Humanities desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 14

Is there a name for this kind of fallacy/rebuttal?

For example, if a person argues "Abortion is wrong because the fetus could be the one who found the cure to cancer", I can argue that "It could also be the person who starts WWIII..."

Another example: Person 1: "The government should listen to the protesters, because it could lead to democracy." Person 2: "without the necessary condition for democracy, the country could also fall into chaos..."

So the point is, something cannot be proven right or wrong when there's an equal chance that it might have a positive/negative result. So does this fallacy/rebuttal have a name? Cecikierk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.201.139 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a name, but I'd like to note that, just because both postive and negative outcomes are possible, that in no way means that both outcomes are equally likely. Otherwise this could lead to some absurd results: "We'd better nuke Washington, just in case the next Hitler is there right now". StuRat (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is there is no good way to assess the probability that a fetus will grow up to be the one to cure cancer and whether or not making abortion illegal will have any non-negligible effect on this probability. This reminds me of the butterfly effect. In chaotic systems (which I think is a good representation of how reality behaves), a small change in initial condition can eventually propagate and have a major effect on the outcome. Because we are non-omniscient and therefore don't know the exact initial conditions or how chance events (quantum mechanical uncertainty) will play out in the future, our predictions become more and more uncertain the further one moves forward in time. This begs the question "Will making abortion illegal make it more likely that someone discovers the cure for cancer sooner." This probably fits the fallacy of questionable premise because if the premise is weak or unprovable then the conclusion is also going to be weak or unprovable. (I am not trying to take a position for or against abortion by the way) 71.77.4.75 (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a name, but the refutation (equal probability of good and bad outcomes) is the same as that of Pascal's Wager. ~~ N (t/c) 07:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

veil of ignorance touches on this (The West Wing discusses on this in "Red Haven's on Fire" [1] to argue for a progressive tax policy). In general policy makers don't know what results their decisions will have, or even the relative probabilities of success (in part due to chaos and complexity, as noted above). So decision makers operate behind a veil of ignorance, whether they like to admit it or not. 87.114.23.84 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare to find a "pure" example of any kind of fallacy - several usually apply. For your example, I would think that Appeal to probability is the main term you're looking for, but Nirvana fallacy or Perfect solution fallacy (which are similar) and perhaps Misleading vividness would also be appropriate (that last one especially for the abortion debate). There's a long list to browse at List of fallacies; apparently people just love coming to the wrong conclusion and are very inventive in finding ways to get there! Matt Deres (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't post this earlier because someone semi-protected this desk, but this question has also been asked on the language reference desk. Over there I [or someone else using the same name :-)] have argued that what we're talking about is proof by example. The person gives an example of why something might be bad (or good), and concludes that it is bad (or good). --Anonymous, 23:22 UTC, June 14, 2008.

Number of backyard bomb shelters

Does anyone have a rough estimate of how many people built home fallout shelters, or otherwise substantially prepared to survive nuclear war, in any country during the Cold War? ~~ N (t/c) 07:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., so far the only number i can find is a 1960 estimate by Leo Hoegh, director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, that more than one million families had constructed some type of fallout shelter. That number seems unreasonably large, the estimate was prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the OCDM was arguing for a program to provide fallout shelters for every American by 1965.—eric 02:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, President Kennedy urged Americans to build the shelters around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and around that time many public building's basements were identified as public fallout shelters and got water and food and radiation monitors placed in them. Before that, and after that, it was the truly odd bird that built one. Anyone who built one was wise to keep it a secret. to avoid the neighbors breaking down the door if an attack was actually imminent, as in the Twilight Zone episode The Shelter. Edison (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to one study, 0.4% of Americans began construction of some type of shelter. Rose, K. D. (2001). "The Shelters That Were Not Built the Nuclear War That Did Not Start." One Nation Underground: The Fallout Shelter in American Culture. p. 187. OCLC 45835432. The footnote is missing from the google preview so i can't find a date for the study.—eric 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although probably less that 1,000 in number in the past decade one pastime of the eccentric rich has been to purchase vacated Titan and Atlas missile sites. However, many of the smaller Nike sites which have been abandoned have filled ground water and number less than 10,000. Prices range from $140,000 to $3,000,000 more or less. None were available, to the best of my knowledge, for private buyers during the cold war. BTW - Congress and other branches of government have very well stocked shelters somewhere on the planet. -- Taxa (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Kurasov

