Talk:SuperFreakonomics

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to SuperFreakonomics by User:Gamaliel as per consensus. kotra (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Superfreakonomics (book) → Superfreakonomics — - [New name should simply be Superfreakonomics. Current name Superfreakonomics (book) was necessary previously because of some confusion over a redirect to a non-existent page. This is still an issue because I attempted to move the page myself but an automatic message said it couldn't be done.] --Doomsdayer520 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Pretty sure there aren't too many other uses of "Superfreakonomics" that are more popular than this. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll go ahead and move it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on. The title is usually rendered in all caps, but on the dustjacket flap and page xv it's rendered as SuperFreakonomics - with a capital F. The official website also uses this capitalization int the page title (look at the top of your browser window). I think we should move it to SuperFreakonomics?HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting point. Google Books has it as "SuperFreakonomics", whereas WorldCat has it as "Superfreakonomics". The official site has it as the former, though, so I guess I would support that change. Let's see what other people say. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be SuperFreakonomics, with the capital F. The publisher uses it as such, as do the authors when they're writing about it (e.g. here). ~ UBeR (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with a move to "SuperFreakonomics". There are some screwy redirects going on, probably messed up by me. Someone please fix my mess here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superfreakonomics&redirect=no Doomsdayer520 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that can be done about that now; it's pointed to the right spot for now. If we do end up moving it to Superfreakonomics (vs SuperFreakonomics) an admin will have to do the moves. Later we'll have to deal with double redirects; there are some bots who can help fix that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and moved the article to SuperFreakonomics with a capital F. If there are any objections please discuss them here and I'll make another page move, if necessary, at the end of the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversy section
I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the controversy section. As it stood, it was just a big list of articles, which violates WP:LINKFARM and was heavily weighting down the article. If you want to have a controversy section, at least say what the controversy is about. And add some info to the rest of the article to balance it out, so this doesn't turn into a whipping post. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think controversy sections are good for encyclopedic writing, but I DO think the controversy should get some decent mention. If I had more expertise, I'd take a crack at working it into the article. I'll be following along, though, to see what happens in the media now that the book's been released for sale. Quietmarc (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, there should definitely be some form of section that covers the response to the book - it just shouldn't look like this version. I have a problem with the current page, though. While I'm willing to accept the Union of Concerned Scientists, blogs such as http://leftasanexercise.simulating-reality.com/ are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used. And I'm not sure about ClimateProgress.org just yet. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Global warming
An anon IP added a great deal of text about the global warming section. I've removed it on several grounds, including the fact that it's a lot of synthesis of sources, original research, and most importantly, undue weight. Clearly this book is getting slammed for its global warming section, but this article is not supposed to be solely about that. We're supposed to show the book in a neutral light, not have a lead and then huge paragraphs about exactly how it gets global warming wrong - aside from a weight issue, that's also using this page as a coatrack to attack the authors. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude there is no synthesis or original research at all - I added a substantial number of references, including refutations to the points included in the article by the actual authors of the book. Maybe this is not to your POV, but I think that Dubner and Levitt's responses deserve inclusion in the article. It's not fair to just highlight the people slamming them, and to ignore the fact that the person they are accused of misrepresenting has said they acted in good faith. (link to the version I added.) 78.105.234.140 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this article isn't going to fully document every he said-she said that happens. The Freakonomics article doesn't do that for that book, and we're not going to do it here. The huge sections of quotations you added constitute a violation of undue weight. Again, this article is meant to cover the book as a whole, not just the global warming section. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you're against. The only extended quotes I added were from Romm, Caldeira, Dubner and Levitt. Given that a large part of the controversy so far originates from Romm's claims about Caldeira, I don't see how you can't mention what these people both said. It would be useful if, instead of reverting 100% of the text, you'd just edited the bits that you disagree with. Given that there is a Reception section, I don't see why you reverted citations from reliable sources like Nature and The Guardian, and also reverted citations to Nathan Myhrvold's "stratoshield" concept - at the moment the article just slams Dubner and Levitt without even mentioning what they say in the book! 78.105.234.140 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have been a bit hasty in removing that text. Give me some time to clean this up. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the additions, removing the quotes. I have left in the quote from Caldeira as it really is central to the entire controversy and I can't think of a way to reword it without just repeating what he says... I have also removed the separate sections. Hopefully this is better. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Re undue weight - Please just keep in mind that if the authors' responses to the critics' objections are permitted on the page, then responses to the authors' responses should be as well - especially if the authors' responses blame someone that they profile in the book.68.122.191.204 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC) (anna)
 * p.s. Also, to 78.105.234.140 - keep in mind that you can provide expanded info on SF's SourceWatch page. 68.122.191.204 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC) (anna)
 * This edit deleted the Caldeira quote, preferring instead to quote Romm's version of what Caldeira thinks. From nytimes there are two relevant quotes from Caldeira:
 * The only significant error is the line: ‘carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.’ That is just wrong and I never would have said it. On the other hand, I f&@?ed up. They sent me the draft and I approved it without reading it carefully and I just missed it. … I think everyone operated in good faith, and this was just a mistake that got by my inadequate editing. I believe all of the ideas attributed to me are based on fact, with the exception of the ‘carbon dioxide is not the right villain’ line. That said, when I am speaking, I place these facts in a very different context and draw different policy conclusions.... I believe the authors to have worked in good faith. They draw different conclusions than I draw from the same facts, but as authors of the book, that is their prerogative.
 * Note that these are direct quotes from Caldeira, not rephrased-this-is-what-I-think-he-meant. The Wikipedia article currently seems to be supporting Romm's version of events and blaming Dubner. It is clear that Caldeira does not blame Dubner ("everyone operated in good faith, and this was just a mistake that got by my inadequate editing."), and attributes some (most?) of the blame to himself ("I f&@?ed up"). 78.105.234.140 (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, a point regarding the "undue weight" comments: almost all of the press so far around this book has been talking about the climate change issue. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of the issues covered by the reliable sources. It isn't our fault if the reliable sources have chosen to focus on the climate change issue and not talk about the rest of the book. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Re C. quotes, Sorry 78.105.234.140 - I hadn't trusted the Caldeira remarks you quoted, they were dubious since old (thus possibly superseded, due to things having Transpired) and since they were from the Freakonomics blog, hardly a reliable source; but in this case they seem to be right - I asked C. in email for remarks re Villain and yesterday got pretty much the same response; So I've added the gist to WP with a link to where his remarks are printed in full. anna 68.121.55.153 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things: one, don't edit any part of other people's comments; and two, a personal email conversation between you and Caldeira isn't directly usable on here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Global warming section had the information and sourced facts I go to WikiPedia for. Please leave this in.James Shelton32 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Prostitution
Just wanted to note this Guardian article so I or another editor could discuss it in the article. Carry on. Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-Sequiter in Global Warming Section
There is a glaring non-sequiter in the Global Warming section. It talks about criticism of SuperFreakonomics plan, then says this: "In response, Levitt and Dubner have stated on their Freakonomics blog that global warming is man-made and an important issue." That is in no way a response to the criticisms that are mentioned in the previous paragraph. This sentence doesn't belong at all, and looks more like a blatant attempt at AGW propaganda. JettaMann (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)