Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: snow keep. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans

Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

My concern over this was initially over the WP:LUNATICS shortcut being used on Talk:Autism. This struck me as incredibly jarring -- regardless of the intent behind this shortcut, using it on the talk page of a neurodevelopmental condition seems very ableist, even if unintentional. I believe this essay has the potential to cause great offence and harm -- not to the purveyors of harmful mis/disinformation, as it intends, but to individual editors as a term of abuse.

Attempts to move this page to a more neutral title or tone have been thwarted on the talk page when this was suggested in 2014. I believe attitudes have changed since then and as such, I am proposing this for deletion. Bangalamania (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Fear of exceptionally rare and hypothetical abuse does not justify deletion. This nomination is also out of order as there has been no discussion of this idea on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The abuse is either exceptionally rare, or hypothetical; it can't be both. And I gave an example of its use on the autism talk page, which could be seen as offensive. As I say, I do not think it was used as a term of abuse in that instance – but I think uncritical references to lunatics in the talkpage of any disability-related article is questionable, and for as long as this article exists there will be no way to stop it. And the issue has been discussed on the talk page, a number of different times by different users. – Bangalamania (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - we could argue that the words we have immortalised were less than ideal, but they are what they are and this is a fairly significant piece of Wikipedia history. Based on your nom, I also think that your real problem might be with WP:LUNATICS. If so, the appropriate place for that is RFD not MFD. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, my main problem is with the redirect, but I think that the page as a whole ought to be deleted. For example, the page calls people "lunatics" in Wikipedia's voice. If we are keeping the quote from Jimbo, fine, as you say it's less than ideal but it is a part of our history. But we should not have it at the current title, or call people ableist terms in WP's voice in such an influential essay. −Bangalamania (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• An MFD is for when you want to delete the page completely, not for when you want to move it to a new title, or reword it. I oppose deletion, as no rationale for completely removing this entire essay from WP has been made. I'd probably also oppose a rename or watering down of the content, or a deletion of the WP:LUNATICS shortcut, but I'm not as sure of that as I am sure that this essay should not be deleted, and this MFD will not result in its deletion. Personally, I think maybe it would be better to somehow unofficially encourage WP:CHARLATANS and de-emphasize WP:LUNATICS, but that's all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Attempts by me and other editors to move the article title, or remove the ableist language in Wikipedia's voice (not including the quote from Jimbo) have been quashed pretty quickly. I don't believe it is acceptable to call people lunatics in Wikipedia's voice, even if they are a purveyor of fake medical cures. Any essay which uncritically called people "retarded charlatans" (as an example) and used WP:RETARDS as a shortcut would have been deleted long ago. Just because Jimbo did it ~7 years ago, doesn't make it OK.

I agree with your unofficial emphasis on the charlatan aspect: however, this is totally impractical to implement on Wikipedia while the page exists in this form. –Bangalamania (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

