RationalWiki talk:What is a RationalWiki article?/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 26 February 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Great

This is great. Thanks for the direction. Doggedpersistance 18:39, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

This should be easier to find. --Warty 07:56, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Doggedpersistence: Are you mocking the article there? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:23, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't know about doggedpersistance but I'm not --Warty 08:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Yah, I knew you weren't, but I can't tell if Doggedpersistence is being sarcastic above. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:37, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree Completely with Radioactive afikomen's implied Criticism of the RW PoV Expressed above. WE Need more brave Editors of His Calibre who are Prepared to Speak Out.--Tolerance 19:37, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

What you just typed makes no sense whatsoever, even if it were Properly Capitalized. ħuman 19:52, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I assumed that RA was criticizing the RW PoV. If I have Misunderstood him then I apologise. But if that was not his Intention then What did he Mean?--Tolerance 19:56, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC) You have noticed that RA's comment was almost a year ago? & anyhow, I don't read it as criticism.   .  ^{Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent} 19:58, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps I am too Literal. How do you Read it Toast?--Tolerance 20:02, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't think literal comes into it. I can't see anything but RA asking if Dog was sarcastically mocking the article.   .  ^{Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent} 20:09, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Proposal: RationalWiki may include articles in other languages

We need category such as RationalWiki:policies and a description of inclusion policies. Could we make RationalWiki:Inclusion policy? Where else would I put the following proposal?

I propose the inclusion policy allow foreign language articles and make a standard for doing so. I think we should either use a separate namespace (Español:Barack Obama) or do like "Barack Obama (español)". ~ Lumenos 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think RationalWiki should set up separate wikis for foreign language articles, like es.rationalwiki.org for español, the same way Wikipedia does. That way this wiki won't be cluttered with multiple languages which might cause confusion. Having separate wikis for other languages will attract more speakers of that language, particularly ones who do not speak english or anything other then that language. This will ultimately lead to more users, more readers, more total articles, all which help our mission. --Onion <talk> 03:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple namespaces for different languages sounds messy. Multiple languages in the same space is worse. I also doubt the existence of the proposed editors.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(Bob runs a wiki about teaching English.)

Is it going to cost more for these new domain names? If so, I guess it is up to a donor to decide if there is a language they want to sponsor. If not, the other option would be a wikifarm (just don't use Wikia or they may not let us delete/lock it, if we want to move it to a rationalwiki domain name).

I'm doubtful that RationalWiki's official mission is its mission. Without citing reliable or uncontroversial sources, RW can only preach to the choir. There are so many wikis. Maybe there are other language wiki's about related topics (eg secular humanism). I think "the mission" would be better served by directing people to wikis/forums with larger (or more diverse) audiences. Wikipedia comes to mind. ~ Lumenos 05:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, your logic was contrived, and your conclusion was, well, stupid. But thanks for the ride! ħuman 07:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See how subjective these things are? Nobody cares about our opinions. ~ Lumenos 08:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of notability guideline

See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Notability_criteria for the context, discussion and arguments and feel free engage there or here. Nullahnung (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Discuss this in two places" is the dumbest thing I have ever read. ħuman 02:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You will notice that the saloon bar version went away long ago. ħuman 06:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the proposed additional guideline:

"While we do want to document all crank ideas, articles should be relevant to more than just a couple of people in the world. This means we don't strive to document every rambling loon encountered in the streets/on a lonely blog. If people appear to be interested in them, though, go ahead!"

I think it should be added right after

"Articles on subjects which don't really fit into these missions are likely to be challenged and may be deleted, so before you start a new article, think about how it relates to the missions. If you're not sure whether it would be suitable for RationalWiki, just ask: you could start a discussion in the Saloon bar, the forum, or on the talk page of a related article, or make a new suggestion at the To Do List."

in the first section and before the bit about Wikipedia, although any of you are free to suggest a better way of fitting it in.

