![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A lot of this article is written by an obvious fan of Gardner -- nothing wrong with that, I admire him too. But "deeply loved" and other stuff that "reeks of fandom" as someone wrote about another article, should definitely be deleted or toned down. They are POV or borderline POV and in an case sound very amateurish in an encycl. article. I got rid of some of the worst examples a month or so ago, but the whole article could use some tightening and a critical rewrite. Hayford Peirce 18:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Uriah Fuller redirects to Martin Gardner, without the slightest hint as to why this should make sense. Please add an explanation to Gardner's biography. <KF> 00:57, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Another psudonym is George Groth, now referenced with his review on the page. [1] DougHill ( talk) 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
One (possibly more) of the books listed as if it is by Gardner is not: -The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics is by Roger Penrose, one of the most important mathematicians of recent years, although Gardner wrote the foreword. I shall correct this and some of the other obvious fandom, but take this as a note that the booklist may not be accurate.
Agree. I've done a little editing and put all the "Mathematical Recreations" collections in proper order, but I think the list could benefit by a re-org. Get all the annotated works together, article collections together, pseudoscience/skeptic stuff together, etc. --- Emb021 14:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Wragge 14:54, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Leslie 17:11, 2009 May 19 (UTC)
Do we really need a long discussion on the benefits of hollow Earth theory here? Can't we just put this stuff on the hollow-Earth page? To be honest, it's so silly that I can't imagine a real encyclopedia would ever discuss such a thing in a Martin Gardner entry. I know- that's my POV and I apologize to the people who believe in hollow Earths. I just had the misfortune of being born on the surface of a sphere and I can't help it. Christianjb 05:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
In fact I just convinced myself. I'm moving this stuff to the Hollow Earth page right now. If anyone can supply me with another biography of Gardner that so prominently mentions Hollow Earths then I'll be happy to reconsider. I'm open to compromise here. Christianjb 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Martin Gardner is considered to be one of the most readable and accessible popularizers of science in the English language. Gardner is especially well known for his efforts to educate the public about "genuine science" versus what he calls "pseudoscience." Yet Gardner's self-described "skeptical" attitude toward "pseudoscience" is itself sometimes open to critique on scientific grounds. An example is Gardner's critique of one contemporary proponent of a concave hollow Earth theory, Mostafa Abdelkader, whom Gardner discusses in one chapter of Gardner's book On the Wild Side (1992). Gardner notes that "most mathematicians believe that an inside-out universe, with properly adjusted physical laws, is empirically irrefutable." However, Gardner rejects the concave hollow Earth theory, not because it has been shown to be wrong, but instead entirely on the basis of Occam's Razor. Curiously, Gardner goes on, in ad hominem fashion, to state that, although "[n]owhere does Abdelkader invoke the Koran or his religious faith," Gardner nevertheless "suspects" that "Muslim fundamentalism lurks in the background" of Abdelkader's work in mathematics and physics. Martin Gardner is among the leading popularizers of the "dubunking" of eccentric views as pseudoscience, so it is interesting that Gardner would seek to discredit a scientific theory by attributing religious motives. This type of attack does not seem scientifically based, any more than Adolf Hitler's belief in the physics of jet propulsion, for example, would serve to debunk jet propulsion as pseudoscience. Likewise, neither Newton's religious views, nor the Muslim beliefs of the great medieval Arab mathematicians, should serve to discredit their mathematical work as "pseudoscience") Criticism based on Occam's Razor is standard and within the realm of widely accepted scientific reasoning, but ad hominem "suspicion" about religious views cannot be a reasonable basis for the epithet "pseudoscience." This type of polemical use of the phrase "pseudoscience" opens a self-described a skeptical inquirer, like Martin Gardner, to the criticism that he is a dogmatic enforcer of orthodoxy.
I'm tired of the following arguments:
Therefore: Tomatoes are evil.
The sillygism about tomatoes is funny, but of course it doesn't fairly track the discussion. I think the actual form of the discussion was more like this:
The fact that Gardner used such an argument against Abdelkader does not necessarily lend support to Abdelkader's physics or to Abdelkader's mathematics. But the ease with which Gardner slipped into this mode of argument could be instructive to any among us who care about method, about scientific inquiry, etc. The references to Newton and to medieval mathematicians were not part of an evil-tomato argument; the point was instead a reminder that a person's supposed religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are not normally relevant to discredit his or her mathematical or physical theories.
