2015 Fundraiser

Help us beat last year's record of $7100!

Awesome! We are half way to our goal!
Goal: $7,200 Donations so far: $5720.20
79%
Free speech isn't free. Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate today!

Talk:Main Page

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg Do you have a general question about the site?
If it is technical, go to Technical support. If it is about the community or the content of the wiki, go to the Saloon bar.
This talk page is for discussing the contents of the Main Page only.
Warning icon orange.svg Please do not edit the main page on a whim.
If you want to play with things, mock it up in the testing area.

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Contents

[edit] Bill Nye promoting a thing that about half of skeptics deem to be woo and the other half deem to be "plausible" to "maybe plausible" or something basically

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZo1GhaTVuk

It's somewhat old news and I am nowhere near sufficiently science-literate to make a judgment, but according to a surprising number of skeptics' websites Nye is pushing baloney with this.

Any input? A Google RW search didn't turn up anything about this "ionator". Lola Lazerface (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Heyup Lola, d'you wanna move this to the Saloon bar? Cos that's where it belongs. Scream!! (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

As it is traditional to take down Christmas decorations on January 6, should 'Merry Christmas' be removed from the 'recent changes' page? (Besides the first Easter eggs are already in the shops.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Christmas day is Jan 7th in the Orthodox church; so no: it shouldn't be removed. Scream!! (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit more complicated than that, but yeah, it's because of the Russians, and it's nice that RationalWiki remembered that other cultures exist.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
'For those celebrating Christmas on 25 December...' was omitted as obvious.

'New Year New Rationalwiki'/'Living up to Rationalwiki-improving New Year's Resolutions' sounds better. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So obviously for the Russian readership we need the Christmas brain with a blue hat - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
*sigh* When I wrote "Russia" above, I though people where going to click on that link first. Anyway, it's because of "Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem", as well as the Armenian Apostolic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Good luck somehow representing all of that in the logo. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
FATHER FROST USES BLUE!! and that's all I know about Russian Christmas - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

... and it will soon be Christmas again. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Baptist Ministries of Atlantic Canada

Baptist Ministries of Atlantic Canada is a website that endouvers to help independent Baptist of Atlantic Canada find one another. There common threat is a conservative doctrinal position and balanced attitudes. They are opposed to the KJV Only movement although many of them use the KJV. Some use the New International Version 1984 although almost with exception they oppose the New Internation Version 2011, which was done with a completely different philosophy. They do not hold to a succession of churches of anykind and beleive their only chain is to be chained to Scripture, not man made history.— Unsigned, by: Lesdennis / talk / contribs

