RationalWiki talk:Vlogroll/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 March 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

General bigots[edit]

Do you think there should be a seperate category for racists, homophobes, sexists, etc.? I know some of the people already on here already are like this, however I think most of them generally focus on other things, whereas some people (e.g. Marmiteman4) tend to make it part of their routine.

Also, on an unrelated note, do you think CartesianTheist should be moved?; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgfftArz6wU. TheSocktor (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Creationism Christian[edit]

A year or so ago, I ran across a poster on YouTube that maintained that while he considered himself a good Christain, he felt that YEC was completely illogical, and was highly critical of YEC proponents. He had a major beef with quote mining in that he felt it was a flagrant violation of "Do not bear false witness". I'm trying to find him again, but if any of you are familiar with him, he would make a good addition to the 'good guys' list. --Ravenhull (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it DonExodus2? I believe he's a Christian, and certainly very critical of young earth creationism. If not, his videos are still worth a look - particularly if you're a science geek. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 11:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, that ain't him (though thanks for encouraging me to check it out, he does have some good stuff). This man looked to be about 20, and was more attacking the willful deceit and ignorance of the YEC proponents. Thanks, though. --Ravenhull (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember the guy being a pretty well-read Catholic? I found a channel that was pretty good on the theological side of things. If that sounds familiar I'll see if I can dig it out for you. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 13:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


Shockofgod[edit]

i saw many of his video and this guy is a pretty big creationist jerk.

if people agree with me i say we should put him in the creationist section.

but i wont do it before someone give the say so.Waronstupidity (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Add him, definitely. He's more than a jerk, and he's worse than a troll. AndroidWe are all machines 04:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this guy and was curious to why he doesn't have his own page on RW. He's intolerant of atheism and apparently people who worship witchcraft. He doesn't represent Christianity in a positive way. He laughs at angry responses to his videos and pretty much anyone who opposes his views of religion. The only thing that seems to slap the guy in the face is criticism towards him. From my knowledge there were cases where videos on Youtube, pointing out his flaws, were attacked by false flagging. This resulted in people mirroring videos that were in risk of being flagged, such as that video I linked. --BradT (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

While researching into this Shock character, I discovered another ultra-jerk by the name of GodGunsGutsGlory. He is a huge bigot (example, he wrote a song called "Slay the Faggots"), but this guy is also a creationist. Shall I add him to the "jerk" section or the "creationist" section alongside ShockofGod? Can someone please help? And this last part does not really matter, but there are two other jerks out there than can be added if someone wants to: KassieDill and Krazie316. Thanks. Feredir28 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Pat Condell[edit]

Maybe it's time to move Pat Condell from the "good" guys section and put him in the jerks one, I propose this on the basis of his recent video in which he supports the anti-science UKIP party, I mean being anti-religious is one thing but this is at the expense of reason and logic. Oh and Pat tends to source a lot of his material from the Daily Mail and Telegraph which is dubious in itself. I use to be a fan but this UKIP thing is the last straw. Solarius (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is that he uses other sources than left wing? This is neither rational nor honest, Looks more as a mere slander due to political orientation for me. I explain, to be a rational person one must (and I insist in must) seek answers where they are to be found, not on sources that are constantly failing in providing all the truth. You probably dont like Pat because he criticised the left today (and lets be honest they do need critiscism, as they seem to have lost the plot) be rational and accept differences of opinion. He is definitely no Jerk and does not deserve to be there. I bet you put him there yourself if I know the kind. (and nope Im not right wing and I believe both are equally obsolete on their opinions, far from being rational) Barbosa (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
*Takes another shot* ТyYAUA 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

exactly, and thats why i edited it. I didn't add in anything negative/positive. Just removed the 'boring and bigoted', replaced 'the UKIP' to 'supporter of UKIP' and put him on political commentary list instead. — Unsigned, by: 92.23.164.138 / talk / contribs

Do not confuse Youtubers[edit]

With a bent potato (U-tuber). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

aaargh! You plumbed the depths with that one. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
What about U2 fans? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 19:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
please, we're pushing these jokes to the edge now. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
At least no one has mentioned cloning female sheep yet. tmtoulouse 20:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Or a pipe full of poop; a "eeew tube". Scarlet A.pngnarchist 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Or people making didgeridoos from yew wood. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Or Ken Livingstone\Ken the Newt' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The danger of lists[edit]

When we have pages with lists, especially lists that are essentially websites, there is a tendency for people to just keep adding to them until they become useless. (See: Poe's Law) Thoughts? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This article kind of gets on my tits[edit]

There's a few problems here--echoing Huw, the problem with lists is that they can spiral out of control: someone puts up a video or two about evolution and we give them a place on the list? Should there not be a notability standard at play? Also, this isn't a "list of youtubers"--it's a list of people who post youtube videos that are in one way or another relevant to our interests. Strictly speaking, a list of "youtubers" would include, well, people who post anything on the site. If anything it's a "list of one-tiny-corner-of-youtube-ers." Finally "YouTubers" is a stupid word. A stupid word that gets 2 and a half million google hits, yeah, i know, but a stupid word anyway.