\/\/\/\
[The following comment was added by an anonymous editor to the article; I have moved it here where it is more appropriate. --
C S
(Talk)
00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: Can someone expand on this (i.e. Garnder criticized for statements on Hollow Earth theory).
I see that Gardner's books for the magic trade are specifically not listed. Why is that? Is it unprofessional to list those books? I have one and could add it to the list, but not if it's against wikipedia policy or otherwise impolite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.152.77 ( talk • contribs)
The book Codes, Ciphers, and Secret Writing is listed as being published in 1984. I had a book with this title in 1963 or 1964, but I don't know the author. Was the 1984 book a reprint of this earlier book, or is it different from the earlier book? I've found a reference to a 1972 edition of Gardner's book by Simon and Schuster, but I'm sure I had a paperback from Scholastic Book Service in the 4th grade (1963-64) (that title, at least). Bubba73 (talk), 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed "mate" from expression "yeoman's mate." The title of the Navy rating is simply "Yeoman," modified by rank, as Chief Yeoman, Yeoman 2nd Class, Yeoman Apprentice, and so forth. The writer was confused by other Navy ratings such as Boatswain's Mate and Gunner's Mate in which the "mate" IS part of the title. Bog 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I just got a letter from Martin Gardner, after I had sent a printout of the article to him. He "enjoyed" the article and gave a positive feedback upon it. He only noticed the error that I just corrected (see [1]). -- Mosmas 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't quite belong here, but does anyone know a way to contact Martin Gardner personally, i.e. email? Perhaps he has a blog that could be linked to... Leon math 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two links to criticisms by a B. Kordish listed in the external links section. I thought they seemed a bit out of place, and sure enough they were added by a user named Kordish. :) I'm removing them for now as seeming vanity,, although I suppose if Kordish's criticism of Gardner is notable it should be mentioned under the Controversy section. -- Starwed 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Just how did he go from doing a degree in philosophy to writing books on mathematics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.231.101 ( talk) 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
I am in possession of a personal letter from Gardner in which he admits he is no mathematician. -- Dogyo ( talk) 17:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone can please add to the article a picture, in permission of course? (Maybe from the man himself?) Thank you. 82.166.143.82 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Gardener, Martin (Author): "Dianetics is a book of impressive thickness, written in a repetitious, immature style. Hubbard claims he wrote it in three weeks. This is believable because most of his writing is done at lightning speed. (For a while, he used a special electric IBM typewriter with extra keys for common words like 'and,' 'the,' and 'but.' The paper was on a roll to avoid the interruption of changing sheets.) Nothing in the book remotely resembles a scientific report." - Chapter 22 Dianetics from Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner; Dover, New York: 1957. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 ( talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I sent Martin Gardner a copy of his Wikipedia page a few months ago At that time he did not have internet access. I talked to him yesterday (March 21, 08) and he said there are a couple minor errors in the introduction, though most of the citation is quite accurate.
It is correctly stated that Martin was a yeoman in the Navy in WWII, but that he was never a signalman, nor was he secretary to the ship's captain. Wiki: "While his primary duty was signaling by means of flags and lights, demanding superb eyesight..." Martin said this just isn't true, and the idea that he has "superb eyesight" will be contradicted by any photo of him wearing very thick glasses.
Martin has moved from Henderson NC to Norman, OK where he can be close to his son Jim, and where he continues to be active, writing books (his newest is on optical illusions with pop-out models. He also writes book reviews for various magazines.
--Scot Morris (former games editor of "OMNI" magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotiam ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Martin Gardiner was the author of an article appearing in Esquire in the early 70s on pyramid power. I remember reading the article which outlined the outlandish even preposterous effects and phenomena attributed to the mystical power of pyramids in a convincing, matter of fact maner; so that, many (including myself) were fooled into believing in its (the essay's) authenticity, if not in the veracity of the absurd claims made for pyramid power. Since Esquire (ante-Murdoch) was read by a fairly literate crowd, the hoax proved a real indicator and indictment of human gulibility, even in presumably educated people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.101.67 ( talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Corrections made, note: I admit, in my comment, to past gulibility, and exposed my myself as a bad, really bad, speller, maybe gramatically inept as well. I hope this doesn't damage the reception of the comment's contribution, which I hoped would be corroborated, or refuted.
