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

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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

Guns Germs and Steel

In relation to the above mentioned work by Jared Diamond. His book, while deeply fascinating, has been stated by eminent professors such as Professor Richard Bulliet of Colombia University to be: "...wrong in almost every instance..." among other derogatory comments (I could provide an exact citation for this claim but would require me watching all of The Earth and its Peoples lecture series again, which I can't be bothered to do just now) I recall that on many occasions within Wikipedia this work has been used as a guide to cite, reference and answer questions. In light of the statements by Professor Bulliet and others, and now that we are aware that being trained in physiology; ornithology and ecology; his expertise is not in the field in question, history, unlike Professor Bulliet. I wonder if there has been any projects to remove citations relating to this work in articles and elsewhere. Further to this, when a scientific work is, at a much later date, debunked, do we have any project to actively rectify errors within Wikipedia? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The work that you criticise has won prizes, so I would regard it as a valid source, but where there are alternative theories from WP:Reliable sources, Wikipedia should report these also. Could you provide links to some of the criticisms of Jared Diamond's work? Dbfirs 11:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a wealth of criticism on the article on the book itself. I think that fundamentally, this is simply the wrong type of source to begin with, for writing an encyclopedia article, at least for most parts of the article. GG&S is not primarily presenting or summarizing historical/anthropological work - it's an argument/position based on an accumulation of expert sources, presented by a well-educated non-expert. I think that popular literature like this gets cited a lot more often than it should due to its popularity and accessibility compared to proper sources. It would be a better idea to cut out the middle-man and directly cite the experts that Diamond himself is citing for anything useful. To answer the original question, I'm not aware of any such organized program, but it would probably be better to ask the WikiProject talk pages than here. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's almost completely inaccurate, it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with an example or two. Also, I can't find "Peter Bulliet" on Google. And are you sure it's Colombia U rather than Columbia U? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is within this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF6ig8c9Gh0 series of lectures that Professor Bulliet makes the statement, but as I watch these several months back I can't now direct you to which video, and a timestamp in any particular video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His article is under Richard Bulliet, and it is indeed Columbia, not Colombia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note: the above exchange looks odd because the OP has changed the name in the original question from Peter to Richard. Matt Deres (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for that link - I always enjoy Bulliet. He mentions "[Jared] who got nearly everything wrong" not too far from the end of session 2 - at about the 1h-mark (but I made no notes). It may be just me, but it seems more like an underhand compliment to me, not a serious claim that Jared is massively wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]