From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

What RationalWiki really is.[edit]

A bunch of people irrationally thinking they know what anything really is. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 20:21, 1 January 2015‎ (UTC)

K. Your point? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Er.. I think that IS his point. Your question? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 09:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of asserting "You guys are irrational" and doing absolutely nothing to back it up or to fix it? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair question, but if you read my posts above, you'll find an answer (and, to save you the trouble, I'll restate it in brief): a) given that this is a wiki, it would seem to me something of a waste of time to try to wage a one-man edit war against the entire thrust of its politics (eg the facile denunciations of 'conspiracy theories' and basically uncritical acceptance of the mainstream Western line on any given issue) -- indeed, I almost feel like it would be in somewhat poor form, in that I believe people should be able to publish information relatively free of trolling, even if I consider it erroneous, which is why I've kept my criticisms to the talk page; b) I feel that polishing what I consider to be a turd actively counterproductive: if the rough edges of bias are simply smoothed over, that can help to conceal and hence make more pernicious the underlying biases (which is why I don't try to tidy up obviously slanted Wikipedia articles: I'd rather lay readers can see clearly that the information is not to be trusted); c) the arrogance implicit in the tone (and very title) of 'RationalWiki' surely invites criticism, when on so many issues it is not truly rational. Cheers
I'm just going to guess that you have no idea what the "mainstream Western line" is on (for example) Christianity is. Because it's not our article. You're only really saying that because rationalism has its origin in some systems of western thought: namely science, mathematics, and philosophy. When that conflicts with an absurd and made up thing you, personally, are dedicated to believing, you just decide it's one big happy alliance out to get you. Which is the kinda thinking that made you wrong in the first place. Ikanreed (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yipieh, a "you are not really rational, because then you would agree to <insert some random point here>" comment. So very creative, never heard that one before. Perhaps dictionaries should include a page with a mirror inside: "Rationality: Whatever the guy in this picture believes.". --Irian (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Both of those responses are frankly pathetic, and in fact only add fuel to my argument that the people creating this site are in no way particularly rational thinkers. If you're actually interested in my thoughts on what constitutes the 'mainstream Western line' (hint: it's not based on any opposition to science and maths), read my fuller posts above. As for the idea that I'm trying to define rationality as 'whatever I believe', not only is that complete rubbish, but my whole critique is that that is exactly what this website is guilty of. — Unsigned, by: 210 54 35 156 / talk / contribs
North Korea, a Land of Human Achievement, Love and Joy: North Korea Celebrates 60th Anniversary of Victoryimg - it's not that hard to be more rational than - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They are (re?)publishing stuff by James Delingpole. Anything to be contrarian, eh?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for citing the North Korea article (not being sarcastic, I genuinely got a chuckle from that one). For the record, I'm *not* saying there's no BS on Globalresearch (I mentioned in some of my previous posts that I'm well aware of the flaws in some of the material they post). As for the global warming issue, though, I have to admit to some agnosticism, given the fact that there are indeed top climate scientists who strongly dissent from the AGW hypothesis, not all of whom are merely cynics in the pocket of the oil industry, as current Western propaganda has it. In addition, the pro AGW crowd have not completely resolved the issue of the hiatus in warming that would appear to undermine their thesis: I think I may have posted this above, but I've found this series of articles interesting, and even (tentatively) compelling, although I'll admit to a complete lack of scientific background with which to make a fully informed judgement: (Would be interested to hear any replies to the points raised in them). Cheers ‎ — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 05:10, 12 February 2015

What this shitty 'RationalWiki' critique of Global Research is[edit]

This hatchet job critique of Global Research is total rubbish, obviously written by some right-wing idiot to smear what is, in truth a much needed website to counteract the atrocious corporate 'news' media which is, in truth mostly propaganda and misinformation (Fox 'news' for example, CNN, NPR, Guardian, etc). Global Research does a pretty good job of analysing world events. It takes on topics which are otherwise forbidden and has impartial analysis. They study 9-11 and ask honest questions, or the Malaysian airliner shot down over Ukraine, or the Ukraine conflict for that matter. (originally posted to page by )

A smattering of good articles doesn't make a shit site any less shit. "It takes on topics which are otherwise forbidden", if they're forbidden, how come they're posted on a publicly available website? "Forbidden" is crank code for "the mainstream media doesn't say exactly what I'd say on this topic". Alternative news doesn't have to be shit. But so many alt news sites seem to think fact-checking and editorial standards are too mainstream, so they forego them and replace them with rumor, speculation, and even outright lying. Globalresearch is shit not necessarily because they're pushing some agenda or corrupt, but because they don't make any effort to make sure the articles being published on their site are truthful, which lets cranks and morons taint their site with crap about shit like HAARP and chemtrails, which are demonstrably false conspiracy theories. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 02:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