Some people would like a vote to be held for this addition, so here it goes. Nullahnung (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Add

1. I'm proposing it. Nullahnung (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
2. --"Shut up, Brx." 02:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
3. It's loose enough to not be overly restrictive. "Articles should be relevant to more than just a couple of people in the world" pretty much says what needs to be said about it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
4. I think that sums up what we want and what we don't want perfectly. All loony ideas but not all loonies, just the interesting ones. It has my full support. Spud (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
5. I give it some slightly Luke-warm support. It's really about as generous as as it can be and it does give a reason for removing something which is truly and unutterably irrelevant. It also gives a reason for keeping something if it is of interest to more than just a couple of people.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

   It isn't about deletion, it's about pre-writing censorship. As I said below, dumbest idea I have seen in eight years. "Don't write 'this'"? Really? ħuman 02:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

   Well, at least I got some sort of reasoning out of you instead of just "you guys are all stupid". Nullahnung (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

   Human, would you mind elaborating the steps that get you from "articles should be relevant to more than just a couple of people" to "Don't write 'this'"? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

   The general argument was "don't write articles of interest to only one or two people" Which to me, reads "don't write this" unless you have 47 people on the wiki who want the article. ħuman 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

   The intention was more to be consistent with all the times we've deleted because nobody thought the specific blogger was notable. There's absolutely no reasoning for that in the guidelines, it's just more of an unwritten rule around here. Thus the number of "one or two people" I derived from the article being relevant to the blogger who the article is about and the article writer... while nobody else even cares. But since you've read it that way as to convey pre-censorship, maybe there's something wrong with my proposal because surely other people may read it the same way as you. Nullahnung (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

   Hmm. I didn't construe "should be relevant to more than just a couple of people in the world" as "only if 47 people on the wiki want the article." I personally find accounts of obscure slap-fights tedious, and skip over them without hesitation or remorse. With that said, I like Weaseloid's suggestion below. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

   I was going to vote "Add" for this, but after reading some of the comments, I think Weaseloid's suggestion is a good middle ground. I didn't really think of things from the point of view of pre-writing censorship. - Grant (Talk) 15:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't add

1. Dumbest idea I have read in eight years on this place. ħuman 04:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
2. I'd much prefer users be bold and write an article, and for us to then get into a discussion about its mission-worthiness. It's much easier for me to determine if something is on-mission once it is written then to speculate about what an article about it might look like and whether that constitutes missionality. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

   This was not a guideline about missionality, by the way. See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Notability_criteria

   The discussion revolved mostly around how to not discourage users, but at the same time minimize the amount of insignificant bloggers that we have articles on. In case you'd like to join the discussion over there and suggest alternative ideas or say why this whole line of thinking isn't necessary. Nullahnung (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

   That bit about "just ask: you could start a discussion" is already part of the page. It appears to have been mentioned here as a milepost, the spot where the new text might go. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

   Join the discussion where about what, Nully? This appears to be the page about this. Damn non-linear noobs... ħuman 02:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

3. 07:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Scream!! (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Crap can always be deleted but if it's never seen, who knows what will be missed?

   There needs to be a rationale for deletion. This provides it.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

   Naw, it's just stupid. ħuman 02:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

5. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

The motion fails. ħuman 02:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

I don't think we need to add more than a few words. How about this? "Articles on subjects which don't really fit into these missions — or are too obscure to be of interest to readers — are likely to be challenged and may be deleted, so before you start a new article, think about how it relates to the missions." etc. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that would eliminate the ways to interpret this into pre-censorship, so that's good. And it still tells people what happens around here with obscure articles. Also, maybe it has less of a problem of discouraging newcomers. I would support this. Nullahnung (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So, I'm guessing a fresh vote needs to be called for every suggestion. I don't see this suggestion as being particularly intrusive, though. Nullahnung (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like this page

The SPOV-related stuff is all mixed in with the quality-control stuff, which I think should be the purpose of this page. A separate SPOV article would also be nice as a specific response to tone-related arguments... oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it wouldn't make a dot of difference, and answering the question "what is a RationalWiki article?" does require both. I wouldn't put them on separate pages - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Russel equals Goedel

Could it not be said that Russell's Paradox and Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem are essentially the same thing? They both highlight the weird effects you get when applying something to itself.

A simple example of this occurred to me when thinking about the word 'quintosyllabic', which is itself quintosyllabic, having five syllables. So it is self-describing if you apply it to itself. What about the word 'self-describing', or even better 'non-self-describing' (no loss of generality by allowing hyphens). Is the word 'non-self-describing' itself non-self-describing? If it is then it isn't (by definition). If it isn't then it is (by definition).

But what does this imply? Most words are non-self-describing, so it's a perfectly reasonable adjective. Does it not just imply that there are some things that cannot sensibly be applied to themselves? The End. ^{— Unsigned, by: Subudler / talk / contribs}

Unilateral changes

I don't think that this page should be changed by individual editors without previous discussion on-site. I don't particularly disagree with any of the recent changes, but this page - which is a fundamental description of what the site is about - should not really be materially edited without some reference to the community.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Here are the changes in question. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes? I very specifically said that I don't disagree with them. My objection is that they were made unilaterally and without comment, explanation or agreement here. It's clearly not the changes I'm objecting to - it's the lack of procedure or involvement of the community.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. What would you like to discuss about them?