Suggest: retitling the article something along the lines of, I dunno, "Religion and Politics on YouTube: A Selection of Noteworthy Videos," and really paring the list down, or something...P-Foster (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the new title, but I'm on board with the sentiment. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, we should stick to the relevant and more well known. Thunderf00t, NephilimFree etc. AceLiquid Room 05:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
And retitle to make it slightly missiony? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
"Rational and irrational YouTubers". "YouTubers" seems to exist as a word and people recognise and understand it.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Once again. it's bob for the win. P-Foster (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I keep seeing its name on RC and I don't really like it, it seems too much of a judgement call. - π 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that "rationality" is subjective. No one ever thinks they're acting irrationally. It's very judgmental to put it in article titles like that. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
ummmmm, this *is* RATIONALwiki, right? Pot, kettle, black? P-Foster (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, but in hindsight that was probably a silly name as it gets us into a lot of problems. Have you noticed how many people come here, disagree and say "but I thought this was RATIONALwiki?" and bemoan the fact that people disagree with them. There's rationalism, logical positivism, scientific method and so on that are well defined and have requirements, but rational or rationality is a little more subjective and you can't judge someone as rational or irrational except by your own standard. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I'd still like to hear better suggestions for an article title besides the problematic (as described above) "List of Youtubers," if folks don't like Bob's suggestion. P-Foster (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm stuck. I figure "list of..." is a decent enough template for articles that are actually lists. "List of relevant YouTubers" or something? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 02:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If it goes back to simply "List of..." I swear to motherfuckin' goat that I will list every single Youtube account I can--folks who post videos of their cats, heavy-metal videos, you name it--after all--the article just says "List of Youtubers," and that's what they are. No, srsly, we need an article title that makes it clear why THESE videos are relevant.noteworthy/interesting. P-Foster (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, how about being more specific? "Prominent creationst utubers"; "Prominent atheist utubers", etc? All interlinked and with one of those cool magic baker's dozen boxes? And each article could have a "less prominent" section? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It's probably good to come up with an organization scheme that doesn't have too much overlap between lists. E.g., if you segregate them by prominence, that will work, but if you have, say, list of atheist YouTubers and list of YouTubers who believe in evolution, you'll probably run into some overlap. Tisane (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"two notable ones...."[edit]

"Notable" is relative. I've never heard of any of these twits--but your say-so is good enough for me. 22:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You've never watched any AronRa? He's like the most awesome one. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 22:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Will check it out next time I'm procrastinating from compiling this reading list. i.e. any moment now...P-Foster (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for less[edit]

What is meant by that? QualiaSoup is a pretty popular YouTuber, whose views seem pretty well aligned with RW's, AFAICT... Tisane (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See sections 5 and 6 above. P-Foster (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
All right, but QualiaSoup has half a million views for the Open-Mindedness video alone, plus the videos are pretty high-quality expositions on rationality-related topics, so he should probably be on the list, don't you think? Tisane (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just put him back in if he is important and ignore P-Foster, he is the only one that thinks there should be limits to the length of a list. He works as a string length regulator. - π 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think there should be much of a notability restriction. The only restriction should be, is it relevant, and is it any good? If yes, then add it. If you prefer lists nice and short, make a "notable list" or "best of list" or "selected highlights" or whatever. Same with the list of Poe's. We should go along the lines of TV Tropes and pretty much list everything that could be examples, and if the list is too long, switch to a better way of organising (as we did when we stripped this from the YouTube article and when we stripped the Poe's examples from the main article). Scarlet A.pngnarchist 01:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
One point - if we note every stupid thing, this might give us having some groundbase when said thing escalates. We don't have anything to worry about regarding actual storage space, the only trouble is arranging the stuff so that presently notable stuff is distinguishable from the dross (any of which might come to prominence at some future time). 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
It's entirely in the organisation. We can have massive lists if they're well organised. But if they're poorly organised, we'd have difficulty getting around a fairly short list/. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 03:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
We need a LIBRARIAN. 03:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
See my lame idea two sections up... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

