Talk:The New Inquisition

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 articles

Skepticism Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Picking the best one of the three has problems - how do you decide which is "best"? Besides, what is the problem with having reviews from skeptics? As long as the reviews deal with the book, there should be no problem.Autarch (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problem[edit]

One of the references has a problem - it reads Schrödinger, chapter 23 - this could be the Schrödinger's Cat trilogy or something else - could someone fix this? Autarch (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

There are two reviews in the Reception section - more would be nice. I found a copy of Brian Sianos review, but as it's in a Usenet posting, it probably fails WP:RS - does anybody know if a copy exists on the site of the publication it was originally in? There's no sign of it at his site.Autarch (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

disambig?[edit]

The New Inquisition is also the title of an important 1939 book by Konrad Heiden where he exposed Germany's plans for the Shoah.--87.228.188.179 (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

Anton Wilson, Robert (1986). The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science. Hilaritas Press. ISBN 978-1-7344735-4-4. MarshallKe (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]