Talk:Martin Gardner/Archive 2

Buon compleanno! (21 ottobre 2008)

 * This comment added with sig and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from an unregistered user
The "Fads and Fallacies" is Gardners work as a journalist, or critic, but not as a scientist. This work is nothing else than a collection of reports and opinions, without the proper scientific approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.19.109 (talk • contribs)
 * This comment added with sig and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism
It's not quite correct to say that Gardner took aim at vegetarians in Fads & Fallacies. There is a chapter on Food Faddists which mentions vegetarianism. He deliberately didn't discuss ethical arguments against eating meat. In context, he's clearly attacking a pseudoscientific approach to nutrition that says that meat is poisonous. You could regard this as a subset of vegetarianism or a trend which overlaps vegetarianism, but not the same thing. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He says "Vegetarians are fond of pointing out that meat produces in the body harmful deposits of uric acid and 'necrones' ...". I have searched in vain for any other reference to necrones anywhere at all; perhaps you can enlighten me, lest I get the impression that they are a figment of Gardner's imagination. He also says "Among the amino-acids which are essential to health, ...It is extremely hard to obtain all ten from a plant diet", a conclusion unsupported by even anecdotal evidence from realistic vegetarian or vegan diets for humans. It is quite correct to say that Gardner took aim at vegetarians. It's a full page rather than a mention. It starts with a mocking tone, with "popular among Hindu and occult groups, the Trappist monks, and small Protestant sects ...", and with nothing to support your idea of a "subset of vegetarianism" or whatever. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Necrones" was apparently used in the 40s to the 70s  .   Collect (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for those, but both the references given are just denunciations in passing, and I've still never seen any citation of positive support for the idea. The second reference is interesting in that it locates it to naturopathy, although there is no mention of necrones in that wp article. Gardner's strong allegation "Vegetarians are fond of pointing out ..." remains totally untrue as far as necrones are concerned. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin Gardner's Corrections/Insertions Rejected
In 2009, Martin Gardner told me (in person) that his edits to his own wiki page were rejected, because an editor wanted proof of his information and did not believe that Gardner was himself. He was 95 at the time, and did not have the inclination to fight the editor. (I hope wikipedia corrects this serious flaw in its model for data collection.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMichaelFabian (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's model for data collection is WP:RS and must remain so. This is not a "serious flaw". Anyone can edit, and there is therefore no way of checking the reliability of the editor, so the validation must be in the content. In this case we have no way of knowing whether you are mistaken, or lying, or joking.
 * Usually when subjects of articles make edits that are completely uncontentious, like details of names and dates, they would be accepted because of WP:AGF, but anything controversial ought to be treated with scepticism. If Gardner had really wanted to correct something substantial he should have published it; he had plenty of access to the media to do so. It would nevertheless be interesting to know where in the history these alleged edits occurred; there is no record of a user called Gardner there that I can see. There are some mentions above of personal contacts with Gardner, but no allegation that any correction was rejected. In any case the same sourcing caveats atill apply. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it highly improbable that Martin Gardner ever attempted to edit Wikipedia himself, or had any inclination to do so, what-so-ever. He was impressed with Wikipedia, but never used email, or a word processor. Only a browser for google, etc. Johnedwardmiller (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe it, and served the old fool right. Poetic justice if you ask me. 198.255.198.157 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Rudolf Carnap
No mention of Rudolf Carnap in the article. I remember that Carnap was a mentor of Gardner. Maybe someone has clearer ideas than mine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.36.61.199 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the infobox (the box at the right-hand side), find "influences" and click "show", you will see that Carnap is mentioned there. Anything more substantial would need sourcing. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mathematics wikiproject
Can someone add this article to wikiproject mathematics--Toploftical (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External Link for martin-gardner.org
The Gathering for Gardner Foundation launched a new website martin-gardner.org at the end of G4G11. I would like to add it to the External Links. Discussion? Johnedwardmiller (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a link to http://martin-gardner.org/ would be useful. There may be some opposition because there are already so many links, but someone like Gardner is an obvious exception to what is normal, and while I have not examined the links recently, they appear to be good. The last line ("...Mystery Magazine...") should be omitted because it is not an external link, but the others look fine. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Uriah Fuller
I propose that Uriah Fuller be merged into Martin Gardner. The former is a pen name of the latter, and the content there isn't suffient developed or distinct that it needs a separate page; perhaps a separate section would suffice. Klbrain (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge. No way does the pen name of an author of two booklets deserve its own article imo. Uriah Fuller is already mentioned in the Gardner article in the Pseudoscience and skepticism section. That seems to cover it fine imo. 5Q5 (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. The activity carried out under the pen name doesn't seem sufficiently notable for a dedicated article. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. Agree. A perhaps illustrative counter-example, there is a separate article for Richard Bachman (a pseudonym of Stephen King). But that one is merited because there were many books published under that name, and it has an interesting history, including a story about how an amateur sleuth uncovered it. There's just not much to relate about Uriah Fuller. --Krelnik (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. Agree.  It does not even require a separate section.  It can all be explained by expanding the paragraph, "Gardner was a relentless critic of self-proclaimed Israeli psychic Uri Geller and wrote two satirical exposes of him in the 1970s using the pen name Uriah Fuller."--Toploftical (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)