Talk:Robert Todd Carroll

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Todd Carroll article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from Robert Todd Carroll appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 May 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Robert Todd Carroll started his skeptic's journey as a seven-year-old doubting Santa Claus?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Todd Carroll.

Wikipedia

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers

Misc

I cleaned it up a bit. But do we have any evidence to suggest that the Skeptic's Dictionary began with exactly 50 articles? Zensufi 00:14, 21 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

importance

I think this article is important. Go to "what links here" and you will find quite a few articles that link to this one. Bubba73 (talk), 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{importance}} tag added without explanation by User:24.55.47.135. The article already asserts the important of Carroll, specifically that he is a published author and has a well-known, well-visited website on skepticism. This gives lie to the claim that it "lacks information on the importance of the subject matter". On the other hand, it could use more material and better sourcing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

while I agree that the subject is notable enough for an article. The article itself needs work, and references to something other than the subjects work. --Rocksanddirt 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC) In fact the Afd for this article back in feb had a number of good refs. that don't seem to be included.....? --Rocksanddirt 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

This article reads like something you'd see on his website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.250.226 (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is lacking third-party sources that are more than interviews with the author. Most sources appear to be self-promotion. Does not even describe what "skeptics societies" are about or why we should care.--Parkwells (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to understand what the complaint is. If you don't know what "skeptics societies" means, then you wont be able to understand what the article is about. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll's views have attracted numerous interviews for him from mainstream media[citation needed]

I'm not sure that the statement that currently says "Carroll's views have attracted numerous interviews for him from mainstream media" is correct. I did find one article from the New York Times which has several quotes from him [1] but one article does not constitute "numerous". If other people can't find more cites, we should probably rephrase the sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Longtime advocate of atheism", Cat:Atheist philosophers, Cat:American atheists

Is Carroll an atheist? I can't find anything about either advocacy of atheism or personal belief in it in his autobiographical sketch or the atheism page at http://www.skepdic.com/. Indeed, the skepdic.com atheist page sounds, to me, more as if he would not describe himself as an atheist. I haven't had time to research his writings in depth, but I suggest that is up to the editors who want these claims in the article, rather than to me. Meanwhile, since this falls under the WP:BLP policy, I have removed his supposed advocacy of atheism, and the categories "Atheist philosophers" and "American atheists". Feel free to reinsert these things if you can provide a reference to a reliable source. But please note that "atheist" categories are reserved for people "for whom their atheism was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and who have self-identified as atheists".[2] (Similar limitations apply to other religious categories.) Bishonen | talk 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. I've found a modest reference for Carroll being personally an atheist (at least in 1996) in the Skeptic's Dictionary article, namely this "personal profile" from Who's Who Online, 1996. It's obviously not sufficient for the things I've removed, though: no "advocacy", no relation to his notability. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Updating the Page

I'll be working on updating this page during the next few weeks. Please contact me here if you want to collaborate or if you have any relevant information. Mostafa.kmahmoud (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished expanding this page, also removed the flagged external links section after using the notable links as citations Mostafa.kmahmoud (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all the hard work you have done, my only tiny complaint, is that this website is not a reliable source [3], it is a fringe website that is anti-Wikipedia hosted by a bunch of paranormal kooks who spend time attacking skeptics and Wikipedia editors. I think that citing this website is only going to bring about problems. HealthyGirl (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death

I have very minimal experience editing, but I thought I should pass this along for someone who does. I found it in today's paper.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=robert-todd-carroll&pid=181699431 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookrede (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The criticism section only appears to be apologetics of fringe theorists, making me wonder if it's not undue... (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —Paleo Neonate – 22:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:PaleoNeonate: Seems like it. Barron seems to be nobody special, and I deleted his section. I guess any of the people Carroll wrote about could have such a section here, but if we do have those, they should at least be restricted to crackpots with Wikipedia pages. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, here was the state at the time I wrote the above in 2017. —Paleo Neonate – 21:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sourcing in this article

One way or another, the source cited for most of the material in this article is Robert Todd Carroll. So work is needed to bring the article into line with the content guideline WP:SELFSOURCE. "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." --Cordially, --O Govinda (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Replacing "best known for his website The Skeptic's Dictionary," we've restored to to the lede that Carroll was "best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism; he achieved notability by publishing The Skeptic's Dictionary online in 1994."

