject. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe that this should resolve the issue, and that any reasonable person would now agree that the "genre" field is unnecessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
