RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Oliver Canby

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Corrected some "it's" versus "its" problems. Remember, "it's" means "it is" or "it has" while "its" means "belonging to it." Nowhere Man (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

I don't know if it's because he's seen this article or not, but Canby has now deleted all of his comments from the 28th Amendment entry on his blog. I know they exist elsewhere, either in bits or complete, and I'll replace them when I can. The other links to his blog comments will also be checked. BankBox (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to check with the Internet WayBack Machine and with Google Cache. Dog speed, BankBox. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I already checked Google Cache. Nothing. Even in the current search of his name and limiting it to blogspot.com - nothing. I think he's got a block up on searching - which would make the Wayback Machines useless. BankBox (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
What about that blog, then? Maybe it has mentions on some of the things you're looking for; that can be used as a secondary source. Also, as far as I'm concerned, anything currently standing in the article that was retrieved when this was still up can still stand. But long-term, it's a problem. I just mean that as the search for sourcing solutions goes on, the current statements based on said material should stand, if nothing else to aid our memory. Not a long term solution though, and since it's an article on a living person this might not even be an advisable policy. Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like he's deleted all of his comments on the whole blog. The Help Oliver Canby blog may have some of them but I would have to check. BankBox (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Update - the original entries on his blog are still there however. That's something. Most of the comments in the article come from the neurodiversity amendment entry, and that one is covered for by the person who runs a new blog called "Lock Oliver Canby Up". I wonder if he knows about this article and is trying to short circuit it? Wouldn't put that past him given his refusal to take responsibility for what he says and does. BankBox (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

See the robots.txt; only Google is allowed, apparently. I believe you can remove pages from the Google cache in the webmaster tools... This is sort of why using archive.is and/or CaptureBot is a good idea for this sort of stuff ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Passage that doesn't make sense.[edit]

"During his childhood, Oliver did things like "boo Raffi"[4], play the role of "Sparky"[5] and mix up "doctor" with "drive"[6]." I have no idea what this means. Who are "Raffi" and "Sparky," and what is remarkable about booing the former and a kid pretending to be the latter? Why is a kid mixing up common words remarkable -- I guess it would depend on what age it happened at? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The point of it is that he promoted them as "embarrassing", when in fact - certainly in the case of Sparky - he should be proud of them. Read all three links and you may get the idea. At the root of it is that he blames his autism for it all and doesn't see it as part of the learning process. BankBox (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If the article doesn't tell me why these things are embarrassing, or what they even are, it's not doing its job. Telling people to go read some guys blog to get the full explanation of a poorly-unwritten/undeveloped argument is not adding quality to the wiki. We shouldn't be sending our readers to do our research for us. Please explain what is going on in this passage and why it is relevant to the article. As it stands, it makes no sense. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought the source itself would have explained that sufficiently. I do think those examples should be mentioned, but I'll leave it for now pending the Afd. The reality is that he is allowed society to dictate to him - the Sparky incident basically says "Shut up at away games" (which is rubbish - who is silent at away games? That's part of the fun of sport as a spectator). The Raffi thing is all about not understanding when to "yay" and when to "boo". I went looking for a literal interpretation of this (this is consistent with an Asperger's diagnosis) and couldn't find one - it's more likely a social error. There is one however with the "Dr" (Doctor and Drive) mix up. BankBox (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, Canby does not contradict himself that he is autistic by also claiming childhood intellectual deficits. Oh, he said specifically Asperger's. that's different.---Mona- (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
"I would have thought the source itself would have explained that sufficiently." I don't want to read the source. I want to read the article. Again, don't ask our readers to do your research for you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"and its positive contributions to history and science."[edit]

This claim is going to need a clear and well-documented explanation. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. If you need more, just say so and I'll get it. BankBox (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

contradicts that diagnosis with the claim that he was "intellectually disabled"[edit]

Unclear how this contradicts the diagnosis. Needs a sentence elaborating on how Asperger's is or isn't an intellectual disability. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC the diagnosis of Asperger's requires an IQ of at least 100, which defeats the intellectual disability claim. The wording I think was (in the DSM-IV) "relatively high intelligence". BankBox (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sexual orientation[edit]