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Maimon

Hi guys, I think you should check out an internet personality called Ron Maimon. Just googleing his name is enough. He wrote huge walls of text on every thinkable physics/math/philosophy/religious/computerscience page on the internet. You can look for most of his stuff on Quora and all stackexchange sites, for example physics exchange, math exchange and so on, even on Wikipedia with a HUGE number of posts/answers. He got banned on all those sites, and every time it was a big deal. Maybe he deserves an article ? He is a bit similar to Lubos Motl, he also has no university position. Here is a taste of his personality: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/976/physics-ses-inability-to-deal-with-users-who-are-highly-persistent-have-kook-b He was also a well known user on the usenet, which you can check by reading the Google archives. His texts are all over the internet, it's amazon how much he wrote on every possible science topic you can imagine. And he is also a bit crazy (science good, rest is bad just like Motl) since he believs in some conspiracy theories and he has the attitude that insulting people will help his cause. --85.181.221.39 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We've been shying away from documenting barely notable internet personalities for accidental slander related reasons. If posting too much on the internet and getting banned for it is his only crime, it's probably off-mission. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No we haven't been shying away from that. Post relevant material. Who cares if someone is barely notable if in your estimation they're on mission. Just don't defame them. RW is not defamatory or a hate site. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Defamation is a lot easier for people who aren't well-known to the public for a host of reasons. 1. Facts are harder to verify. 2. It's easier for them to make the case that rationalwiki is uniquely responsible for spreading false and hostile information. 3. Less editors have an active interest in the person and thus won't be monitoring the page. I don't disagree that if they're on mission, do it right, rather than don't do it all. But "posting on the internet and believing in conspiracies" to me, isn't a sufficient cause. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean it's not like he doesn't get attention. For example he had a super long discussion with Geerard 't Hooft (noble price winner and physics legend) on physics exchange. Just look up some of his contributions on this site. But I understand that if he isn't notable, then you don't want an article.--85.181.221.39 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not ED. But if you have some convincing reason to write about him, there's a to do page where you can list it. He'd have to be pretty amazingly dickish to be at Motl standard - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Frequent lurker here. Ron Maimon is a fascinating guy, and one of the few people with really cranky ideas who can sometimes admit that he's wrong. I'd love to see an article on him, and had been considering writing one myself - I think he's more notable and coverage of him is more on-mission than some of the obscure conspiracy theorists we have articles on. 207.239.59.178 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the starter of this topic. Ok good, but how should we start? He is literally all over the internet. Just do a Google search like this ,"science/philosophy topic" "Ron Maimon", and you get a text from him. Do you have any idea?--85.180.219.223 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
"Ron Maimon is a former Harvard physics grad student and frequent crank, notable for advocating cold fusion and false-flag conspiracy theories"? Talk about his prolific and often-helpful Stack Exchange posts mixed with cold fusion advocacy, maybe a bit on his time at Quora before he asked the site to ban him. 207.239.59.178 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hm ok good. But I think we should focus more on the real theories he has. For example he has some theories about the consistency of set theory (measuable sets) and he also thinks that the work of Shakespear were written by some other guy, he claims something like a sigma 5 evidence for it or that logical positivism is the only philosophy in science and he knows A LOT about the history of physics because he read all the papers. Then also theories about biology and computerscience. Then several things about stringtheory and quantumfieldtheory which might be over might head. But I see what I can do. And of course also the absurd stuff he says.--2.165.185.181 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I made an account.--Nebukadnezar (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Fundraiser

Can some 'jiggery-pokery' be done - the text says half and the percentage is 2/3+.

And when the goal gets to 100+% change the banner to something appropriate. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The banner is cached. Purge your cache to see the current form.
Any suggestions for post-100%? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Next day - the banner still says half way.

Somewhere between snark and pedant. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Now 79% is half way - moving goal post or 'creative maths'
(or could it read 'over half'?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Where is the text? 3/4 might be less embarithessing. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(Reset) Several days later and it is still 79%. Something stuck? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How "widespread" is it really?

"One of the most widespread beliefs that does not reflect reality is that the world is only a few thousand years old."

Just how "widespread" is this belief? I don't deny that there are some, maybe even a lot. But I don't think it's as "widespread" as many belief. I'm Christian and believe that God created the world, but I don't believe in Young Earth. Nearly everyone I've talked to does not believe in a YE. Frankly, I'm not sure I can remember anyone other then that one idiot who debated Bill Nye who professed to believe in a YE.— Unsigned, by: 148.61.47.147 / talk / contribs

40% of Americans, according to one recent poll. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Its been fairly constantly hovering around 40-45% of respondents since 1982, when Gallup started gauging creationist/evolution sentiment in the U.S. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It will depend on location and who you choose to keep company with, as well. We live in a conservative state dominated by the religious-right of the creationist variety, and yet a friend grew up in a liberal church and was surprised when she learned just how crappy the rest of the state is.--Miekal 14:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it speaks volumes of the human tendency towards tribalism and confirmation bias and reminds me of an anecdote about a (stereo)typical New York liberal complaining over Dubya's re-election in disbelief: "I don't know anyone who voted for him!" - which says more about the social circle of said New Yorker, than about Dubya or the election. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support