Notability is difficult to judge regarding YouTube. There are some very worthwhile videos that are worth linking too that have few views, but some that have fuckloads of views but are, frankly, crap. Add to this the allegations of "vote-botting" that went around a while back and we could be seeing views as highly misleading. That said, we do need a rule-of-thumb or at least a guideline. I think a list sorted by view count would be useful to have, not as an article per se but as a scaffold that helps us see where these people are ranked by notability and this lets us see where a reasonable cut off would be. Obviously it's not too difficult to do manually, especially for a small-ish number; any more and I'd be running to LArron and begging for an automated script and some pretty pictures to go with it. Anyway, that's my idea; to construct something that helps (i.e., not necessarily build a hard-and-fast rule around it) with the notability decision making. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Would comment counts be a useful metric? Should these all be in a sortable table, with columns for many of these metrics? Ed doesn't know, but expects "you" to get it done... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevebee92653[edit]

CadMan2300 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) So, who is this guy? Well, he has a youtube channel with his username as a title. He runs a blog called www.evillusion.net where he post quite a few articles and links to his videos as well as some of the online forum debates that he's had on Youtube, TalkOrigins, and the Richard Dawkins forum before he got booted off as a troll, as well as a few email exchanges he had with a few PHD scientists. He claims to go by the name of either Steven B. Lyndon or Anders Lyndon in real life and claims to be a dentist who owns 4 or 5 patents on a dental film developer. All of his real-life information is highly dubious because there's no record of any Steven or Anders Lyndon owning the patent on anything, nor is there any record of such a person attending the college that he claimed to go to.

But his take on evolutionary biology is where it gets REALLY corny. He claims on his blog that he studied evolution for 40 years and came to the conclusion that Darwin was "Dreaming" based only on a trip he had at a museum where he noticed the tiny arms of the T-Rex and thought that evolution should have made them bigger. He is a clear supporter of Intelligent Design and coined the term "Evolutionaut" in order to have the same meaning as evolutionist. And when he posts a debate that he had on his blog, he likes to insert multicolored or italic commentary throughout and even into his opponent's text to make them seem foolish as was the case in all his RDF debates and with a recent YouTube debate he had with CDK007.

His debate style leaves a lot to be desired and when he's proven wrong on every point he accuses his opponents of being "indoctrinated" because he follows the PRATT that evolution is some kind of dogmatic religion. He reiterates this claim at least 2 or 3 times in most of his rebuttals. He gets pointed to many research papers but obviously never reads them and thinks that he can just wave them off as propaganda. For rules of engagement he says that he'll correct his mistakes if they're pointed out for him. So far, he's made a LOT of mistakes but his refusal to correct a single one of them is one of the few aspects of him that's truly consistent even if it's in direct violation of his own rules.

Why do I bring him up as my first topic as a new member on this wiki? I think that he might be a worthy candidate for this list of YouTubers and that he might be worthy of his own dedicated article. The category he falls under is difficult to determine. He could be placed under Creationists or Jerks, but he might fall into a category all his own such as Head-scratching Creationists. I'll let you folks look him up and be the judge.

Overtrimming?[edit]

I have to say that I'm disappointed to note two particular deletions from PFoster's 7/12 edit -- Laci Green and Edward Current. Laci first came to attention during a flap over her atheism/deconversion videos and the fact that she happens to be very attractive, and is a fairly popular Youtuber, having even (almost) had it out with VenomFangX (before his plug was pulled), and Edward Current is a fairly popular troll comedian with much the same audience as Mr. Deity. I can't vouch for any of the others, but these two at least should be restored to the list (in Laci's case, it's also worth noting that there appears to be only two women on the current list, and it's not like there's a lack of female skeptics out there.) EVDebs (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No one's responded since I posted this, so I restored Laci Green's entry on the idea that her sex ed material is unambiguously on-mission. (Though her post-Christian stuff was as well.) EVDebs (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

c0nc0rdance[edit]

Someone should add c0nc0rdance to the list of "good" guys. Although he has never stated that he is an atheist or a rationalist. he is a scientist and his videos are very informative of the science in topics such as ID, creationism, raw foodism, GMOs,lectures from carl sagan, et cetera.900674 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WtF?[edit]

What happened to this page? PACODOGwoof, bitches 20:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

See RationalWiki:Technical support#The "sort" tag is broken. --ZooGuard (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the bugs, but the problem with sort is that it sorts based on the source, i.e. if a line has {{yt}}, it will be sorted after the lines without it, this is most evident in the Jerks section, also it breaks sublevels, e.g. Potholer54debunks is promoted to level 1. -- Nx / talk 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix.PACODOGwoof, bitches 21:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback justification.[edit]

I assume it would make more sense, seeing that as AronRa is an American, that we should use the American English spelling of his field of study, no? --Konstanty (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

TogetherforPeace[edit]

Which category would TogetherforPeace fall under (if we were to put him on one of these lists)? He is a Christian, but unlike most theists on Youtube, he actually cares about what atheists on Youtube think and seems to actually want to have a productive discussion with atheists. He has also criticized Nephilimfree and stated that Shockofgod's "question" is loaded and illogical. I'm not sure if he is a Creationist or not, but he seems to belong to a category of his own. --Shadesofgray100

He does seem to belong in his own category. There are times when he debates with atheists or says "atheism does not provide anything" that's why I'm a theist. Some would say he is not that bright, but he has decency and will criticize people in his own camp. I don't think he is a creationist, but I am not sure if he doubts science due to faith or not.Feredir28 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If we're going to have a category for religious youtubers, I would want to add tektontv to it. They're a group of apologetics that don't rely on pseudohistory to make their claims. They can be kind of big jerks though...