The Sergey Korolyov article shows a photograph of his tomb in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis (shown to the right of this question). Beside Korolyov's tomb is another; if I transliterated the text correctly it's of someone named Sergei Kurasov. I can't find any mention of anyone of that name, so I guess I've messed up the transliteration. Whose tomb is that? THanks. 87.114.23.84 (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kurashov" would be a better transliteration, so it is in all likelihood the tomb of Sergei Vladimirovich Kurashov. DAVID ŠENEK 14:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense (it's a shame it's not someone rather more interesting). Spasiba. 87.114.23.84 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can some of those late night infomercials be legal?

Without naming names here, I have to ask how some of those infomercials can legally say what they say (get rich with no money down!, this will cure every disease!,etc.)? At least some of those can't possibly be legit. Is there some small print or some weasally way of stating these claims without getting into trouble? I've seen numerous complaints about them on other websites , but maybe they're just jealous of the thousands of rich and disease free people that responded to those ads? --Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They'll often flash a 0.5 second subtitle disclaimer such as "results may vary" or "consult a physician". But yeah, in the USA the FCC is totally asleep at the wheel when it comes to policing infomercials. Rhinoracer (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that government no longer has any particular interest in evaluating the truth of advertising. The ads that amaze me are the half-hour ones for a pill to increase your penis size. They must be raking it in, despite the obviously false claim, and no one bothers to shut them down - or take action against those enabling them by broadcasting that sort of nonsense. Less amazing are the ads that don't make any claims at all ("Head-on! Apply directly to the forehead!") An actual complaint from a defrauded consumer might get some measure of action, but there don't seem to be any pro-active governmental programs.- Nunh-huh 17:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to joke about "who in their right mind would file a complaint about the failure of penis-enhancement pills". In the US private litigation (as opposed to government regulation) is the general means of policing such matters. Infomercial advertisers are very often shell companies with little in the way of worthwhile assets. The company that bought the airtime, and with whom your transaction is made, don't make the product (or indeed don't even make the ads or other promotional material - they get that from the manufacturer). They outsource the website and call center and financial processing and the fulfillment (that's mailing and stuff) to a bunch of dedicated (and perfectly legal, if a tad low-rent) outfits. Watch the ads really carefully - while the ad for PhalloPharm looks like you're buying from the manufacturer, check the "send money now" card (which often has mismatching fonts, graphics, and voiceovers) and you'll be asked to send money to ABCD Products at a POBox in Nowhereville, KY. Watch again a few weeks later and you'll see the same ad but placed by a different outfit. Like internet spamming, once you've got the infrastructure down you can run dozens of these outfits concurrently; as long as you charge the amount you said and send the stuff you promised to then you're not breaking the criminal law. If someone is dissatisfied their beef is legally with ABCD not PhalloPharm, and by the time they've got the paperwork drawn up ABCD has been wound-up. Even if someone could sue them in time they'd find that ABCD made no profit and had no assets - it was working through XYZ wholesale, and unless someone can prove that ABCD is really a shell for XYZ (and given that they're all cross registered in offshore havens that's difficult) litigation won't recover any assets. -- 87.114.23.84 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a stronger body in the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority. Their remit is to see that advertising is "legal, decent, honest and truthful’ and do not mislead or cause harm or serious or widespread offence." Exxolon (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be able to get away with stuff late at night that would never be countenanced in prime time. My current favourite (if that's the right word) is the one that asks you to SMS your name and your partner's name, and they'll tell you whether or not he/she is cheating on you. Just based on your names. I mean, really!! -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, government "consumer protection agencies", such as the FDA, have completely sold out to the corporations they are supposed to regulate, and, as such, those corporations have nothing to fear. Even if they manage to kill large numbers of people with their faulty products, which were approved based on fake research and bribes to government officials, they aren't likely to suffer any consequence from the government more severe than a minor fine/slap on the wrist. The same is true of the government officials who took the bribes. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the UK, I gather there is a principle in consumer law that as long as it is reasonable to expect the average person to realise that the claims are false, it doesn't matter. Of course, what is considered reasonable for the average person to work out is arguable. Certainly, a Pot Noodle ad that claims Pot Noodles are mined in Wales is pretty safe, and I suspect a lot of shampoo ads rely on people expecting the science to be meaningless babble, but what about the penis enhancement ads? It's all rather grey... 79.66.60.129 (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've heard that the "pill to increase your penis size" folks make money by scrupulously refunding customers with checks stamped, in giant letters, " PENIS STILL SMALL "John Z (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: in the U.S. the relevant regulatory agency for these infomercials is the Federal Trade Commission, not usually the FCC or FDA. The FCC doesn't investigate fraudulent claims and has almost no authority over cable channels. The FDA can only get involved if certain medical claims are made and isn't authorized to regulate nutritional supplements. The FTC does sue a lot of the companies that sell stuff on infomercials (see enzyte for a recent example), but litigation is can be lengthy and complicated. The First Amendment means regulators can't simply ban commercials that sound too good to be true, they have to prove fraud. --D. Monack | talk 21:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how they get around showing SUVs climbing the side of cliffs? True fantasy! gard. But point taken, the personal physical sexual thing is shooting fish in a barrel. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery is worth a read and there is an FTC comment in the article. Mhicaoidh (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic companies are just as bad: they put three cents' worth of ingredients in a tiny pot and sell it for $90.00, advertising that it will "visibly reduce fine lines". Generally the glop either moisturizes or irritates the skin enough that the lines disappear for a few minutes. Most contain the same ingredients as Keri Lotion or Vaseline Intensive Care, only with a few molecules of some special but totally useless ingredient and a different type of offensive, irritating perfume. My favourites are the ones that contain "aqueous solutions" of herbs - in other words, they stick a small strainer containing herbs in 500 gallons of water for a few seconds, call it tea, and market that as a "botanical". --NellieBly (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Faulkner