I pretty much have avoided Globalresearch for some of the reasons the article cites. But the reference for it's being anti semitic doesn't seem right to me. The GR article it links to is a bit odd, but there actually is such a thing as Jewish supremacism. How is that referenced article antisemitic? I've read that GR has published Holocaust denial stuff but couldn't actually find an article actually doing that. Anyone else?---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Lots of little small things, like "What motivates American Jews, who have been raised and educated in the US to serve Israel?" (US Jews are more critical of Israel according to polls than the average American), and so on throughout the article. I mean... "What prevents many intelligent, liberal and progressive Jews from openly questioning Israel’s agenda, and especially confronting the role of Zionist zealots who serve as Tel Aviv’s fifth column against the interest of the United States?". Uh... "problematic" IMO to say the least. Dendlai (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are any number of progressive American Jews who argue the same things. How is questioning Israel's agenda and Zionist ideology antisemitic? ---Mona- (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ADDING: This is only one example of what I mean.---Mona- (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article goes back to the old antisemitic thinking that jews are potentially "traitors", due to not being 'real' citizens. The article goes a bit overboard with that, especially in the beginning. It links zionism directly to jews, more or less equating the two. You could make an argument that the article isn't antisemitic, but taken against a historical background, of how jews were viewed in much of Europe in the 19th and early 20th century... Yeah, it evokes many antisemitic tropes. Dendlai (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that has been an atisemtic trope, the traitors thing. Unfortunately, as many reasonable sources cite, some American Zionists do behave like "Israel-firsters." (Joe Klein at TIME is not exactly a radical, and he has written that.) You can find Zionist-American rabbis telling American Jews they have a "duty" to vote with Israel first in mind. Given that these things are so, how is it antisemitic to describe them?---Mona- (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dendlai, the GR article you link ads a reference is really poorly reasoned. The author doesn't show that notions of "Jewish supremacy" have anything to do with American-Jewish support for Israel. This bit is entirely undemonstrated (my emphasis):

The root problem is not genetic, it is collective political dementia: a demented ideology that claims a chosen elite can forever dominate and exploit the majority of American people. The time will come when the accumulated disasters will force the American people to push back, unmasking the elite and rejecting its supremacist doctrines. Let us hope that they will act with passion guided by reason.

While on the one hand, there are Jewish supremacists, and on the other, there are Jewish-American Israel-firsters, the author does not connect any of the dots he alleges between the two. It's just intellectually shoddy. But it is weak support for a characterization of antisemitism. That's an accusation I take very seriously and think we should be careful even when the target is as poor a source as GR. But if it's true they have promoted Holocaust denial, that'd be different.---Mona- (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]By being far too vague in this regard, blurring the line. Whether the article is antisemitic or not isn't exactly the point, the point is that it's definitely (IMO) hinting that it's american jews in general that are potential fifth-clumners without a clear loyalty to the US. Anti-zionists need be very clear in this regard. Globalresearch isn't, hence why I think they're skirting the line in a dangerous way. (BTW, I count myself as anti-zionist, and roughly as pro-Palestinian as you. But Globalresearch is, IMO, a bit... "errr". Electronic Intifada, for example, which is fairly hard-core pro-Palestinian, never really gets close to crossing the line). Dendlai (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I honestly think the GR article is just (typically) poorly reasoned and written. But I suppose reasonable people can disagree here. EI has a strong policy against antisemtitsm and has pretty much denounced people who are, e.g., Gilad Atzmon. ---Mona- (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't hint anything such thing. It is specifically talking about American Jews who push the Israeli-agenda not American Jews in general. For any faults that Global Research has they are not anti-Semites and that article is miles removed from anti-Semitism and is actually one of their most logical articles. Anyone reading anti-Semitism into it simply wants anti-Semitism to be there. (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


What would it require? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ooh, dunno. A lot more substance, text, etc. At present it's pretty clearly a good bronze IMO - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a bit listy. What needs better explanation? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, everything. There is basically nothing here yet. I don't need to justify the claim that there is basically nothing here yet, because there isn't - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Lol, no need to get defensive. I was asking what particulars of Globalresearch are worth talking about. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I dunno. ROAD TRIP! - David Gerard (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

More sources?[edit]

I put out a general call for more sources. ADD BELOW! - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was a stunning success :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
cough, indeed. Ah well. At present it's bronze enough, and it's actually useful in real-world use - if you want to impeach GR as a source, then that North Korea headline does the trick admirably - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


On sole basis that its reflist was getting untenably long. FuzzyCatPotato of the Charming Diamonds (talk/stalk) 00:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

At present it's probably too lumpy for an honest bronze. In the meantime, we need to image-capture those links ... did you do a capturebot as well? - David Gerard (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Feel free to ask for the code, tho -- and it wouldn't be a bad idea to get some bots running on the server, if it ever updates *cough cough* ;P Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No way I'm signing up to run a bot ... and I believe the original "bot server" was semi-secret and deliberately not the main IP so that people couldn't just block RW to not get their stuff captured - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have put it back to bronze because it's still a large pile, and silver does I think need at least a little consensus as well as enthusiasm - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I put it back up to silver: it's got a lot more structure now, and it's extremely well referenced. FuzzyCatPotato of the Exotic Plastics (talk/stalk) 15:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Chussodofsky given award[edit] The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

GR is mad about fake news bill[edit]

Enjoyable read. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)