But... you think that after not being able to get consensus to move the page or change the wording, you will be able to get consensus to delete the whole essay? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I do appreciate your changes made on the article (I still don't like that "lunatic charlatans" is being used without attribution in the nutshell, or that it's still at its current title, but small steps I guess..). –Bangalamania (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Per Floquenbeam the problem is not the essay's existence, title or content, this is merely a case of someone using a shortcut that could be (and has been by at least the OP) misconstrued as an insult. The issue can easily be resolved by using the other aleady exising shortcut WP:CHARLATANS. There is no need for this MFD at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If the title wasn't the current one, the shortcut wouldn't exist. The article's title and content (calling people lunatics in its own voice, not just quoting Jimbo) are all part of the problem. – Bangalamania (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep one of the best essays on the project, succinctly illustrates how Wikipedia feels about quacks, charlatans and con-men. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 20:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment For what its worth, I've listed the LUNATICS shortcut separately at RfD, per advice. Even if editors somehow seem to think that the page is acceptable at its current title, please consider the shortcut being deleted to avoid abuse. – Bangalamania (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important part of Wikipedia's history, and the phrase is a direct and famous quote by Wikipedia's co-founder. The term is no longer used in law or in care for the mentally ill but is still used colloquially and hyperbolically to describe illogical thinkers, as Jimbo did. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The term is no longer used in law or in care for the mentally ill but is still used colloquially and hyperbolically to describe illogical thinkers The same could be said for the term "retarded". Would an article calling illogical thinkers retards in its own voice, with the term in the title, and WP:RETARDS as a shortcut be acceptable? There seems to be a double standard here. – Bangalamania (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Straw man. Jimbo Wales did not call people "retards". You cannot rewrite history. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, it is not ableist to oppose lunatic charlatans, and it is quite insulting to those with actual mental disabilities and illnesses to suggest that it is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The term "lunatic" is a historical reference to people with mental illness, and is offensive. Any dictionary definition will tell you that: ([1], [2] [3]). Its offensiveness is well-known. I also oppose the people you call "lunatic charlatans"; I just don't think that using offensive language to refer to them is the best way forward. And as someone who actually does have a mental health condition, but hates pseudoscience and health bullshit-peddlers I find the essay insulting. – Bangalamania (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In this essay, the word is not applied to people with developmental disabilities or autism or mental health problems. It is applied to purveyors of pseudoscience. Just today, excerpts of Stephanie Grisham's new book were released. Speaking of Donald Trump, she wrote, "I knew that sooner or later the president would want me to tell the public something that was not true or that would make me sound like a lunatic". The word remains common in casual usage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Your linked sources only support it as offensive when used to refer to mental illness. They specifically do not apply that to usages of the term to mean "foolishness", which is the sense meant here. Those dictionaries show why this should be kept. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• As I said at the related RfD, we have far too many projectspace pages dedicated to dunking on pseudoscience. I am aware of no other anti-____ effort on Wikipedia that sees the need to so extensively document its contempt for the bad guys. Not anti-vandal editors, not anti-sockpuppetry editors, not anti-COI/UPE editors. It may have made sense in 2006, when WP:ARBPSEUDO came down. It may still have made sense in 2014, when Jimbo made the statement referenced in this essay. In 2021, though, it just looks... kind of cringe-y, if I had to pick one word. And hey, cringe is no reason to delete anything. But I worry it has a chilling effect. I know there are times that I've looked at an article that characterized something as pseudoscience, where that statement was not actually supported by the cited sources, or where the sources were low-quality or out-of-date, and where I chose to say nothing because the orgy of "I despise pseudoscience" essays and userpages and userboxen has made me think, no, this isn't a battle I want to fight. Nevermind if the only source is a book from 30 years ago about a tangentially related topic (which is the case with at least one article I have in mind).
  That said, this particular essay just recounts a notable event in Wikipedia history. I could maybe see a case for marking it as historic, but that would be a little silly for an essay that's already about our history. On the other hand, if someone wants to MfD User:JzG/charlatans, I'd !vote to delete that in a heartbeat. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I am struck by the credulity implied in many of the above comments. Does anyone seriously believe that an effective way to combat pseudoscience inside or outside of Wikipedia is to call whoever is advancing it a lunatic charlatan? Here's a thought experiment -- do you think the reason that the Creation Museum is still around is because they haven't been called lunatic charlatans enough? You think if we call them that more their opinion of, and likeliness to trust, information on Wikipedia increases or decreases? Speaking of religion, this conversation reminds of times I've heard very young children argue with their religious parents about profanity they're not allowed to use. They realize they can't win with f-bombs or s-bombs, but suddenly they remember "Hey! 'Ass' is in the Bible so I should be able to say 'ass!'" The bit I'm most dismayed about here is the implied "Hey! The Wikipedia co-founder called people 'lunatic charlatans' so I should be able to call people 'lunatic charlatans!'" Jimmy Wales is a mammal, just like the people that wrote the Bible. That means Jimmy Wales can make mistakes, just like the people that wrote the Bible. We should stop treating Jimmy like an infallible Pope of Wikipedia, and we should not enshrine one of his mistakes in this way. Unless 'lunatic charlatans' is your safeword, I have to stretch my imagination to think of other circumstances where its utterance would represent an improvement to dialogue between two people in real life. (I recently made similar noises at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_28#Wikipedia:LUNATICS, for those that are interested). - Scarpy (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Scarpy, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia "to combat pseudoscience" but instead to summarize what the best reliable sources say about pseudoscience. Nobody says that Jimbo is infallible especially me since I have been openly critical of him when I thought that he was wrong. Maybe he could have selected his words a bit more carefully, but this was a major event in the history of this encyclopedia, and we should have an uncensored essay about it. It is not our role as Wikipedia editors to engage in an "improvement to dialogue" with purveyors of pseudoscience. It is our job to swiftly reject the self serving POV pushing contributions of pseudoscience advocates and exclude them completely from this project if they persist, and then to describe their crank theories neutrally, summarizing what truly reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