The article contains the following, under the heading "Pseudoscience": "In 2001 Gardner sent James Randi, another challenger of psuedo-science, the key to an old theorem asserted in 1960 by Hugo Steinhaus: the one-seventh area triangle found in an arbitrary trangle." I do not understand why the fact that Gardner told Randi about someone else's 40-year-old proof of a very old mathematical theorem (1) merits inclusion in Wikipedia, (2) belongs on this page, or (3) belongs in a section on "pseudoscience" on Gardner's page if it's here at all. If we listed every bit of mathematical correspondence Gardner has had with anyone then this page would be quite absurdly long. (The Gardner/Randi connection is already mentioned on the one-seventh area triangle page, where the reference makes a bit more sense.) Am I missing something? Gareth McCaughan ( talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As an old fan (I'm 79) of Martin Gardner's, I just stumbled upon this page and noticed a big hole. A note in the discussion states, "Uriah Fuller redirects to Martin Gardner, without the slightest hint as to why this should make sense." Of course it makes sense, Martin Gardner wrote two marvelous pamphlets (I'd hate to call them books as they were 41 and 70 pages), Confessions of a Psychic and Further Confessions of a Psychic in 1975 and 1980 under the pseudonym Uriah Fuller. These definately deserve inclusion in any discussion of Martin Gardner.
I'm going to watch this article and if no one else decides to add the information, I'll do it when I have a little more time.
They seem to be available for download from a number of sources but fairly rare in print. One web site is offering both of them for $180!
Alweiss ( talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Something the article does not mention. As one reads biographies and interviews with American mathematicians (and even some non-Americans and non-mathematicians), one name that repeatedly crops up as having inspired them is Martin Gardner and his columns in Scientific American. I think it would be great to find some sources and add something on this influence of Gardner's. Shreevatsa ( talk) 19:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not quite sure how to handle this or I'd just do it myself, but the article states:
The "Mathematical Games" column ran from 1956 to 1981 and introduced many subjects to a wider audience, including: (long list) In fact, isn't it so that in at least a couple of very important cases, the column was the forum where the topic was introduced in the first place, via the collaboration of the inventors:
Can someone corroborate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.124.3.3 ( talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought, but the Freecell page mentions Gardner and Mathematical Games. Is this an oversight, or is the consensus that the column was not a significant factor in the development and popularization of FreeCell type games?-- 174.7.11.91 ( talk) 08:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Nevit ( talk) 09:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A lot of this article is written by an obvious fan of Gardner -- nothing wrong with that, I admire him too. But "deeply loved" and other stuff that "reeks of fandom" as someone wrote about another article, should definitely be deleted or toned down. They are POV or borderline POV and in an case sound very amateurish in an encycl. article. I got rid of some of the worst examples a month or so ago, but the whole article could use some tightening and a critical rewrite. Hayford Peirce 18:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Uriah Fuller redirects to Martin Gardner, without the slightest hint as to why this should make sense. Please add an explanation to Gardner's biography. <KF> 00:57, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Another psudonym is George Groth, now referenced with his review on the page. [1] DougHill ( talk) 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
One (possibly more) of the books listed as if it is by Gardner is not: -The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics is by Roger Penrose, one of the most important mathematicians of recent years, although Gardner wrote the foreword. I shall correct this and some of the other obvious fandom, but take this as a note that the booklist may not be accurate.
