Talk:Grievance studies hoax

Tone
So this article seems to have a tone broadly against the perpetrators of the hoax. But it showed that the journals and peer reviewers involved were incompetent, right? They couldn't detect abject nonsense making ridiculous claims using terrible scientific methodology peppered with fake citations from non-existent academics. (Like, an art expert thinking a toddler's finger-painting is a Picasso.) If they can't distinguish between that and the actual papers they publish, surely it shows the latter are total junk too. 82.71.12.56 (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you published a shitty paper in an obscure low-quality cosmology journal, would that disprove the Big Bang? There are certainly a lot of low-quality journals around which deserve to be exposed, but no indication that these are concentrated in social sciences or "grievance studies", whatever that is. The hoaxers were largely unsuccessful, and at least the Hypatia article seems to be more a case of people creating a somewhat well-written and convincing article that they nonetheless disagreed with and getting it published (its citations were largely genuine), which looks like a fail to me. More in-depth analysis of the case and the papers would be good though. --Annanoon (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The hoax is a deeply embarrassing expose of the intellectual and ethical failings of a worldview that RationalWiki dogmatically subscribes to. What did you expect? It's not like this place is characterized by deep thinking or a commitment to reality; it is a place where bias is to be indulged in, not struggled against. 128.120.149.212 (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "The hoax is a deeply embarrassing expose of the intellectual and ethical failings of a worldview that RationalWiki dogmatically subscribes to." I'm sorry, but what?!?! What the actual fuck are you talking about? You haven't given any basis for this claim, none at all. 17:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that RationalWiki has jumped the shark. I liked it in 2009 or whenever it was when it first impressed me, but it has gone full woke and assassinates the character of anyone who isn't woke. Indeed on issues of heterodox ideas, RationalWiki has become irrational and ad hominem. An example in this article is the criticism of a lack of a control group. This was a test of whether insane ideas in critical theory are accepted into the literature: a control group would not help that clearly demonstrated fact. This level of analysis is not trying to establish cause and effect, but demonstrating that it is possible to get BS into top critical theory journals. It was brilliant rational work that RationalWiki should be emulating, not undermining.
 * There were essentially two findings, peer review has issues, and is not, infact, a foolproof guarantee of a study's validity. No biggie there. Then a normative finding that none of the fake papers should even be areas of consideration or study. That the papers should have been dismissed on their face. No wokeness needs to be considered, the authors simply object that ideas they don't like could be an area of academic inquiry. 72.53.64.115 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So should the ilne "notoriously racist Christian nationalist" be supported by something? The footnote only links to a tweet that addresses ownership. Otherwise that's a pretty bold (maybe slanderous) claim to make without providing some support.

Incoherent quote
Evidently the disagreement between Pluckrose and Lindsay is about Lindsay's drift into Trumpism and has nothing to do with the grievance studies hoax. The quote should be removed, as it misrepresents Pluckrose's position on the Grievance studies project.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)