I’m looking for some biographical material on Mary Faulkner, in particular her dates of birth and death. She’s listed by Guinness (or was at some point) as the most prolific author in history, with 904 novels to her credit, under various pseudonyms. All I can find about her is that she was born in 1903 and died in 1973. She seems amazingly little known for such a prolific and record-breaking writer. She doesn’t even make it onto our List of South African writers. Does anyone have a source with the details I’m after? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. If we assume that she wrote over a 50 year career, that's some 18 novels a year, or 1.5 per month. I'd be surprised if novels written so quickly would be very noteworthy, other than for their volume. Quality control takes time, after all. StuRat (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe none of her novels was individually noteworthy (I wouldn't know, I've never read any of them), but her getting into the record books was all it took for Wikipedia to consider her notable as a person. Surely she must have had a dedicated readership, otherwise her publishers wouldn't have kept on churning her books out for so long. That in itself means many people would have been interested in her details; hence, my surprise that they seem to be non-existent online. Perhaps she was just very private and never revealed her birth date. But at least her death would surely have been reported in the media. Somebody must know something about her. But who? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing, isn't it Jack? Here are a few more smidgeons of info from following her nom de plumes: Kathleen Lindsay, may have lived in WA! [2], Hugh Desmond, crime writer, lived in Aust and NZ! [3] Margaret Cameron, includes plays and nonfiction [4] One reason for her prolific output is indicated in the fantasticfiction site: as Margaret Cameron she published her first novel before she had turned one, and produced ten novels before the age of ten! Wait, theres more: Bead Threading and Laying: An Occupation for Young Children (1900) was conceived and produced even before she was (1903)... Are these dates incorrect? Or confusion of two authors? Or is it a mother/daughter team? There is a Masters thesis in this for some one Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens. A tough case. Among other old books, Amazon has this a romance novel (re)published in 2007, probably by her. Books by her might have an about the author page, the publisher would have to know a bit about her. This 1990 usenet post quotes the Guinness info - noting it appeared in the 1984 edition, but not the 1989 edition - "The greatest number of novels published by any author is 904 by Kathleen Lindsay (Mrs. Mary Faulkner) (1903-73) of Somerset West, Cape Province, South Africa. She wrote under six pen names, two of them masculine." It seems most likely her real name was Kathleen Lindsay, and Faulkner her favorite pen name. Searching for obituaries at the New York Times and the timesonline.co.uk yields nothing under either name for 1973, although, remarkably all the NYT articles on "Kathleen Lindsay" yield Fall 1903 references to a Capt. and Lady Kathleen Lindsay, the captain being "well known in Ireland as one of their best polo players." Parents? South African newspapers could/should have something in the obituaries. Google books yields this for Kathleen Lindsay: [5] (one might have to look at the book to find the source for this data). Together with Mhicaoidh's Australian data, this gives a few solid things for an article.John Z (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 cats! My work computer has access to AustLit, here is the full text, I will put it on the article talk page too. Note she was born in Britain and her husband's name may yield more info. There was no info under pseudonyms or Mary Faulkner. AustLit : Lindsay, Kathleen. Also writes as: Cameron, Margaret; Desmond, Hugh; Richmond, Mary; Waring, Molly. Born: 1903 Aldershot, Hampshire, England. Died: [1973]. Gender: Female. Biography: "Kathleen Lindsay was a prolific author of historical romances. She was educated privately at the Convent of Sacré Coeur, Paris and the Sakkakini Convent, Cairo. A resident of South Africa later in life, it is probable that she lived for a time in Western Australia, as she contributed to the Western Mail. In a review of Lindsay's Here in Eden, the Bulletin's Red Page critic suggested that she 'appears to be an English authoress who has looked up some of our history at the Perth and Melbourne public libraries...' (July 25, 1951). In the acknowledgements for Loyal Lady (1965), Lindsay thanked F.L.W. Wood [Frederick Lloyd Whitfield Wood], whose Concise History of Australia (1935), given to her when she visited Melbourne in 1949, had been 'of the greatest help' when planning her Australian novels. Lindsay dedicated some of her books to her husband, Percy Edward Jeffryes." Mhicaoidh (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great sleuthing; thanks, Mhicaoidh and John Z. Compare Guinness's 1984 entry quoted above with the 1986 entry (differences underlined): "The greatest number of novels published by an authoress is 904 by Kathleen Lindsay (Mrs. Mary Faulkner) (1903-73) of Somerset West, Cape Province, South Africa. She wrote under two other married names and ~~six~~ eight pen names, ~~two of them masculine~~". She must have been a very busy lady; she had time for at least 3 husbands as well as 30 cats and 904 novels.