Agree. I've done a little editing and put all the "Mathematical Recreations" collections in proper order, but I think the list could benefit by a re-org. Get all the annotated works together, article collections together, pseudoscience/skeptic stuff together, etc. --- Emb021 14:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Wragge 14:54, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Leslie 17:11, 2009 May 19 (UTC)
Do we really need a long discussion on the benefits of hollow Earth theory here? Can't we just put this stuff on the hollow-Earth page? To be honest, it's so silly that I can't imagine a real encyclopedia would ever discuss such a thing in a Martin Gardner entry. I know- that's my POV and I apologize to the people who believe in hollow Earths. I just had the misfortune of being born on the surface of a sphere and I can't help it. Christianjb 05:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
In fact I just convinced myself. I'm moving this stuff to the Hollow Earth page right now. If anyone can supply me with another biography of Gardner that so prominently mentions Hollow Earths then I'll be happy to reconsider. I'm open to compromise here. Christianjb 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Martin Gardner is considered to be one of the most readable and accessible popularizers of science in the English language. Gardner is especially well known for his efforts to educate the public about "genuine science" versus what he calls "pseudoscience." Yet Gardner's self-described "skeptical" attitude toward "pseudoscience" is itself sometimes open to critique on scientific grounds. An example is Gardner's critique of one contemporary proponent of a concave hollow Earth theory, Mostafa Abdelkader, whom Gardner discusses in one chapter of Gardner's book On the Wild Side (1992). Gardner notes that "most mathematicians believe that an inside-out universe, with properly adjusted physical laws, is empirically irrefutable." However, Gardner rejects the concave hollow Earth theory, not because it has been shown to be wrong, but instead entirely on the basis of Occam's Razor. Curiously, Gardner goes on, in ad hominem fashion, to state that, although "[n]owhere does Abdelkader invoke the Koran or his religious faith," Gardner nevertheless "suspects" that "Muslim fundamentalism lurks in the background" of Abdelkader's work in mathematics and physics. Martin Gardner is among the leading popularizers of the "dubunking" of eccentric views as pseudoscience, so it is interesting that Gardner would seek to discredit a scientific theory by attributing religious motives. This type of attack does not seem scientifically based, any more than Adolf Hitler's belief in the physics of jet propulsion, for example, would serve to debunk jet propulsion as pseudoscience. Likewise, neither Newton's religious views, nor the Muslim beliefs of the great medieval Arab mathematicians, should serve to discredit their mathematical work as "pseudoscience") Criticism based on Occam's Razor is standard and within the realm of widely accepted scientific reasoning, but ad hominem "suspicion" about religious views cannot be a reasonable basis for the epithet "pseudoscience." This type of polemical use of the phrase "pseudoscience" opens a self-described a skeptical inquirer, like Martin Gardner, to the criticism that he is a dogmatic enforcer of orthodoxy.
I'm tired of the following arguments:
Therefore: Tomatoes are evil.
The sillygism about tomatoes is funny, but of course it doesn't fairly track the discussion. I think the actual form of the discussion was more like this:
The fact that Gardner used such an argument against Abdelkader does not necessarily lend support to Abdelkader's physics or to Abdelkader's mathematics. But the ease with which Gardner slipped into this mode of argument could be instructive to any among us who care about method, about scientific inquiry, etc. The references to Newton and to medieval mathematicians were not part of an evil-tomato argument; the point was instead a reminder that a person's supposed religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are not normally relevant to discredit his or her mathematical or physical theories.
\/\/\/\
[The following comment was added by an anonymous editor to the article; I have moved it here where it is more appropriate. --
C S
(Talk)
00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: Can someone expand on this (i.e. Garnder criticized for statements on Hollow Earth theory).
I see that Gardner's books for the magic trade are specifically not listed. Why is that? Is it unprofessional to list those books? I have one and could add it to the list, but not if it's against wikipedia policy or otherwise impolite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.152.77 ( talk • contribs)
The book Codes, Ciphers, and Secret Writing is listed as being published in 1984. I had a book with this title in 1963 or 1964, but I don't know the author. Was the 1984 book a reprint of this earlier book, or is it different from the earlier book? I've found a reference to a 1972 edition of Gardner's book by Simon and Schuster, but I'm sure I had a paperback from Scholastic Book Service in the 4th grade (1963-64) (that title, at least). Bubba73 (talk), 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed "mate" from expression "yeoman's mate." The title of the Navy rating is simply "Yeoman," modified by rank, as Chief Yeoman, Yeoman 2nd Class, Yeoman Apprentice, and so forth. The writer was confused by other Navy ratings such as Boatswain's Mate and Gunner's Mate in which the "mate" IS part of the title. Bog 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I just got a letter from Martin Gardner, after I had sent a printout of the article to him. He "enjoyed" the article and gave a positive feedback upon it. He only noticed the error that I just corrected (see [1]). -- Mosmas 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't quite belong here, but does anyone know a way to contact Martin Gardner personally, i.e. email? Perhaps he has a blog that could be linked to... Leon math 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two links to criticisms by a B. Kordish listed in the external links section. I thought they seemed a bit out of place, and sure enough they were added by a user named Kordish. :) I'm removing them for now as seeming vanity,, although I suppose if Kordish's criticism of Gardner is notable it should be mentioned under the Controversy section. -- Starwed 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Just how did he go from doing a degree in philosophy to writing books on mathematics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.231.101 ( talk) 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
I am in possession of a personal letter from Gardner in which he admits he is no mathematician. -- Dogyo ( talk) 17:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone can please add to the article a picture, in permission of course? (Maybe from the man himself?) Thank you. 82.166.143.82 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Gardener, Martin (Author): "Dianetics is a book of impressive thickness, written in a repetitious, immature style. Hubbard claims he wrote it in three weeks. This is believable because most of his writing is done at lightning speed. (For a while, he used a special electric IBM typewriter with extra keys for common words like 'and,' 'the,' and 'but.' The paper was on a roll to avoid the interruption of changing sheets.) Nothing in the book remotely resembles a scientific report." - Chapter 22 Dianetics from Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner; Dover, New York: 1957. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 ( talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I sent Martin Gardner a copy of his Wikipedia page a few months ago At that time he did not have internet access. I talked to him yesterday (March 21, 08) and he said there are a couple minor errors in the introduction, though most of the citation is quite accurate.