VonHelton[edit]

Anyone willing to subject themselves to this guy's videos to write an article on him? --ZooGuard (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC) He's just a NWO conspiracy theorist who thinks he's The Punisher. Also, he was caught talking to a 14(?) year old inviting them to visit him as he was spreading his fear-mongering crap on BlogTV about Nibiru.

Can these people be on "Good Guys"?[edit]

I'm not very good at descriptions...

Xoroaster- A well read user who exposes fallicious beliefs in the Bible and uses historical context.

ZJemptv- transvestite who covers GBT and atheist topics

Grapplingignorance- I think that he was put on here before. He makes videos on Atheism and why it's rational.

Antybu86- the guy who exposed the Atheist Antidote's plagerism, and refutes claims by conservatives and theists.

Brett Palmer- A skeptic who has made a video series explaining scientific accuracies in the Book of Genesis as well as other videos.

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 02:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I will add them...

TheoreticalBullshit[edit]

This guy is an atheist and (in my humble opinion) one of the most intelligent people on Youtube. I dunno what criteria you guys use to put people on the "Good Guys" list, but I think he deserve a place on it. Moderateman3345 (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard of him, but flicking through his page and some of his videos he certainly looks like a candidate for one of the good guys. I note he hasn't made a video in 6 months though. Do you know if he has retired or anything like that? --DamoHi 00:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. His last video was a mirror of another video. Maybe he did retire. Moderateman3345 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LiberalViewer vs. Coughlain616[edit]

I was wondering if anyone can update why someone like LiberalViewer displays as jerks, and coughlain who kind of advertises himself as a dick doesn't? ;p — Unsigned, by: 71.224.160.151 / talk / contribs

Probably not. This stuff is super boring. P-Foster (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidates for "Creationists" Category[edit]

GodGunsGutsGlory: A member of the Alliance of Christ and acquaintence of Shockofgod. He has an obsession/phobia of homosexuality that outmatches Ken DeMeyer. His activities include stalking same sex couples and handling guns. He also created a very disturbing music video called, "Slay the faggots." (Not a word I like to use, but that's the name of the video)

Krazie316: Another member of the Alliance of Christ known for his opposition towards feminism. He's not quite as crazy as Shockofgod or GodGunsGutsGlory, but he has defended Shock and 4G's dubious activities. Moderateman3345 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

James the Preacher (aka exposingthecults): An extremely sexist, homophobic, fundamentalist Baptist pastor. Probably not a Poe, but most likely a troll. He essentially pulled a Pat Robertson and claimed that the Haiti earthquake was a judgement from God. His bigotry rivals Fred Phelps'. Moderateman3345 (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I already included two out of three of these people in the "jerk" section. I was not aware Krazie was a creationist, but if he is then Krazie may belong there. I would be careful with the poe, they have fooled the YouTube community many times. Since shockofgod, 4G and Krazie all belong to this "Alliance of Christ" I created a short article about them. I know a few things about AoC, but not a lot. Anyone who does can add their info. Feredir28 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging from this video from Krazie316 and this video by GodGunsGutsGlory they are both creationists, although they may not necessarily focus on these topics. As for Kassiedill, who knows? Moderateman3345 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

IlluminatiTV aka MolotovCockfail would be a good candidate. I would go into detail as to who and what he stands for, however,seeing both the other candidates, and any video he produces, he truly speaks for himself. video He appears to be a bloated pompous ass with unwarranted self importance. Flounderp (talk) 23:18 (EDT)

"Creationists"[edit]

This is just a suggestion, but maybe we can change the "Creationists" category to "Creationists and Fundamentalists." The reason is that there are youtubers who are Creationists, but focus on supporting other (and equally stupid) topics. Examples of this would be Krazie316 and GodsGunsGutsGlory, who are creationists but focus on other topics such as feminism and homosexuality. Besides, most religious fundamentalists are also scriptural literalists, which inevitability lead to taking their creation story literally. Moderateman3345 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree; specificity would show that it isn't simply one flavour of ignorance on those particular users parts. Purely "Fundamentalists" would be more descriptive, as some may not subscribe to the creation mythos, however, all still be included.Flounderp (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2011 EDT

delete[edit]

I propose we delete this and create a category for youtube (if we don't have one). Then, any notable youtube users can have their own articles (such as shockofgod and nephilimfree- and anybody CP obsesses over perhaps).