By 1997 (the next edition of Guinness I have), she had left their hallowed halls. The most prolific novelist had become the Brazilian Jose Carlos Ryoki de Alpoim Inoue, who "had 1,036 novels published from 1 June 1986 to Aug 1995", which by my calculations is about one novel every three days - for nine years - what levels of quality he must have reached!!! By 2002, Guinness still has Senhor Jose listed as the most prolific novelist, but his output is even higher, now 1,058 novels between June 1986 and August 1996. Apparently "he writes westerns, science fiction and thrillers". Whatever; but we can at least relegate Mary Faulkner from her erstwhile most prolific status. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's our interesting article on the current champ, that "Pelé of the literature," thoracic surgeon Ryoki inoue, cf the boring Ryoki Inoue.John Z (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)She's still there in 1990, with the above (1986) text. I also have the 1973 edition (what strange things we all have on our shelves), when she appears to be unknown: The authoress with the greatest total of published titles is Miss Ursula Harvey Bloom (Mrs A.C.G. Robinson) with 468 full-length works to July 1972, starting in 1922 with The Great Beginning and including the best sellers The Ring Tree (novel) and The Rose of Norfolk (non-fiction). What literary treasures! What care she has taken: less than ten a year! Gwinva (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err, Jack, I certainly hope your'e not implying after all this work that she is, gulp, not notable any more ; ) Seriously though I think the best selling novelist of a period remains notable even if they are forgotten by following generations: they reflect the taste, culture and concerns (or escape from those concerns!) of the period. And our appreciation of literature, by my colleagues in academia is certainly biased towards the "serious" rather than enormously popular genres such as romance. Now who's got time to edit the article?! Mhicaoidh (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time? Who can possibly have time? We've got 904 novels to read. Gwinva (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see her AfD discussion: delete: NN, also ran loser. Probale haox. Questionable and self-pulished suorces - to be followed by that for Ryoki Inoue - delete: nothing in English.John Z (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mhicaoidh, I'm not proposing that at all. I just wanted to correct the record, since we were saying that she is the world's most prolific novelist, when that ain't the case any more. Her incredible output still justifies an article imho, no matter where she figures on the list of prolific writers these days. In all this, I can only assume that the Guinness people weren't hoaxed by anyone; I believe their standards of veracity are even more stringent than ours, although I have encountered a few errors of fact in my travels (maybe those entries were written after a long lunch with a few pints of their eponymous beverage). But hey, the obvious question is: why don't we have our own List of prolific writers or something similar. There's lots of scope for quite a long list. As a matter of interest, leaving aside numbers of novels but just counting words, in 1997 Guinness was claiming that Frank Richards (of Billy Bunter fame) was the world's greatest wordsmith, with around 75 million words to his credit. Between 1915-26 he wrote up to 80,000 words a week for boys' weeklies. If he wrote for 10 hours a day, that's 1,143 words an hour. Which is pretty amazing for even one hour, let alone 11 years. But back in 1986 they gave top prize to Józef Ignacy Kraszewski (who?) and placed Richards second. They didn't have a tally of Kraszewski's words, though, so I'm not sure how they determined he outwrote anyone else. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Jack. Using a sortable table like this, they can be compared easily.