This is a relatively small issue. But:

The restored material seems needless, a bit wordy, perhaps crossing the border into puffery. Our point here is to briefly inform the reader of Carroll's achievements, not "establish his notability," as one might in an internal Wikipedia discussion about whether to keep the article (which I agree we should).
As far as I can tell, the restored material lacks support from an RS.
I'm aware of fields like marine biology, particle physics, literary criticism, and so on. I'm not aware of a recognized academic field called "skepticism." I haven't seen any university Departments of Skepticism or heard of any degrees awarded in the field. It seems to me that skepticism is more like an approach, an attitude, that an intelligent person brings to consideration of claims and supposed evidence. A marine biologist, a particle physicist, a literary critic, an atheist, a theologian could all be skeptical. So I'm skeptical of the claim that Carroll was "best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism." That he's "best known for his website" would seem objectively verifiable by a modest bit of OR (though I'd like to see such a statement sourced). For more than that, I'm doubtful.
It seems to me the article does little to demonstrate his contributions to skepticism apart from his website, for which the trimmer lede recorded he is noted.
The restored date when Skepdic.com went online is surely not notable. Carroll is known for his website, not for publishing it in such-and-such year.

I think my revised lede -- more concise, better grounded in objective fact -- did more honor to Carroll than the previous one, now restored.

Shall we revert?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion.

What do the best quality references actually say? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hipal/Ronz.

The Guardian only mentions The Skeptic's Dictionary (unsurprisingly, because the Guardian item is a review of that work).

The CFI ref, noting Carroll's election as a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, highlights The Skeptic's Dictionary and makes a one-word mention of the Skeptimedia blog, but doesn't mention more "contributions to the field of skepticism" than that.

The Sacramento Bee does say, "Bob" (yes, Bob) "is best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism." But apart from The Skeptic's Dictionary and "giving lectures," it doesn't say what those contributions might be.

I would normally think of the Bee, a newspaper, as a high-quality source. But the article, an obit, doesn't seem to have the same quality as a news article. I have nothing against obits. But this one reads more like a eulogy. (Sample: "Loved for his strong but gentle manner, his quick wit, his integrity, his storytelling, and his songwriting, he will be remembered and greatly missed. . .")

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at how poor the sources seem poor overall. If there are no better sources to be found, I think a complete rewrite is in order. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (Meanwhile: Shall we revert the lede?)

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Views on Religion" section

The "Views on Religion" section is entirely unsourced or self-sourced.
As far as I know, Carroll is not celebrated for having made new or profound contributions to religious or anti-religious thought.

If Carroll had views about religion that deserve a place in an encyclopedia, we should find them discussed by reliable secondary sources. Unless someone has reliable sources to bring forward, the section seems to deserve to be dropped. (And if someone wants to re-add it later with reliable sources, great.)

No?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Jon Barron" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jon Barron has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2 § Jon Barron until a consensus is reached. --Finngall ^talk 16:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

undue weight of Rupert Sheldrake's opinion

Sheldrake replied to Carroll's criticism by defending his own arguments and accusing Carroll of committing several logical fallacies, including using false dilemmas and misrepresenting Sheldrake's position. He criticized the Skeptic's Dictionary itself, writing that it would not survive had it been subject to independent peer reviews.[31] -- So what? The fact that the subject of this article was critical of Sheldrake's claims doesn't lend any extra weight to Sheldrake's unsupported unreasoned claims about SkepDic. -- 2600:8802:5913:1700:704D:330:4089:6908 (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]