will take these in reverse order.

Yes, it’s entirely part of our purpose to improve dialogue for several reasons. First, civility is one of Wikipedia’s five pillars. Take a look at how the article and the term is used when linked in talk pages, and you will often find civility decreases in its presence.

Second, is neutrality, another pillar of Wikipedia that’s being ignored here. Neutrality is not just summarizing reliable sources, it means teaching the other side especially carefully, more so when it’s wrong and explaining why in a way the respects the reader. It’s not restoring to cheap tricks (ad hominems, condescension, etc).

Building on this, the third is effective Science Communication and increasing the public understanding of science. This is not an pillar, but is implied by the fact that we’re writing an encyclopedia. Persuasion isn’t always here’s the facts, you’re either an idiot or you’re not. It’s here are the facts and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind. And it’s the facts plus the sensitivity when convolved together creates impact. That’s from the exchange between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins from 2006. It’s worth watching in its entirety. The point here is to write articles that create impact. How much effort goes in to writing articles in such a way that they are capable of educating a reader to the point they’re persuaded? Has anyone ever attempted to measure this or vary strategies and see what differences in outcomes were produced? You know, collect evidence to see if people walk away from reading an article and are more or less likely to agree with the points made in it after reading it? What sensitivity do we bring to the state of mind of our audience? Writing a well-sourced screed against pseudoscience is not the same as effective Science Communication—I would say if anything it’s almost the exact opposite.

by what criteria do you judge “major events” associated with Wikipedia? To me, this looks more like impression management than a coherent policy. We’ve made a huge mistake by treating it like a policy, when it’s miles away from that. I see editors took it to mean it’s their “job” to marginalize the out-group, as you said: It is our job to swiftly reject the self serving POV pushing contributions of pseudoscience advocates and exclude them completely from this project if they persist, and then to describe their crank theories neutrally, summarizing what truly reliable sources say. Yeah… that’s not writing an encyclopedia, that’s policing who is allowed to contribute. When you read that and compare it to Larry’s criticism, you can see why many people immediately find editing for Wikipedia to be hostile and why editors seem to feel proud of and justified by their hostility. Again, one of our pillars is civility. Each one of these editors could be a resource for improving how reliable sources are summarized and communicated in an article in a way that they don’t find to be insulting to their state of mind. Often times it appears to me that the tone in many controversial articles is almost taylor-made to anger the out-group… again, if this were Twitter, Fox News, or MSNBC, that would be totally fine—making people angry is how they make their money. We’re a non-profit that’s writing an encyclopedia but we’re starting to act more and more like Buzzfeed and Breitbart. - Scarpy (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