Name	Life	Writing period	Published works (full length)	Published words	Notes
Isaac Asimov	1920–1992		515
Ursula Bloom	1892–1984	1922–	468 (by 1972)
Enid Blyton	1897–1968		800
Barbara Cartland	1901–2000	1923–	723
Mary Faulkner	1903–1973		904		8 pseudonyms
Charles Hamilton				75,000,000	wrote as Frank Richards
Ryoki Inoue		1986–1996	1,058		39 pseudonyms

etc. Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't forget that as Margaret Cameron (scroll to non-fiction), our Mary started writing before she was born. Now THAT'S prolific! Mhicaoidh (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments below about different authors with the same name. Margaret Cameron isn't exactly an uncommon name, and given the paucity of information about "Mary Faulkner", I'm not at all surprised they attributed a different Margaret Cameron's works to the wrong person. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well talk about my Uncle Buck, who produced 4 turds a day for a 65 year lifespan, for a total of 94,965 turds. Oh wait- were you talking about lame, ill-written novels rather than turds? Is there a difference? Edison (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Edison, it seems we cannot persuade you to join the Prolific Authors Appreciation Society? I am only an apprentice, myself, for from the above list, I have only read Blyton. But far from being impressed by lameness and poor writing, let me assure you that I was enthralled. Would could be more exciting than smugglers, and suspicious lights in derelict houses?

As for dearest Mary (or should I say, Kathleen), I have discovered she was also Nigel MacKenzie. (listed under Richmond) The Secret of the Priory? How exciting... Enid Blyton would approve.

