Wikipedia talk:Lunatic charlatans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Where does the phrase "Lunatic charlatans" come from?

Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything, most probably just from Jimbo himself. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the quote from him is in the essay: "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't." —Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014 -- Brangifer (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added three (3) citations that back this up. The headlines of the articles themselves use the quote in their article titles. Please see DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Change title?

I think we have a useful essay here with the exception of the title which is pretty much guaranteed to disrupt any situation where it might be useful. How about WP:ACEP Petition or something similarly descriptive that won't immediately trigger hostility when it is mentioned? --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't own it, and I'm all for doing anything that makes it useful. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe "Scientific discourse"? --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "ACEP Petition" is good enough.

PS: Since you're worried about provoking hostility, you may want to avoid quoting it using the shortcut links WP:LUNATICS or WP:LUNATICCHARLATANS ;) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose changing the title. The current title is derived from the quote by Jimmy Wales: "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't." -- we should keep the page as is, namely, located at Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose title change The strong statement from a WMF representative is the leading story here, not the petition. The phrase "lunatic charlatan" is one person's characterization of the posture that WP:WikiProject Medicine and other groups take to contributors who make health claims without citing scholarly medical publications. I think this is a fair title to inform contributors who are outside the established norm that they are being held not to their own standards, but to the standards which are defined in other ways including Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Who would ever refer to it, or click on it, or remember where to find it, again if it was called "Scientific discourse"? Plus, I agree that Jimbo's statement is the story here. Bishonen | talk 14:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
• No Linking to this is not compulsory, nor is showing it's name in a link. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Could be helpful essay if we eliminated the drama

Just to be clearer, I think the essay would be much more valuable if we reduced the name-calling and drama. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I am really not sure how it would be possible to "avoid the drama" while trying to get True Believers^TM to drop their campaigns. Being brutally blunt from the start may in fact be the best way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we could be blunt without name-calling. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations with informative headlines

1. Sifferlin, Alexandra (March 25, 2014). "Wikipedia Founder Sticks It To 'Lunatic' Holistic Healers". Time. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved October 12, 2015.
2. Szoldra, Paul (March 25, 2014). "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales Slams Holistic Medicine As 'The Work Of Lunatic Charlatans' In Response To Petition". Business Insider. Archived from the original on May 1, 2015. Retrieved October 12, 2015.
3. Geuss, Megan (March 25, 2015). "Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners 'lunatic charlatans'". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on August 25, 2015. Retrieved October 12, 2015.

I've added these three (3) citations to the page. They all use the phrase that is the title of this essay, namely, Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, in the headline title of the articles themselves. Clearly multiple sources think this is noteworthy. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/WikiProject_Self-serving_bullshit This essay is not giving any instruction for editing. Therefore, I would like to gain consensus to add this. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There is such a thing as gilding the lilly. That is, I'm not sure that adding a fake wikiproject would be helpful, although User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit is pure gold. As humor, yes, it's good but this essay has an important purpose and over-decorating the talk page would interfere with that.

The reason I am looking at this talk at the moment is because your diff is seriously unhelpful, and that conclusion was formed before noticing your previous effort. The removed comment confirms an unhealthy obsession with Wales. Use a userbox to express personal dissatisfaction, but you know full well that righting great wrongs is off-limits on all pages—it's just not helpful to the encyclopedia. Start a blog or join one of the attack websites. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

JzG created User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit and created this essay. If there are no other essays he created then what is the purpose of User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit? Wales' idea is this.[1] That shows this article is a humour essay and unduly self-serving. It is helpful to the encyclopedia to inform others who read this page. QuackGuru (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the proposal is inappropriate per my edit summaries and Johnuniq's comments above.

I've also removed the new addition to this essay or the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq indicated "User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit is pure gold" So where does it fit as pure gold?

If you think adding User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit is inappropriate then do you think User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit is inappropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Meh, don't really see the point; and, as Johnuniq points out, this essay has an important purpose, from which this addition would be distracting. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq said User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit is "pure gold". So where does the "pure gold" belong? QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• You have received no support for the proposal. Please drop it. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Please address the question. Where does the "pure gold" belong if it does not belong here? QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[2][3][4][5]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Funny essay, but shame about the name

I just came across this essay. It made me laugh, and I agree with the basic message; but as someone else commented above back when it was written, its provocative name makes it difficult to invoke in practice. It's hard to imagine any circumstance where referring to another editor as a 'lunatic' would not be a violation of WP:NPA. Robofish (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The essay does not call any Wikipedia editor a lunatic charlatan and thus does not violate NPA. It calls people who call themselves "scientists" but who cannot get their work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, they cannot produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments -- lunatic charlatans.

As for invoking it in practice, why would you want to do that? It never works. The target audience you are trying to reach is pretty much immune to any "WP:..." wikilinks. They have been bombarded with them again and again and have learned to ignore them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)