 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Subject matter
editI think that the title of this article needs to be changed to something more specific, perhaps to the title of the book the article purports to describe?
It may be more useful to frame the debate. This is keeping with the mission and purpose of Wikipedia: To describe "what is" and "what happened". This is true for the book as well; any critique of the book would necessarily include what contemporaries thought of it.
Per the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability_(books), it is recommended that this article be merged into that already established for the author Steve_Fuller_(sociologist). Alternatively, an article might be expanded to describe this debate, should it be deemed significant, and to simply disambiguate the debate from any works derived from or created in reference to it. (Miimno (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC))
Unless the article includes the full range of views on the book and how it connects up with Fuller's previous work on Kuhn (which is currently not represented in his main article), it should be eliminated. It reads like it was put here by one of his critics, perhaps Rupert Read, whose review in an academic journal seems to dominate the discussion -- more than the book itself, whose contents are never discussed! --Credenza deluxe (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The UK "popular science" site is misquoted, the article does not say that the book is meaningless babble, but that it becomes "meaningless babble" when read too fast. --Rebach (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)