"Hugh Desmond: British author * 79 mystery/detective novels (30 with series character Alan Fraser), many tending to romance or espionage thrillers, many based on true crimes" from [6] Amazon has listings under both MacKenzie and Desmond, some at high prices, so they're still selling. Gwinva (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life is simple, isn't it Edison, when you can make sweeping assertions such as prolificness and popularity must equate with lame and ill-written. It may interest you to know that the genres of children and young adult fiction were once looked upon with the same disdain you shower on romance and crime. Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I see Isaac Asimov has been added to the list. I remember my parents trying to keep me away from science fiction and comics as a child, because they weren't serious and so would surely taint my young mind... Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinva, looks like you have uncovered the second male pseudonym referred to earlier. Our "man" Nigel seems to have a specialty in science fiction too, looking at various old books on sale. And its the same publisher. Mhicaoidh (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was my greatest success. I've spent far too much time since, with little to show for it. The full British DNB has nothing; Gale Biography only has an American psychotherapist by the name of Mary Faulkner (Our Mary is prolific, can write books before her own conception, but I doubt she's also immortal), and seems to have nothing on the others that I tried; I didn't read all 1000+ Lindsay etc refs in the Times archives, but there's no birth or death notices, that I could see and the marriages didn't look promising. Only two Percy Edward Jeffryes on the web: one married a Stella Smith, so that's not promising either, but the other was an ANZAC soldier, but not enough to make a further judgement. You have indeed set us a puzzle, Jack. Gwinva (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Nigel MacKenzie, eh. This just gets better every day. Thanks, Gwinva. But it's a bit spooky; I'm descended from MacKenzies, only as far back as my grandmother. (No Nigels, though.) I've discovered a pile of Nigel MacKenzie's books on the web, mostly related to death and murder: The House of Horror, No Escape from Murder, The Ghost Walks, Murder Round the Corner, Race Towards Death, Day of Judgment, Seven Days to Death, The Dark Knight, Murder Over Karnak, Blood on the Snow, Killing’s No Murder, Death in the Smog, Footprints of Death, The Moon is Ours

Invasion from Space may be by a different Nigel MacKenzie, but maybe not. Her pseudonyms are just so ordinary sounding, it's very likely that other writers with the name ordinary names will exist, making our dear lady's works difficult to pin down without further information. And there's precious little of that.

I even found Nigel Rides Away by Kathleen MacKenzie - can this possibly be Kathleen Lindsay (or whatever the hell her name was) having a joke on all of us?

I dug around my local second-hand bookshop this afternoon, but drew a total blank on all the names I had. It's well stocked with all sorts of trashy romance and detective novels, some quite old - but nothing, alas. I checked with the owner, a very experienced book seller, who proved to be as utterly unaware of this person's existence as most of the rest of the world seems to be. I'm really starting to wonder whether she really existed at all. Maybe the publishers employed an entire stable of writers who wrote under a series of co-pseudonyms, and they created a fictional identity for the supposed Mary Faulkner. (Are you listening to this, publishers?) But then, how was Guinness able to state the precise number of books she published, 904? Maybe I'd better get in touch with the Guinness organisation and/or her former publishers, and ask some questions. I'll bet money they've had many such enquiries before now. After all, it's not just us Wikipedia nerds who read abstruse stuff and get to wondering about the person behind the name ... is it? Keep up the good work, chaps and ladies. Do they give out Master's to teams, btw? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Jack you aren't losing faith are you? Gwinva and I have had an assistant look at original dust jackets but there is nothing new to add. I think the publishers Wright and Brown, now apparently deceased, or their heirs would be the place for serious students to start enquiries. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trashy romance and detective novels, Jack? I hope you aren't suggesting our Mary writes those. Gwinva (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really losing faith, Mhicaoidh. It's just that my research skills are so outstanding (in the same camp as my world-famous modesty and my fantastic humility) that normally I can track things down quickly. When this doesn't happen, I form the obvious conclusion that the subject of my search doesn't actually exist. But no, I really do believe in Mary Faulkner; there's just something about Mary. In fact, I've become quite attached to her, and I'm aching to see what she looked like, and find out about her 3 sets of in-laws, what the circumstances of her marriages were, whether she had any children and where they are now, the names of her cats, etc. To prove my faith, today I explored a different bookshop, but the results were as disappointing as yesterday. Re trashy, Gwinva, let me say just this: I felt compelled to explain to the shop owner that my interest in Mary was not because I would ever normally read material of this nature for its titillative or diversionary effects, but because I had a nobler goal in mind, historical research. Well, doesn't everyone offer similar sorts of justification when they purchase goods from, say, a porno shop? I always do. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, in future, explain quite fervently that you have a liking for trashy novels, that you're the only one in the world who likes them, and that there's no historical significance to them. Just don't mention that they're collectable: $A90, $A78, $A75, $A89, $81. And this beauty for (wait for it) $177. Plenty more, too. (Got bored of cutting and pasting.)