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

  • Feredir28 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, we should have both, this one list of many people, and a category of specific users.- Mectrixctic
Agreed with Mectrixctic Feredir28 (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Having a list of youtubers that will be of general interest to rationalwikians is an asset to the site. I know that I have personally benefitted from getting to know some people I otherwise would not have known about. --DamoHi 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Good repository for channels that don't necessarily need an entire page of their own. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I could be very happy to say yes, under these terms. if we can dump some of the more silly users.Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 00:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • consistent with mission to call out and debunk quackery, sadly YouTube is so full of it that someone needs to speak out AP (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Nebuchadnezzar, though this list could do with a bit of a clean out. MtDPinko Scum 04:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • FFS we don't need articles on more than a few of these guys. The list is a very helpful reserve that I've actually used. Nutty Rouxnever mind 02:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I vote keep, but we might want to start a category for users whose merits are disputed (like Thunderf00t and BionicDance).--Mustex (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename.[edit]

The name is stupid. We already have a Blogroll. This should be called Vlogroll. P-Foster (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

BionicDance[edit]

Ok, it disgusts me that she's actually listed as a "Good Guy." She is one of the most reactionary, paranoid, and generally insane youtubers I have ever seen, and has absolutely no tolerance for dissent or disagreement.--Mustex (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then move her to where you think she best fits. MtDPinko Scum 23:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I did, then someone put her back, so I put her in both categories.--Mustex (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That someone was probably me. I thought I was reverting naughtiness by an IP vandal or somesuch. Sorreh. :) I did watch 30 seconds of one of her videos. She's a bit shrill, no? MtDPinko Scum 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
this all sounds purely opinionated and not fact based. >BAWWW Flounderp (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2011

RationalWiki or BiasWiki?[edit]

Hi after seeing how Pat Condell was criticised being put as "Jerk" merely for using non leftie sources of information how can you call yourselves rational? What kind of plausible rational argument is there for this? And specially because Pat has stated on many of his videos why he has done so. (according to him because leftist news today are promoting sexism and religious bigotry). So please consider removing him from the "Jerk" list as getting information from all sides has never made anyone a jerk, but rather rational.

Also splitting people who happen to believe in something spiritual from the "good guys" is also kind of biggoted (if not completely absurd if one call oneself rational) as I see it. To be fair one has to be tolerant.

Dont turn this wiki into Yet Another Biased Analogy with remarks like these. Best regards. Barbosa (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

*takes a shot* ТyLonely. Ever so lonely. 12:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

exactly, and thats why i edited it. I didn't add in anything negative/positive. Just removed the 'boring and bigoted', replaced 'the UKIP' to 'supporter of UKIP' and put him on political commentary list instead. - a user— Unsigned, by: 92.23.164.138 / talk / contribs

Thunderf00t[edit]

I find it strange that many people consider him a "good guy" His understanding of the bible is that of a child and a pervert (see itsthesuperfly's video), not only that, but degrades the title of Biblical scholar. He couldn't tell a poe from his t0e. He'll "Fight for free speech", without any stated goal, and censor people that make fun of him in DMD. He'll side with people who have racial tendancies, and even letting them in. He strawmans those who criticize him. He fights for "Free speech" and yet, he will go to the same imagery of censorship, the same people he would fight against. And above all else, willing to be on the side of somebody who harasses people. He is an egoist. Flounderp (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2011 ETD

I wish I could comment but I am not a fan of watching other people's commentary in general, especially on YouTube. RatMaster háblame 02:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Then, by chance, why are you here? Flounderp (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2011 ETD

Bionic Dance[edit]

Tweet: "BionicDance: t.co/DUkWZGD Search "BionicDance". Heh. *shakes head sadly* RT" Pippa (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it makes no sense why she would be put there Flounderp (talk) 8:37, 21 July 2011 ETD
Bionic Dance is a douchebag big enough to clean a whale's vagina.

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fn1fsVOEfrE

She got what she deserved.

