Talk:Strange Mysteries

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.

Probable conflict of interest editing

A BoN (73.58.148.32) has been whitewashing this article and has said they'll "come back here everyday and just undo any inaccurate changes", I've protected the article with the pre whitewash version in place. Christopher (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Guess you guys should lock it down for good then to save yourself trouble. Whitewashing is a cool word btw. --^{— Unsigned, by: 73.58.148.32 / talk / contribs} 19:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence that 73.58.148.32 has a motive; let's not dabble in conspiracy. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my edits are a COI - because I'm trying to help you all avoid committing crimes. But, it's fine, I'm e-mailing legal, this is becoming a timesink. You're already interpreting what the channel is saying into absolute statements of fact when your citations clearly show we are merely asking questions. Libel is when you knowingly falsify statements that cause harm to someone or some entity. If I said "Is the Moon made of cheese?" claiming I instead said "The Moon is made of cheese." wildly skews the original meaning...and to a purposefully harmful direction. I will say I had a chat with many of your discord users amicably (and I enjoyed discussing science with them) and one, Beb, whom ignored the defamation part, sdid at least say it is written in a "beliefs" present tense and we do not believe the things listed. said "Beb - Today at 4:15 AM Well actually you might have a point there. They're listed as beliefs which implies that it's current." I respond by saying "You are saying we are making a statement as a fact. That's different than asking a question." He says "Fair enough, it should be fixed."

You're also actively and knowingly (please especially review the #3 and #4 rules of 107 in copyright law) violating the registered copyright I have on the ghost hand picture for the channel and furthermore unnecessarily and inaccurately damaging the reputation of it via labelling it as pseudoscience when we actually likely bore the users to death by citing reputable journals too much - thus causing it to suffer economic harm. Certain scientists won't work with us due to the reputation you are propagating for example. And furthermore, since it is wise for you to read especially #3 and #4 of the 107 section copyright law, your claim for "editorial use" is not valid; and since I registered the copyright, you are potentially open to statutory damages under 17 U.S. Code § 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits. ^{— Unsigned, by: 73.58.148.85 / talk}

73.58.148.32's edits

Broadly, 73.58.148.32 recharacterizes all videos as not being pseudoscience, but instead "questioning" established scientific or historic views. This is not a view favored by RationalWiki. It is fair game to take a side in an ongoing scientific or historic dispute (eg, abiogenesis). However, it is not fair game to cast clickbait stories that don't cite research (or imply that single studies are game-changers) as "questioning science". This position is the same as that of intelligent designers, and has been ruled as pseudoscience.

TLDR: Why should a clickbait YouTube channel that favors pseudoscientific "questioning" be treated different than intelligent designers? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe the most important thing here is to consider what your goals are, which appear to be skewed. Do you want to just troll topics or do you want to actually debate them?

Look at the edits I made with the reasoning for each. Was my version more or less accurate than the original one? How much of the context of what you reference do you know?

The channel also does cite research, but in all of your references you have only taken the top of the description box (which is out of context from the rest of each video) and then broadly applied labels where it seems a troll would fit.

Also, keep in mind, you all have, within this talk, originally created the quoted "questioning" word (which was then repeated by each of you) and then spread it to the "questioning science" phrase. That is not what the channel does. The channel's theme is inadequately represented by the way you reference it - which is literal cherry-picking at its finest.

Let's define "slander" as -knowingly false- writings that negatively affect something, especially something considered a business.
You may be able to attempt to reshape the semantics of the word "pseudo" as much as you want. However, by purposefully ignoring the actual facts I have presented in editing the page to reflect much more accurate rather than cherry-picked out of context references which accomplish your goal of trolling, you begin to cross over into that zone of "slander." Sure, you can give your opinion. That's not slander. It's when you start misquoting and representing things especially via.....the use of a biased reference strategy that you may want to be careful. You're not on the offensive side in this situation.--735814832 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Received this e-mail:

"As the former production company that was hired by contract to produce audio narrations for Strange Mysteries and no longer has anything to do with Strange Mysteries we were shocked to find an entry on your page updated only a few days ago to include a personal name that was under contract.

Jody Baxmeyer has never given permission for his name to be used in association with Strange Mysteries and as such you have left yourself open to legal measures.

You have not been given permission to use the name Jody Baxmeyer, if this entry is not removed by the end of business day, August 21, 2017 at 5pm CST, we will begin legal action against you.

You may return this message with a link showing this page has been amended or removed. "

There does not appear to be anything actually libel or actionable on what we have said in the article. So I am not afraid of the legal issues. My question is: is there value in having the narrators name in the article? If so what is it? And can we make that clear. If not, then it should probably be removed. tmtoulouse 19:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed him. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tmtoulouse 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OUR GOAT-EMPEROR HAS RETURNED! RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

He's back! —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)