Her reprints aren't worth as much: $A10

This is interesting: Kathleen Lindsay Allan Another person?

But here's the best: Signature of Hugh Desmond on notecard Gwinva (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But my blind copy/pasting was a waste of time; none of those links work (which would have been obvious if I'd actually looked at them – sorry). However, I found them by searching the various pseudonyms on that site. The autograph is "Book ID: 39222135419". Gwinva (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more (no, I'm not spending all day on this):

Lady Kathleen Lindsay mentioned somewhere above is the daughter of the 6th Earl of Carrick; her daughter is also Kathleen Lindsay (b 1902), but the marriages don't tie up to our Kathleen: peerage
this translated Swedish site mentions Kathleen Lindsay (mrs Mary Faulkner 1903 - 73) from Somerset West, South Africa. She used a total of ten names, two that she married into, and eight pseudonyms. (cites the 1993 Guiness); seems to clarify the names issue (or muddy them further???)
Sci fi site: Richmond (Mary) [Kathleen Lindsay] The Valley of Doom. London: Wright & Brown, [1947].... A lost-world fantasy. Lindsay was a British author, born in South Africa, the author of hundreds of romance novels. See Clute & Nicholls: The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. → possible further research there
By the way, why is the article at "Mary Faulkner", not "Kathleen Lindsay"? Gwinva (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinva! An autograph! Good score! As to your last question: good question. Who of us is to update the article? I would but I have my hands full trying to recruit a student to research our Mary oops sorry our Kathleen's life and also figuring out how to trump you in research. Mhicaoidh (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"LINDSAY, Kathleen Mary (many pseudonyms) (1903-1973)" according to this [7] which doesnt show up unless you subscribe. I will search "Proof copy 3 EiA Oct 2004 Vol.31 No.2". Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This cant be her, for who could have resisted that maiden name on the cover of a romance? [8]. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't it just a little bit curious that her father lived at Queenstown, Cape Province, South Africa. I wonder how far Queenstown is from Somerset West.

Re the article name: Guinness refers to her as "Kathleen Lindsay (Mrs Mary Faulkner)". That says to me that her real first name was Mary, one of her husbands was a man named Faulkner, and Kathleen Lindsay was a pseudonym (*). She had a maiden surname and three married surnames, but the only 2 of those 4 names we know for sure are Faulkner and Jeffryes - although Lindsay is now a possibility (*). I very much doubt WP has a policy for such a case, but even if it did, we still don't really know which of her four surnames is the most appropriate one. If she wrote under only a single name/pseudonym, that would make it easy - we'd use that name for the article. But that isn't the case, either. What a conundrum! Since Mrs Mary Faulkner is mentioned in our primary source of information about her (Guinness), I suggest that we keep it as "Mary Faulkner" until such time as we get more adequate information about her. (This case reminds me a little of Carol Grace.)

There's conflicting information on the number of names she wrote under. Guinness says she wrote under "two other married names and 8 pen names". The "other" says to me that she wrote under all 3 married names, including Faulkner and Jeffryes. We have a list of 7 titles under Mary Faulkner, so I feel safe in my intepretation. We have nothing yet under Mary (?) Jeffryres. Adding the 8 pseudonyms to the 3 married names gives us 11 names in total. But the Swedish site says it's only 10 in total, and she wrote under only 2 of her married names. Maybe the reason we can't find any titles under Jeffryes is that she didn't write under that name. We know she dedicated some books to Percy Jeffryes, so perhaps that was enough. Maybe the Swedish site is right after all and Guinness had this detail incorrect. I won't be too hard on them, though; I'm sure they would have been almost as much in the dark about her as we are. (I've sent off a request for further info to Guinness, btw.)

(*) And now, after all that, sabinet comes along and upsets the apple cart by suggesting her real name was not just Kathleen Lindsay, but Kathleen Mary Lindsay. Maybe she was born Kathleen Mary, but preferred to be known as Mary, hence Mary Faulkner. The possibilities are endless. I just know she's up in Heaven having a hell of a laugh at all this. You will relent soon, won't you, Mary, and give us a sign.

You folks are tremendous, by the way. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]