it means teaching the other side especially carefully, more so when it’s wrong and explaining why in a way the respects the reader. It’s not restoring to cheap tricks (ad hominems, condescension, etc). I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be an educational outfit. If it were, there would be a lot that would be different about the site. If reliable sources trumpet ad hominems and condescension, WP in articlespace duly repeats this. The goal of project space is ostensibly to support this goal and, thus, I see no place for the education of the misguided as a raison d'etre for this place. It could be a happy side effect of the website, but it is not what we are about. I say this as an educator who is keenly sensitive to this very point in my classes. If I get a flat earther in class, my approach is not to send them to the Flat Earth article at WP. Nuance in education absolutely requires the touch you are describing. But that is not the remit of this project for better or worse. I also imagine that you haven't been keeping up with Larry Sanger's descent into QAnon advocacy. If he is meant to be anything like a guiding light in this conversation, I fear we are truly lost. jps (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources trumpet ad hominems and condescension, WP in articlespace duly repeats this. You just brought a descriptive claim to a normative discussion. I agree post-2014, it's a common practice that's largely enabled by this article. I've never been able to square that with Wikipedia:Five pillars, particularly We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".

Well, we are, of course, empowered to adopt whatever protocols we want in projectspace, so if you want to advocate for best practices in pedagogy as rules for that, go ahead. Doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the way things have actually happened, but maybe things change. jps (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I see no place for the education of the misguided as a raison d'etre for this place. What would you say is the teleology of encyclopedias and reference works in general, if not education? - Scarpy (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Description. It's all the way down Bloom's taxonomy. jps (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(point of process - I wish you wouldn’t have split my previous comment in half. It makes it harder to follow that thread of discussion)

This sounds to me like an argument for marginalizing Wikipedia and robotizing its editors. With something like GPT-3 trained on reliable sources, we could just say “summarize X topic” and get a coherent article. I believe we’re doing something more human here, that there’s a creativity and deeper theory of mind of the reader in the truly exceptional articles. - Scarpy (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It self-evidently is the purpose of Wikipedia to combat pseudoscience. You just admitted it with your last sentence. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I like this essay. "using it on the talk page of a neurodevelopmental condition seems very ableist." Rubbish! "I believe this essay has the potential to cause great offence and harm." Offence? Yes. That's the problem of the people who are taking offence. Harm? I don't see who is being harmed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is indeed biased in favour of actual science and against lunatic charlatans; while the page being apparently objectionable to some; and so forth, are all stuff which seems to fall squarely under WP:NOTCENSORED; especially when the page helps explain core content policy such as WP:NPOV, which may be hard to grasp to newcomers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see a valid reason for deletion here, the essay is not describing people with autism or people with a mental illness as "lunatics", and the word has other uses in English. Nor is there anything wrong with the message of the essay. Hut 8.5 12:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason to delete here. I'm sympathetic to a rename, if a suitable alternative name can be found, and if anybody wants to propose that. If that gets rid of the potentially offensive redirect then so much the better. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with a fair bit of what Scarpy posted and recommend reading "Conflicted: Why Arguments Are Tearing Us Apart and How They Can Bring Us Together" by Ian Leslie.

RandomCanadian, WP:NOTCENSORED is a content guideline about articles and images, not about Wikipedia essays. It is frequently cited by those who don't read or consider beyond the words "not censored" and forget that it links to WP:GRATUITOUS. That guidance says "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". It isn't a licence to be offensive. Again, these are guidelines about articles, not essays. But Scarpy is exactly write that a "I'm right; you're stupid" attitude never won anyone over. And really, that's not the point. Citing these essays and sticking boxes on user pages is tribal signalling, and the more offensive and divisive they can be, the more effective they are at signalling which tribe you are in and which tribe they are in. In doing so, editors step away from building an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and ignore that we are supposed to work towards consensus. Of course, any of us at times may find ourselves exclaiming "Oh my! I'm surrounded by idiots!", and express those frustrations. But don't make a habit of it, never mind create and use shortcuts that explicitly claim one's opponent is a lunatic, a charlatan, a quack, or is so stupid that they gullibly believe what a lunatic charlatan quack says.

