Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Surowiecki

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? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Critical Reception

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)

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)

Thanks Plazak, I think your heading and edit were helpful here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"popular history of popular folly"

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)

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)

Volume 3?

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)

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)

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)

Genre

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)

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)

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)

Third Opinion

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)

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)

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)

I will be removing the Third Opinion. I suggest that a Request for Comments be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Other opinions

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)

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)