I made those specific changes because of people who thought putting dick jokes at the top of cover articles was a good idea, or writing long sections of unfunny "snark" were a good idea, and using this as justification, when they clearly weren't good ideas. That is, due to an actual problem.

I should point out that that bit wasn't created by a detailed bureaucratic procedure. And wasn't particularly well written in its original. I don't think we have an obligation to preserve past rambling as if it was brought down from a mountain by George Washington. - David Gerard (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm also fine with the changes. @Bob: Just put the link there for posterity. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I should note also: nothing is changed in the intent of the section. It's a change in emphasis, specifically because of the section being used as an excuse for crappy and puerile additions - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

EC.As I have twice stated I have no problem with the changes themselves. My point is that such changes should not be made without, at minimum, some justification on this page for such changes.

EC. Ideally, changes to things which potentially refer to fundamental questions about how the site is run should first be suggested before being unilaterally changed. If nobody objects then then no problem.

EC. But simply changing them without comment or discussion with the community sets an unfortunate precedent.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Try having a discussion before doing things.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops

I made some edits without asking first. The changes:

1. Merged the "Snarky Point of View" and "Scientific Point of View" into one POV section. Added the line: "Wikipedia has NPOV: Neutral Point of View. RationalWiki has SPOV. Depending on who you ask, this means two things:"
2. Added a new "How to help" header with [1] RationalWikifying an article and [2] RationalWiki articles on living people.

Seem alright? I can undo if not. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What the

Where did the "RationalWiki has a sense of humor" subheader go?! Not only has it been used for years on innumerable talkpages — it was legitimately useful, IMO (as a subheader if nothing else!). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another point

Some topics date.

There is a flurry of interest in (whatever) which some talking head/(inverse) stopped clock/not even wrong - and then the topic disappears after a couple of days; others will tick over and flare up intermittently. Anna Livia (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious

Does this "snarky point of view" thing mean that, by claiming it's just humor, you guys think you can insult people and get away with it? ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.208.91.150 / talk / contribs}

I think you need to go back and read those two paragraphs again. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate what exactly you think I didn't understand? ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.208.91.150 / talk / contribs}

It's quite normal to "get away" with insulting people, as that is entirely legal. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Legal to insult people? I'm sure the judge will love that defense. Well, I guess you answered my question. Thank you. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.208.91.150 / talk / contribs}

What a twat! I'm aware that's an ad hominem. But it's not illegal. Spud (talk)

Fuck off, Mike. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that's a rational comment. Is that the level of discussion that I should expect on this wiki? ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.249.46.112 / talk / contribs}

Articles on living persons

I would like to see this expanded. I would like to see

1. No real names of internet personalities, even if they freely give their real name. An exception is allowed if: a mainstream news organization uses their real name, or if their real name is their screen name
2. Notability criterion. We don't need an article on every idiot with a youtube channel
3. A focus on concepts and organizations over people. For example, an article on OpenPsych and hereditarianism might make sense. An article on Emil Kirkegard is far less necessary

Thoughts?--Hastur! (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Changed #1--Hastur! (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I especially appreciate the focus on concepts over people. We have far too many articles on random internet people. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I've got no problems. Sounds like a good idea.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We have to bear in mind, numbers 2 and 3 may well result in the deletion of a good few articles--Hastur! (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting rewording 1 to use "reliable sources" instead of "mainstream news". I think that's more in-line with the rest of our article talking about sources, and sometimes this relevant information might not neccessarily exist in just mainstream news. For point 2, I think we should figure out a clear way to properly define this. We can list rules for specifics sites, but we can't easily do sweeping statements, this might be something to consider for a new article dedicated to notability. With point 3, I do think we need an article on Kirkegaard specifically, given he appears to be notable enough given his ownership of multiple crank things, but I do think we could perhaps use less of a focus on say, Joshua Connor Moon on our page on Kiwifarms, since his presence barely adds much to our article on the neonazi den that is KF. Basically, if they have views notable enough to be relevant to our mission, then they can be kept. If they're just a random loon with no audience, we don't need an article on them.