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 21:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Trim. It's time.[edit]

Can someone who follows this stuff and is somewhat objective about things take a look at it and trim it back a bit? The article is only going to grow, and I 'm sure there's a fair amount of unremarkable people on this list. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 15:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can agree on a notability limit, say, total upload views or channel views (I'm inclined to use the former because that would take into account any notable viral videos that don't necessarily translate into channel views) I don't mind trimming it. Generally speaking it might be salvageable if some of the longer categories were split up - "pro atheism campaigners" particularly is vague and a massive, unreadable list. ADK...I'll acidify your okra! 15:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
For example, the League of Reason / Magic Sandwich Show guys could probably get put into their own sub-list and are probably the top for notability, IMHO. ADK...I'll waste your shark! 15:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, if nobody puts any effort into making this list more manageable in the next day or so, I will simply remove half of the entries at random and let the people who care about this deal with fixing it. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 22:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should remove the entry about the TheTruthless666. This user only posted one video, and there are no video responses to it and it doesn't seem like it has gained any notoriety.Moderateman3345 (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of discussing individual entries, let's go by a definite standard, like Armondikov suggested. Just throwing some numbers out there, how about 500 subscribers/1000 hits on the most recent video? Real mainstream notability would require yet more, but many of these guys are specialists for niche topics, so I wouldn't put it too high either. Röstigraben (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Though having looked at the numbers for some absolutely unremarkable people on that list, I'd rather put it at 100.000 upload views and at least 2500 subscribers after all. Röstigraben (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever it takes. Next break I take from writing, Imma go through this thing with a pair of garden shears and a bad attitude. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 18:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I've taken out a few ones that aren't notable by any standard, but even the criteria above wouldn't suffice to get rid of more than a quarter of these guys. So the shears don't sound too bad. Röstigraben (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mox News[edit]

Is Mox News political commentary? I understand that it is a popular channel, but from what I've seen it merely posts news clips. It doesn't seem to comment on them.Moderateman3345 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

FakeSagan is back[edit]

His new user name is the "TheSmoothTerrorist."Moderateman3345 (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

TheoreticalBullshit[edit]

I'm adding Scott Clifton aka TheoreticalBullshit. He makes excellent arguments against theism and recently caught the attention of William Lane Craig. He also has his own wikipedia article. Moderateman3345 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was already on the list, but gods yes, add him. ADK...I'll glug your flan! 00:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A few people for Pro-atheism list[edit]

These are a few people that I think should go on this list, let me know if this would be cool or not.

Theologikos - Hasn't made any videos in a very long time, but they were quite funny.

Not many videos, don't really contain facts.


DarkAntics - Darkmatter2525's new channel, very good vidoes debunking theist bullshit.

healthyaddict - Maker of a very large variety of videos, and a very rational youtuber.

Largo64 - An old atheist, has mostly poetry videos, but does a good amount of atheist and non-religion-style videos.

meridianfrost - Well known and respect in the atheist youtue community. Has a lot of videos on atheism, rationalism, and such.

notinmyname2050 - An Irish Atheist. He has a lot of videos on a variety of topics, including the catholic church, satirical videos, and videos on the universe and it's beauty.

rationalwarrior - A black atheist. His videos are very nice, but are mostly atheist hip hop that he writes and raps himself, videos on atheist, and his experience as a christian and as a muslim.

SisyphusRedeemed - Atheist and a philosopher. He has videos on philosophy, religion in general, free will, amongst other things.

As has been suggested many times, C0nc0rdance needs to be on this list. --Gwyain (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone we might want to add.[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZDoggMD#p/u/0/3TNs3YddRj8Ryantherebel (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Racists[edit]

There have been some attention of some so-called "Racial Realists" who are promoting segregation, pseudoscience, and white supremecy. And they're POPULAR. Which is why I think this needs to be added here. People like, Marmiteman4 and HeyRuka.

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Too many red-links[edit]

We should be fairly selective about which of these people notable enough to create articles on. I suggest blacking all the red-links. If any of them are genuinely article-worthy, they can be blue-linked when the relevant articles have been created. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On it. TyAnnoy 12:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be easier to edit the template, infact create one for linking. Pi 3:14 (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually the template already has an option. Pi 3:14 (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Burned 'em already. TyAnnoy 13:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
What template? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
{{yt}}. - π 02:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Drcraigvideos[edit]

Does he belong under the "Creationists and Fundies" category? Sure he definitely did many stupid and unethical things on YouTube, but his beliefs themselves seem to be more "moderate" in nature and besides this account is no longer active. Moderateman3345 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about the tone/reason for this page existing in the first place[edit]

I'm for the scientific method, and I'm glad there's a wiki with a decent-sized directory of "thinkers," including Youtube personalities that might be of interest to people that share my interest in it.

Having said that, I see a glaring error in this wiki when I see a biased list like the "Jerks" section, and would like to politely ask someone to please tell me where I'm wrong when I say that this page has no good reason within the framework of rationality, science or logic to have such a list at all. When you give a collection of names telling people who is/isn't a bad guy or a "jerk," you're essentially trying to persuade readers to not draw their own conclusions about the individuals discussed. I don't care how indefensible some comments by Condell or The Amazing Atheist have been in the past, or even how unreasonably they may behave in the future--the bottom line is that making a "blacklist" of sorts on a site claiming to be all about rationality and the scientific method is, to a significant degree, authoritarian in tone and irrational within the context of the very school of thought this wiki claims to strive to uphold, and amounts to suggesting to(if not outright telling) others what to think. I would almost describe it as "fascist," but I'm not sure that's accurate in the strictest sense of that term, and I hate to overstate my view even if I'm a little passionate about it.