I am not at all sure we should be repeating speculation about somebody's sexual orientation based on some person's "gaydar," I am sure, however, that a man's thoughts on the manliness of sunscreen are not at all relevant to a discussion of his sexual orientation. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes it is! It shows a hole in Canby's strength of sexual character, going overboard on something that he sees as feminine when in actual fact it's anything but. That can be seen by the community as a forcibly closeted homosexual. BankBox (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
"Strength of sexual character"?!?!? What does that even mean? Moreover, it's not up to you or some imagined community to decide that someone is actually closeted. Sorry. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
"Strength of sexual character" means not really knowing if you are homosexual or not - which gender do you prefer and so on. Also, remember that Canby's thinking comes from another age (the reliance of Leviticus reflects that) and if my history is up to standard forcibly closeting was common back in those days. Not now of course, but you can't tell someone who believes Leviticus is law that. BankBox (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You cannot speculate on a living person's sexuality on this website based on broad historical patterns and conjecture. A: You're inviting a libel suit, and B: it's just not cool. You can document his homophobia? Great. Anything else is you making shit up. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Uh no others have already made the statements I have made here on the blog concerned, so no it is not me "making shit up". What's not cool is him behaving as though the issue doesn't exist when it does. He dunking himself in it and it's a shame you can't see that. BankBox (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The question is not what I can or cannot see. The question is that saying something silly about sunscreen doesn't make someone gay. Get a picture of him with a cock in his mouth and then we can talk. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't you get the insinuation?? Obviously not. I don't think you can contribute to this until you understand the insinuation that "sunscreen is not masculine" places a question mark on his sexual orientation. I never said he was definitely a closet gay and neither does the article. It merely speculates and leaves the question open based on what HE has said. Further proof that your hour in the cooler is warranted. BankBox (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It might say something about a person being insecure about their masculinity. Or it might say he has an opinion about sunscreen. It says nothing about sexual orientation. But you are right, it does speculate, and we are not in the business of speculating about the private lives of living people. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Private lives? He made the comments IN PUBLIC! Come on, it shows that he is batshit crazy surely? Not to mention a hypocrite - which is why the speculation is relevant. BankBox (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The more I read this...[edit]

...the less comfortable I am with the article. It seems like a big exercise in pointing to a disturbed individual and laughing. I'm going to AFD it and see what the mob thinks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not laughing. Not at all. This is serious and this person needs to be called out. Not laughed at. BankBox (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"He is adamant that autism must be cured [...] completely ignoring autism's established genetic basis"[edit]

While congenital conditions with a genetic cause can't be 'cured' in the sense that you can't go into every cell and 'fix' the genes, but in the case of some conditions the associated symptoms may be treatable, even curable to an extent. Also, "disease", "illness" etc. are often used interchangably with "disorder" so I wouldn't make any deductions based just on that particular choice of words. Relating to Canby's stance, is he just naïvely optimistic about a cure or does he actually think autism is an infectious disease? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:34, 15 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yes he does think it's a disease and NOT a disorder. He compares it to AIDS and cancer as examples - yes cancer isn't infectious but AIDS definitely is. Naive optimism is not a term I would associate with Canby. He's way beyond that. BankBox (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That would be far more relevant that his opinions on Bruce Springsteen or sunscreen. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Giant reversion explained[edit]

These are all poorly-written (for the most part) recountings of various random crazy things that some random guy on the internet has said. You want to write an article about problematic opinions about autism? Great. You want to live-blog every crazy utterance out of some guy's keyboard? Not really required. Focus, and give the topic the article it (maybe) deserves. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The article still looks like various random crazy things that some random guy on the internet has said. As far as I can tell, the only notable thing about this guy is that he has been successfully sued for defamation by another blogger,[1] which was part of what you took out. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Look, I ain't married to this. You wanna take it out back and shoot it, I won't stop you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)