Talk:Suspicious0bservers

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.

	This YouTube related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Needs far more information on his pseudoscientific crap. Tagged since 01:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Could also use some more rebuttals of his woo-pushing. Tagged since 01:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am always suspicious when someone, especially a BoN creates a fully fledged article like Suspicious0bservers as I wonder where it was copied from. Scream!! (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where else on the Internet you'd find stuff like that. God, what a horrible looking page! And more sodding YouTube! Fuck me! Spud (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

What's more remarkable to me is that the entire page didn't trip any edit filters. — Dysk (contribs) 16:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellently edited those folk! Scream!! (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Revamp to remove promotional text

Clearly written by Davdison himself, now fixed to remove all the subtle links and spam. Scribe (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki fails to find The Falseability of Plasma Cosmology

RationalWiki’s spotlight on Ben Davidson’s YouTube Channel ‘SuspiciousObservers’ has multiple issues most of which simply lack citation to overtly blunt claims.

1). Claims of inadequate academic accreditation. 2) Claims that Ben counters scientific studies that observe climate change. 3) Claims falsifiability of plasma cosmology. 4) Claims insubstantiated magnitohydrodynamic corroboration of earthquake predictions. 5) Claims invalid preponderance of scientific reference.

It is incumbent of ‘rational thought’ to provide a jurisprudence of ones rational. Otherwise, you’re simply preaching.

Please note my lack of donation to your offering plate. ^{— Unsigned, by: Lazy Cowboy / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Your rambling monologue has been duly noted and promptly ignored. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Major improvements needed

When I just learned of this article's existence when some new editor added some cited (albeit while making the common mistake of forgetting <ref></ref> tags and MLA formatting) info to it, the only reason why I didn't AFD it for being yet another article on a YouTuber is because I looked into this guy and saw that he has more than half a million subs, thus satisfying our criteria.

That being said, this needs A LOT of work. Methinks we should start by first clarifying what the hell S0's "electroquakes" are- and more importantly, what the recently-added sourced info has to do with it. If that doesn't happen within the next few days, I nuke that section. What are the irrational Ratwiki hivemind's thoughts on this? --Goatspeed. _{Stop the War On Secularism}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Prototype lab} 01:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

He seems to explain electroquakes coherently in this video. Wikipedia has an article on the topic, which seems to indicate that earthquakes can produce electromagnetic phenomena, but that these are so weak as to be useless for predicting earthquakes. This, this, this, and this come up when searching seismo-electromagnetics (the last two might actually be the same). All of them seem to say the same thing as Wikipedia: there are electromagnetic phenomena associated with earthquakes, but as of now they cannot be put to use in predicting earthquakes, either because they are too unreliable or too long-term (as far as I can tell). Suspicious0bservers seem to claim in their videos that they can predict (and have predicted) earthquakes using eletromagnetic phenomena. 68.56.144.8 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Dark Matter

There are criticisms against SO that they are anti-dark matter and that's "nutty", but there seems to be mainstream acceptance that dark matter may be just as wrong as string theory.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy8MdewY_TY
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTBZ2G4vow
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtfEzDAlL5k
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJGX-wLzCrk
• https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-tool-for-finding-dark-matter-digs-up-nothing-20220321

^{— Unsigned, by: 148.75.141.239 / talk}