Not disagreeing with the spirit of these rules as you're proposing them, but I think they need some work. I will also say that this is a good time to also add that we should consider giving people the option to request removing their real name if they are primarily known by their handle instead. This would also tie in with setting up an official policy around deadnaming (we kinda already forbid it on RW:BLOCK, but codifying it in the BLP instructions would be a good deal), which is a somewhat related concept to all this. Again, I think these are good ideas, just think they need some time in the oven to word it into proper policy. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, everything I said is up for debate and needs to be elaborated on. I hope to hear more opinions from the community, if you don't mind putting up a sitenotice, please--Hastur! (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Okay, I have put the sitenotice back up now that we're funded for another year. In spite of the dates, this discussion never ended. Inputs and comments very welcome. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 22:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I still like Hastur’s proposed Three Points of Peace. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 00:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

So... would the first one apply to the dreaded master villains Michael Coombs and Ken? If so, looks like we'll have a lot of work to do... And also, I disagree with the "notability" part of number 3; we have never been about notability. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See what I'm planning} 02:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree with everything Hastur proposed. The only part of the proposal that's really anything new is the avoiding using real names of people known by internet pseudonyms part. We long ago decided that we couldn't cover every crank and shouldn't try.That's because there are just too many of them. But we should try to cover every crank idea. Ideas and organizations are definitely more important than individuals. We shouldn't just have articles about people with silly ideas. We should have articles about people who convince tens of thousands of others to believe in those silly ideas too. And it may well be time for the Second Great YouTube Purge. At the time of the first one, we agreed that we should only have articles about YouTubers with at least a thousand subscribers. I thought that was a very low bar to set at the time and it could probably do with being raised now. Spud (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Kenny's page would remain the same as per our general mothballing of CP related pages (which means we're mostly to leave them untouched as relics of a past era). Coombs remains notable since he's appeared on a couple of reliable sources as a loon, as well as with his interference in places like Rightpedia/Metapedia and as a Daily Stormer contributor. This is more about cutting pages and renaming pages about people like James I. Nienhuis, who besides clearly just being a random creationist crank with no audience, has the page mostly talk about his blog rather than him as a person, which makes it weird that our page is named after the person rather than the blog. There's multiple of these pages around, and there's currently no established policy for this kinda junk. It's also about things like the current state of our Kiwi Farms page which has a complete section about Joshua Conner Moon, while Moon's literal only presence in the media was when a few outlets criticized him for calling New Zeeland a shithole after Christchurch. KF is one of those sites which is highly relevant to our mission, so they're worth keeping an article on, but we don't need a section on Moon to explain why KF sucks. (I'd say that the doxxing and general harassment the site actively encourages does that more than enough). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 07:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explanation of why we need these rules, so we know what we're discussing and why. I'm not sure what the reason for the no real names policy is, except where someone has intentionally hidden their name. If a youtuber or blogger publishes a book under their real name, or appears on TV/podcasts/videos under their real name (not necessarily news TV, but if a food blogger goes on a cooking show and uses their real name) would that be grounds to name them? And if they're widely identified by real name but wished to remain hidden (as happened e.g. with Brooke Magnanti)?

It sometimes makes the site more readable to have articles on people rather than drier articles on concepts (e.g. Laurence Fox rather than attempt to pen an article on populist anti-black-lives-matter activism in the UK, Graham Linehan as well as TERF, and not just shove Michael Bloomberg in an article on corporate centrism). Since people tend to be active in more than one field, you need both Microsoft and Bill Gates, and Elon Musk is more relevant than Tesla Motors. Articles on prominent TERFs, bigots, media personalities, etc, indicate how these individuals are formed and manipulated. Ideally we would cover concepts and notable people within them, if the people are unique, important, or widely covered for doing relevant things. If someone is one of 100 essentially identical figures, then they don't need an article, but if they help explain a concept or phenomenon, then they should have an article.