I'll also point out that many a rationale on this page made for including someone in the "Jerks" list is only as rational as reasons one might also be able to dig up for including someone deemed more tolerable by some editors here(if I point out one or two negative personality traits of MrRepzion or Thunderf00t, the latter being someone I'm pretty sure was once be under the aforementioned heading anyway, would I be justified in adding them as well? Why is the often personable and deeply caring Dusty Smith(see his emotional video regarding an online friend who had recently committed suicide) considered so terrible when his videos are only as satirical/biting as many of the non-blacklisted Youtubers who are cited? Why is his habit of swearing given as some sort of clear justification for claiming him not to be someone worth following? Where do you draw the line when faced with the question of how many screw-ups are required to justify putting a negative label on someone and blacklisting them? There does seem to be one in at least one editor's mind as far as who is and isn't perfect enough to be considered worthy of being called a "good guy.")

All in all, the "jerk" thing is too subjective in most examples cited, and too open for debate, especially when people with varying opinions of what constitutes being a "jerk" are all editing this one page. To justify placing someone here in the first place seems to more or less boil down to an argument from authority, with any random editor being that "authority," because the only other remotely reasonable way to go about this that I can see, time-consuming as it would be, would be to have a long debate on why person X is a "jerk" and person "Y" isn't, and I'm pretty certain there would be no end to such a debate, or the edit wars that would arise if they aren't already taking place.

In short, I say we leave it up to people's own ability to be rational and logical, not to editors who want to force their views of others on our readers and contributors. The current method used here has very little in common with the methods a good scientist would use to teach others about determining the validity of *any* claim, be it about creationism or who's an acceptable person to follow on a site so focused on choice in subject matter, viewpoints, and methods of delivery for those viewpoints as Youtube.

Thanks for reading, even if you dont' reply!— Unsigned, by: MycroftHolmes / talk / contribs

Any of our readers who cant look at the stuff posted and decide on their own shouldn't be complaining if they are led by others opinions., --il'Dictator Mikal 06:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I did not know we had a template for that. EVDebs (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Adding Thunderf00t seems a bit extreme for this recent mess. The whole "two men in a bed" thing is BS (and I'm sure there's more similar in his "Bible for Beginners" series, which I haven't watched), his criticism of Islam can get ugly at times, and his recent videos concerning sexism were... not great. (Honestly, I was stunned when I first actually ran down his channel how meh he was, for all potholer talked him up and Nephy went after him, and I certainly never imagined I'd end up defending him.) (This is a hell of a way to start a comment so tickling the tail of those so in love with the neologism "yesbut.") But his "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists" series remains a classic, it's hard to swing a dead cat among Youtube creationists and their respondents without hitting him, and he's been instrumental in a number of meatspace events. Does he really belong with the likes of TJ or... TJ? (Not too familiar with the others, honestly. The only one I'm familiar with is BionicDance, who never seemed that bad to me, either - frankly, I agree with her on the word "agnostic" in a time when we understand the nature of the world so well that any number of absurdities are as likely as anything that could be called a deity - and vaguely Pat Condell. Surprised Coughlan's still on the "good" list.) Sake Fueled (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thunderf00t was invited to FTB with great anticipation and proceeded to spend a great amount of effort on harassment denial. It's fair to say he's one of the many skeptics out there who are afraid or unable to turn their critical thinking on their own prejudices, which would seem to be a rather important thing for a skeptic to do. He doesn't quite go in the looney bin category with people like Victor Ivanoff or the Zeitgeist movement, but coming into a place where he was invited and proceeding to shit all over the carpet because WHAT ABOUT DE MENZ definitely qualifies you as a jerk. EVDebs (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Brett Keane stunning description[edit]

However, he has a history of malicious behavior on YouTube, consisting of getting banned for doc-dropping, plagiarizing a poem, contradicting himself about beating his wife, and filing false DMCAs against users who are critical of him.

...I have no idea who this person is, but I kind of think I'd like to know more details about that one. At the very least, it's a bit stunning to see it buried in a longer list of fairly standard Youtube dramaz... Sake Fueled (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I don't see why the page has to be split like this. Why not just combine it back into one page? --Castaigne (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Go right ahead. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
So... ? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Bible Reloaded[edit]

Is there a citation for "Posts anti-feminist and pro-Gamergate memes on Twitter"? The closest thing I can find of this is an old tweet where they asked for people to explain to them what GamerGate was.67.234.54.93 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


Corrections needed to the article[edit]

I do firmly believe that this list should reflect the work of the content creators and not the opinions of some members on them. Things like "Is pro gamergate and conspirational" for the armored skeptic for exemple shouldnt be welcomed as they dont describe his content at all.