It is correctly stated that Martin was a yeoman in the Navy in WWII, but that he was never a signalman, nor was he secretary to the ship's captain. Wiki: "While his primary duty was signaling by means of flags and lights, demanding superb eyesight..." Martin said this just isn't true, and the idea that he has "superb eyesight" will be contradicted by any photo of him wearing very thick glasses.
Martin has moved from Henderson NC to Norman, OK where he can be close to his son Jim, and where he continues to be active, writing books (his newest is on optical illusions with pop-out models. He also writes book reviews for various magazines.
--Scot Morris (former games editor of "OMNI" magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotiam ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Martin Gardiner was the author of an article appearing in Esquire in the early 70s on pyramid power. I remember reading the article which outlined the outlandish even preposterous effects and phenomena attributed to the mystical power of pyramids in a convincing, matter of fact maner; so that, many (including myself) were fooled into believing in its (the essay's) authenticity, if not in the veracity of the absurd claims made for pyramid power. Since Esquire (ante-Murdoch) was read by a fairly literate crowd, the hoax proved a real indicator and indictment of human gulibility, even in presumably educated people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.101.67 ( talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Corrections made, note: I admit, in my comment, to past gulibility, and exposed my myself as a bad, really bad, speller, maybe gramatically inept as well. I hope this doesn't damage the reception of the comment's contribution, which I hoped would be corroborated, or refuted.
The article contains the following, under the heading "Pseudoscience": "In 2001 Gardner sent James Randi, another challenger of psuedo-science, the key to an old theorem asserted in 1960 by Hugo Steinhaus: the one-seventh area triangle found in an arbitrary trangle." I do not understand why the fact that Gardner told Randi about someone else's 40-year-old proof of a very old mathematical theorem (1) merits inclusion in Wikipedia, (2) belongs on this page, or (3) belongs in a section on "pseudoscience" on Gardner's page if it's here at all. If we listed every bit of mathematical correspondence Gardner has had with anyone then this page would be quite absurdly long. (The Gardner/Randi connection is already mentioned on the one-seventh area triangle page, where the reference makes a bit more sense.) Am I missing something? Gareth McCaughan ( talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As an old fan (I'm 79) of Martin Gardner's, I just stumbled upon this page and noticed a big hole. A note in the discussion states, "Uriah Fuller redirects to Martin Gardner, without the slightest hint as to why this should make sense." Of course it makes sense, Martin Gardner wrote two marvelous pamphlets (I'd hate to call them books as they were 41 and 70 pages), Confessions of a Psychic and Further Confessions of a Psychic in 1975 and 1980 under the pseudonym Uriah Fuller. These definately deserve inclusion in any discussion of Martin Gardner.
I'm going to watch this article and if no one else decides to add the information, I'll do it when I have a little more time.
They seem to be available for download from a number of sources but fairly rare in print. One web site is offering both of them for $180!
Alweiss ( talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Something the article does not mention. As one reads biographies and interviews with American mathematicians (and even some non-Americans and non-mathematicians), one name that repeatedly crops up as having inspired them is Martin Gardner and his columns in Scientific American. I think it would be great to find some sources and add something on this influence of Gardner's. Shreevatsa ( talk) 19:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not quite sure how to handle this or I'd just do it myself, but the article states:
The "Mathematical Games" column ran from 1956 to 1981 and introduced many subjects to a wider audience, including: (long list) In fact, isn't it so that in at least a couple of very important cases, the column was the forum where the topic was introduced in the first place, via the collaboration of the inventors:
Can someone corroborate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.124.3.3 ( talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought, but the Freecell page mentions Gardner and Mathematical Games. Is this an oversight, or is the consensus that the column was not a significant factor in the development and popularization of FreeCell type games?-- 174.7.11.91 ( talk) 08:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Nevit ( talk) 09:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)