From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

The list of people[edit]

Do we want it? Ikanreed (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Since everyone is worried about legal risks I'd say just keep the dead ones. Trick (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I may simply be displaying my colossal legal ignorance, would listing only the dead ones necessarily provide a guarantee against lawsuits? In other words, can defamation/libel/whatever suits be brought by the family on grounds of "smearing someone's memory" (or something along those lines)? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There are no guarantees. Anyone can sue for anything. My understanding of what's going on is an intent of risk mitigation. Dead people, at the very least, don't have business reputations, and don't sue on their own behalf. That's a couple of big risks. Ikanreed (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I get that listing only dead people is less risky than listing living ones. I was merely curious as to whether any of you know if the family (or perhaps the estate?) of a deceased person would have a reasonable chance of a successful lawsuit by claiming "smearing of the deceased's memory" and/or possibly bad reflections on the family or what have you? Or whether such cases are more likely to be dismissed with the argument that they have to be filed directly by the person being defamed/libelled/or whatever? It's an honest question and I'd really like to know, since such issues are important to keep in mind when operating online. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Why Dr. Kevorkian?[edit]

Unless we're basing it on some other beliefs of his that I'm not aware of, I don't understand why he's on this list. What part of believing that we have the right to end our own lives rather than having suffer through lengthy terminal diseases with no hope of a cure counts as being a crank? Jwebb13 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


It is not my nature to compromise and I resent it heavily when I have to. I would rather lose completely and suffer any penalty, up to and including death, than compromise.[1]

I'd rather be totally, completely, absolutely wrong rather than be wishy-washy and end up doing the "right" thing.[2]

Remember, it is better to be confidently wrong than to be diffidently right.[3]
Adolf Hitler Castaigne

It feels wrong to include a RW user. Moved here unless ppl disagree. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Me too. It's an excellent example of what's wrong with cranks.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

On physics crankery[edit]

An interesting read. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


Should a link be made to this crank? Anna Livia (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Levels of crankery[edit]

What term could be used for the very mildest forms of crankery - 'my pet topic/interpretation of X' (your local sports club, hobby, preferred Doctor Who, other line of interest etc is the best) - you are willing to accept that other people's pet views are as significant to them. Anna Livia (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Mark McCutcheon - for "The Final Theory", which claims to have a better "expansion theory" explanation for everything than traditional physics, but offers no proof of any claims and has its own glaring problems. (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)