It is rational wiki, not opinion wiki. Please adopt an objective stance on their work. --SamuraiSquid (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating, tell me more. Also: Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. Scream!! (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
RationalWiki is not a neutral Wiki, and does have a point-of-view to it. Please read [this fine piece of information. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It might not be a an objective Wiki but it is still held to some sandards of inclusiveness, well according to the article you linked me to. I quote "In line with the "not an encyclopedia" guideline, RationalWiki is not required to present a "neutral" point of view (NPOV) as, e.g., Wikipedia, does. While this doesn't mean that we censor, hide or ignore things, it does mean that we are uncompromising on what is right and what is wrong, and most importantly, why this is so." Therefore if you dont want to ignore/ Censor things it would be a good thing to complete some vloggers profile. For a tweet does not explain the content of a vlogger/youtuber. You might be biased to a non-skeptic feminist idea but that does not mean you shall not be complete on the work of vloggers, even the christian new-flat-earth-creationists-I-stone-women ones. --SamuraiSquid (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm having trouble relating your newest statement to the changes you're suggesting above. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Slight disagreement with the placement of some vloggers in the Controversial list[edit]

I get people like Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad and others being there, as there's a lot of controversy around them for their videos (ie: their work), but that doesn't extend to everyone there, namely Armoured Skeptic and The Bible Reloaded. Armoured Skeptic debunks creationist videos and reviews movies, that's the extent of his body of work so far. There's no controversy surrounding this man's work. He deserves to be moved to a category in "the good guys". I don't know too much about The Bible Reloaded, but I haven't heard anything controversial about their videos either. It seems a little bit biased to knit-pick something they've said and put that ahead of the actual state of affairs. I'm especially steamed about Armoured Skeptic being there. He is as civil as anyone can be in his videos and instead of mentioning anything about his work he gets a knitpick about something he said once? Shame on the contributor that put it there and shame on the one who rolled back perfectly normal and accurate changes to rectify this gross error. Stillslightlyanon (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Stillslightlyanon

I suppose we should get cites for the more shitty behaviors. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd take your being steamed slightly more seriously if we didn't get a constant dribble of apologists attempting to blot out well-known dismal acts by well-known dismal people. Sure, there's a risk we'll roll over a legit edit, but given that today already there's been one BoN who tried to whitewash two notorious arseholes and stick a knife in Laci Green, I hope you can understand why we're trigger happy with anything that resembles whitewashing that wasn't discussed at the talk page first. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I think SSA has a valid point. Anybody can, and has, dumped their personal bete noir here and, well, who's to check. I took a quick gander at this Armoured Sceptic guy and, yeah, the thirty seconds or so I listened to seemed OK - if also as boring and trivial as they come. And there's the rub. Those of us who spend our time here on quality control don't have the time to watch 20 minutes of really boring video to see whether the post has validity - and then we go for "assume good faith".
Actually, I'd blow the whole thing away. What value does it actually serve? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, tater. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Armored Skeptic[edit]

Is his GG-ness enough to merit his designation? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Its not the only problem he has. Between GG, his dire hatred for the Feminist Frequency crew (unfounded crap) and the crap about Joss, I would call him controversial since he's deliberately ignoring evidence. Zero (talk - contributions) 08:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever - we ought to spell his handle right - it's Armoured Sceptic. Scream!! (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Political people we like?[edit]

I was thinking about after LiberalViewer was in the "Could be either, could be both" section. Do we want to create a Political Commentators section under people we like? Zero (talk - contributions) 20:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sargon[edit]

On the more respectable side, he is very critical of the current political system in the U.K. and the U.S., opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, annihilated the British Conservative Party, correctly thinks of Hillary Clinton as a Wall Street stooge, and is generally center-left (if a bit moderate) on most political issues.

... What. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would call that very fluffy. Zero (talk - contributions) 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

King Crocoduck[edit]

I quite respect this guy. Should he be added? He's sharp, witty, and science-y. [1]

I'm a bit concerned that this is your only edit. However, I am willing to examine this guy for inclusion. Zero (talk - contributions) 10:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I like him. His videos with Steve Shives (1, 2) are really good listens. Zero (talk - contributions)

KabaneTheChristian[edit]

Additionally, his tumblr blog is incredibly active, however, he has changed his stances on some things. http://kabane52.tumblr.com/ The Unsettled (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Davis Aurini[edit]

Why is he in Section 3 and not Section 2? I struggle to think of any positive qualities that would merit him being there. Am I missing something here?

Because he's an idiot? Zero (talk - contributions) 06:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)