Some requirement for a person to be notable is reasonable, but how do you frame it? YouTube views/subscribers are one thing, but not easily extensible. Wikipedia's guidelines aren't directly applicable. I'd like to know something is possible before I commit to it. --Annanoon (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of the first change(which I support) why do we need a new policy for these things? We already have a notability guideline. Hastur has not suggested changing that-he merely says we should have something we already have. As for the third rule, that should be judged on a case by case basis-sometimes a person who, say, led an organization can leave it and do other prominent things on their own while their organization continues(Steve Bannon and Breitbart come to mind). Sure, users who don't know about various site policies may create articles on obscure youtubers. In that case, just nominate them for deletion and inform said user of the rule. If you win the vote, congrats, if you lose, too bad(though if it is that bad an article I don't see why you would lose). Why do we need an official change in site policy to address this problem?-Flandres (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose on 1, particularly 'even if freely given' part. Agree with 2 in general, but that pretty vague, would like to see a little more detail what that means. No opinion on 3 in either direction.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 06:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually especially like 3, because it might curb the horrible “laundry lists” of mainly contextless quotes and snippets (effin’ Twitter!) that are far too prevalent in the various “internet whacko” articles, as I highlighted two years ago on Talk:Laura Loomer (that being just one example of the “genre”). Some variant of 1 seems fairly prudent, but although I like 2 in principle, it’s something we’ve been over before (cf. Talk:The Golden One and Talk:Lady Checkmate) and I doubt that it will make much difference in practice. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I would add that maybe a good metric for notability may be whether or not mainstream news outlets talk about them. For one, that would mean we have more properly sourced articles. It would also decrease the amount of youtuber articles we are all finally admitting that we hate--Hastur! (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Not that I’ve made much of a secret of my sentiment, but . ScepticWombat (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

While RW is not Wikipedia, I figured I'd take a look at what Wikipedia has to say on this issue because they've been around for longer and have more detailed policies in this area.

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

Privacy of names

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

So basically they only publish names if they're in reliable sources or if the subject has publicly given out their name. Also, what counts as a "mainstream media" source here? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My comments on the proposal at the top:

1. I think it's reasonable to report someone's real name if that's who they say they are, and we are able to cite them for that.
2. We already had a purge of YouTube nobodies, and I agree with that. The rationale was not to promote people who were exceptionally obscure, giving them a greater platform than they deserve. The purge was based on a cutoff for number of followers. I don't see any reason to change that.
3. I think Emil Kirkegaard was a really bad example for someone to remove from RW. Kirkegaard is a public figure and has a public existence outside the Openpsych journals that he founded. He needs to be covered as a separate entity. I think it would be worthwhile for people to read FuzzyCatPotato and Reverend Black Percy's Essay:Why notability is stupid and I hate it before making notability a criterion everywhere.

Bongolian (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Everyone connected to OpenPsych's dodgy journals deserves to have a separate article from what I can tell since they're notable pseudoscientists and have toxic online reputations so are infamous, see for example the amount of sources on Noah Carl who was sacked from Cambridge University after publishing Islamophobic papers in OpenPsych.109.123.74.90 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I reject Hastur's idea to "focus on concepts and organizations over people". The outcome of this is that thousands of biographies would be deleted on this website. I have debunked a lot of anti-vaxx/low carb crackpots on this website and put countless hours in creating articles. Why would we suddenly choose to delete valid articles on pseudo-scientists but focus on organizations only? Makes no sense. Johns (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe some clarification is in order. Apologies if I have misunderstood, but the idea to start deleting loads of articles rings alarm bells to me. There are a lot of well sourced biographies on this website. Johns (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The "no real names" proposal - is this actually about Scott Alexander? Actually naming pseudoscience promoters, woo pushers and similar scammers is a valuable public service, and should not be hampered - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard

I can't help thinking Kirkegaard has been in recent contact with Hastur. Seems odd he was singled out for page deletion. Kirkegaard has spent 4 years harassing the article creator and still is fixated with trying to get his RationalWiki article deleted (he tweets about RationalWiki almost every week). A few months back Kirkegaard was in communication with RationalWiki sysop D/Judge Dredd - who lost his tech rights after he was leaking Kirkegaard IP data. Kirkegaard is totally obsessed with trying to remove his article and likely is in email communication with other sysops or mods here. Kirkegaard is also active (on sockpuppets) on the unofficial RationalWiki discord, requesting to remove his article. Does RationalWiki really want to give in to the demands of someone as notorious as Kirkegaard and remove his page?109.123.74.90 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In my view the above accusations towards Hastur are unverified conjecture. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about these claims, but to see how Kirkegaard operates see here:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/culturally-speaking/202010/psychology-s-hidden-history-racist-roots-and-poison-fruits

https://twitter.com/Ion_Ramaru/status/1321628080327319557

The above was an article written by a psychologist a few days ago criticising Kirkegaard's views on race and intelligence (see screenshot on tweet). Kirkegaard got the article deleted within 24 hours after sending emails complaining to the website. He cannot stand someone criticising him (in my view that points likely to some form of personality disorder) and has managed to delete virtually every page critical of him excluding the RationalWiki page which is why he hates it so much.MrYellow (talk)

