Template:Did you know nominations/Flim-Flam!

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Flim-Flam!

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that James Randi used his 1980 book Flim-Flam! to launch an annual award for "the psychic who fools the greatest number of people with the least effort"?

5x expanded by MrBill3 (talk). Nominated by Gronk Oz (talk) at 15:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

• 5x expansion new enough and long enough (6760 vs 513 characters). All paragraphs are cited. The hook cite is subscription only, so I will WP:AGF. Duplication Detector does suggest close paraphrasing/copyvio issues. For example, "the reader learns several tricks of the trade such as how to guess cards tilt tables read while blindfolded and produce photographs" compared with "the reader also learns some tricks of the trade how to guess cards tilt tables read though blindfolded produce photographs", in the Kirkus source. NPOV, as there also criticisms of the book. No QPQ needed. So, just close paraphrasing to be addressed, and ideally a free online source for the hook. Edwardx (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review, Edwardx. I have passed this on to the editor who expanded the page, MrBill3, who should get back to you shortly. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Paraphrasing changed up. Sources don't need to be free per the Verifiability policy § Access to sources. The New York Times Book Review is a very high quality source for books. Many libraries can provide access to The New York Times free for verification. If you are aware of a critical or less positive review let me know and I'd be happy to add content as due. I put something from everything I found of weight after searching between 3 and 5 databases but with a book from the 1980s some reviews might be elsewhere. Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are any further improvements needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Have you seen Pigasus Award? This gives the date as 1982, not 1980. And there are four categories, 4. "To the "psychic" performer who fools the greatest number of people with the least effort in that twelve-month period." Your article and hook should at least link to that, and the facts in each article should be reasonably consistent. Edwardx (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. I changed the Pigasus Award article to reflect that the specific edition being cited in that article was the 1982 edition. The book was first published in 1980, but the printing was extremely limited, the revised 1982 edition is essentially the book known. The hook comes straight from the source, most of the detail about 4 categories etc. comes from pretty much primary sources. The book itself gives four categories under which winners may fall, but does not specify each category gets an award. For a straightforward hook, I would think going with what was stated in the secondary reliable source is best. In order to change the hook to reflect all four categories, would mean adding that to the article (with a primary source and questionable due weight) and making a rather bulky unhooklike hook. What do you suggest? I linked annual award in the hook. Again thanks for your contributions and suggestions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• For convenience I am posting the verbatim text of the source (Ferris 1980), "Typical of its cheerful devices is Mr. Randi's announcement of an annual 'Uri' trophy, a bent spoon mounted upon a 'flimsy and quite transparent' base, to be awarded 'to the psychic who fools the greatest number of people with the least effort' and to the scientists, foundations and journalists who fall prey to such deceptions, winners 'to be notified telepathically.'" - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since Edwardx has not returned to this review (no telepathic notification?), a new reviewer is needed to check the outstanding issues, and recheck to be sure that no close paraphrasing remains. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Very sorry for not having revisited this sooner. I've checked again with Dup Detector and things are much better. Good to go. Edwardx (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)