Talk:Black Belt Magazine

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This reads like a product review & I don't see the point. Do we really need to say anything about this specific martial arts magazine (or any other) that isn't basically already covered in the McDojo article? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 04:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Between you and me, we will eventually whittle the wiki down to a handful of articles. Step 3, PROFIT. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 04:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It's kind of the Discovery Institute of McDojos, to give context for anyone not in Martial Arts.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 06:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A section in the relevant article, then? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Are we planning the same thing with DI?-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 21:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The DI is pretty core to the website's stated mission. McDojos, Black Belt Monthly, and martial arts are decidedly less so. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The article, despite its flaws (there are plenty, and I'll fix them; don't worry) DOES fall into the wiki's mission statement. The statement is as follows: 1: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. 2: Documenting the full range of crank ideas. 3:Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. 4:Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. Black Belt's DEFINITELY espouses (Peter Ragnar, George Dillman, Frank Dux) #2, and as a media source that actively endorses said cranks, fits statement #4.

I'll be honest; a lot of the article content isn't necessary. I wanted to make an informative article that wasn't a one or two paragraph article, and as such I allowed myself to post up content that wasn't as objective, was subjective, or irrelevant. I should of double checked my finished product and made sure it was up to the quality of standards Rationalwiki strives for; however the article took 7 hours to put up everything (including uploading files for pictures), and I was tired as shit. As such, I just though 'fuck it, I'll post it, and let them point out any flaws'. My sincere apologies.

As such, I'll be doing some HEAVY editing and deleting much of the unnecessary content so the article is more in line with Rationalwiki's mission statement. Thank you everyone for pointing out the article's flaws. TokenSkepticMagician talk 20:11, November 25 (UTC)

This looks quite missional to me, and I don't see that merging it to a couple of paragraphs somewhere else does the job. We have What Doctors Don't Tell You as well, for instance. Woo is woo, and its media outlets are relevant, if the articles are any good, and I'm fine with this one - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Something amusing[edit]

Can I just point out that the guy on the cover about to have his spine snapped or something looks like he's...strangely enjoying it? The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 03:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)