I agree that it is suspicious using Kirkegaard's article as an example out of thousands and thousands of others he could have mentioned but we should assume good faith. I am interested in why this debate was started. What brought this all on? Johns (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I searched around on other wikis to see where Kirkegaard got articles about him deleted: 1. Wikipedia: in January 2018 after a few editors started adding critical sources on his article he showed up whining and the page was deleted; his account was later banned. He also whined and complained about the description of him added by admin Doug Weller (who is also a RationalWiki sysop) on the London Conference of Intelligence article - that was removed after Kirkegaard kept pestering Weller and the current page now only briefly mentions him as an attendee. 2. Encylopedia Dramatica: had an article on Kirkegaard in 2019, but was deleted after Kirkegaard (or someone working with him) showed up on sockpuppets claiming it was libellous. Normally ED don't remove pages but I noticed Kirkegaard is friends with an ED administrator, so his page was flushed. 3. Conservapedia: article deleted in November 2018 (no logs of page, but I expect he showed up and whined to get it removed.) MrYellow (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The main reason given for deleting the WP article was lack of notability, which is not inherently a criterion for deletion on RW. Furthermore, Kirkegaard is quite notable in te HBD/racialist sphere. Based on the the link to ED, yeah I'd say that page was potentially libelous. Here's an archived copy of the Conservapedia page:[1] Bongolian (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@MrYellow Quit it. No one disputed that Kirkegaard tries to get his shit taken down. What was disputed was to unsubstantiated accusations of conspiracy. @Johns How is it fucking suspicious? Would any of you fucking twits care to provide more than paranoid conjecture? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kirkegaard got mentioned because this conversation started when we properly confirmed the bans of Smith and Abd, since Smith had gotten his arse in trouble by using us to complain about Kirkegaard or something. It doesn't go deeper than that, stop being stupid and thinking in conspiracies. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 23:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kirkegaard filed a lawsuit against the article creator but lost and was humiliated winning no damages. But because Kirkegaard filed a lawsuit some other RationalWiki users here seemed to have crapped themselves recently in fear he or someone similar might file against them. All this nonsense about making amendments to articles seems to be in response to potential legal threats from nutcases who get angry if someone says something mean about them on the internet. MrYellow (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@MrYellow So all you have is conjecture, or, at most, tenuous speculation. Congratulations, you have given me the exact thing I told you I didn't want. I'm going to dismiss your concerns now, because I don't see any reason to take them seriously. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kirkegaard's mates such as the double trouble Winegard brothers have recently been complaining about libel on their articles, so has Nathan Cofnas and A New Radical Centrism. So I think some RationalWiki editors have become scared and hence the decision to change article policy. All I can say is grow a pair. Kirkegaard, the Winegard's and Cofnas are the sort of people who scream libel at anyone who merely disagrees with them and criticises their views - I covered this well on Cofnas' article. There's really no need to change RationalWiki article policy and delete articles.MrYellow (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting the Kirkegaard article is probably not a good idea - he's an active purveyor of particularly pernicious pseudoscience, and squarely in our ambit. I link the article a lot - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

By side

I'm not sure exactly where I stand, but I think it would be helpful to formulate my thoughts in each direction in a more structured form. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Arguments for the policy

• It's increasingly well understood the doxxing is a form of attack on the internet. Combined with dogpiling, any amount of personal information can blow up and be incredibly harmful to a person. This requires a sense of awareness from any place that publishes information, whether they are contributing to the problem. Real names are often a good starting point for identifying more information about people.
• It's all impossible to gain informed consent. At least not in a format that will be credible in a talk page.
• Often it adds little to no useful context to the article.

Arguments against the policy

• It makes it harder to properly identify a single individual for a single article who use aliases. For the majority of the personalities we cover, this isn't an issue, but there are some notorious sockpuppetty, constantly self-renaming exceptions.
• It's unnecessarily restrictive. If we have a clear sign that someone put their own name to the public, it's reasonable to understand it's not private information.
• It sometimes gives undue protection to people who don't deserve it. Nazi online types often use their relative anonymity to escape notoriety and very deserved reputation loss for their actions. (On the other hand, if the aim is explicitly do antagonize it's definitely doxxing.)
• The information may be relevant from time to time, someone seeing a public speaker at their university, looking them up, and not finding them because we only list them as "TheEarthIs6000YearsOldStupid", might debilitate the aims of the wiki at providing a resource for skeptics on the go.