But aside from the essay's shortcuts and purpose, it is just so bloody tedious to read. Some people who the writer respects once said something the writer thought was cool and clever. Some other people who the writer doesn't respect once said something dumb. I agree once again with Scarpy, that it is ridiculous to cite Jimbo as though he is some kind of religious leader or guru who can settle the arguments about alternative medicine or quack science with some wise pronouncement. It is all a bit desperate really. I mean, Sagan was an astronomer (and died before Wikipedia was invented), Minchin is a comedian, and Jimbo was a financial trader who created a successful website. And these are your go-to authorities on medicine? This is supposed to convince anyone? -- Colin°^Talk 13:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Context matters, no? From reading the essay, nobody that has half their wits would get the idea it is talking about "lunatics" in the dated sense that causes offence. If people get offended due to not understanding context (looking at dictionary: besides the dated meaning, which is clearly not what is meant here; Cambridge has it as "someone who behaves in a silly or dangerous way"; Webster also has it simply in the "wildly foolish" meaning, and Collins includes a list of similar usages - all of these are coherent with the way the term is employed in this essay), then that's still an issue of WP:NOTCENSORED. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, please, can you drop WP:NOTCENSORED. I wise editor once said that anyone defending edits by citing WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't have the first clue. It is kind of a Godwin's Law and signals you don't have any better ideas to justify content. The policy exists for a very specific purpose to protect article space, and does not exist simply so that people can write essays insulting and mocking others. Now you are arguing that the reader would have to be witless to be offended. Do you think "I'm not sorry you are so stupid that you got offended by my essay. Go read a dictionary dumbass!" works? I don't see this being deleted because there are too many editors who think being gratuitously offensive towards people groups they detest is actually an effective communication strategy that achieves anything positive.

If you want an example, google the UK news wrt Angela Rayner calling Boris Johnson 'scum'. Rayner defended her comments by saying Johnson had made racist, homophobic and sexist comments. Nobody really denies that, but his base don't actually care. And calling the Prime Minister "scum" just offends the third of the population who voted for him and like him for some odd reason. It doesn't make them go "You know what? They are Tory Scum, and I have no idea why I was so dumb to vote for them. I'll vote for Rayner instead next time". Of course, within the Left of UK politics, it is simply a given that the Tories are scum. There's no doubt or questioning that belief and plenty evidence to reinforce their perception. But that sort of language doesn't win voters round any more than calling people lunatic charlatans ever changed anyone's perception of alternative medicine. In fact, it just hardens positions. -- Colin°^Talk 09:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• People are literally arguing that because "lunatic" may have a dated sense and this may be offensive when referring to actually mentally-ill people (although it is certainly not the meaning used here); we should not use it. This seems like some misplaced and exaggerated self-censorship. Even if that were somehow a valid concern 1) that would be an argument for moving the essay, not deleting it; 2) it wouldn't even solve the issue because the only direct use of the offending word is in quoted statements. If, as some suggest it does, this essay discourages WP:PROFRINGE disruption - in addition to providing an interesting historical aspect, then that's arguably a bonus: you really want to be arguing flat Earth or Dr. Quack's everything cure? too bad, I, like most of the community, don't, not just because of the futility ("You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themself into in the first place"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  That isn't my argument. Calling anyone a lunatic is insulting and unhelpful if your purpose is to convince someone who disagrees with you. Did you read the post at Talk:Autism? The poster was wrestling with how we are "neutral" when clearly there are a large number of people who dispute or disagree. This is a problem even organisations like the BBC have struggled with and for a long time got it wrong (they balanced the scientist and the quack as having equal validity just like they balance Labour and Tory as having equal validity). So it isn't an unreasonable question. The poster gets a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE and links to intolerant essays. Then they get told anyone who believes this are "a bunch of know-nothings" and those who encourage it are "a few grifters leeching off them". This is dripping with intellectual snobbery and hatred. Now, you and I might think folk like Andrew Wakefield have earned themselves a special place in hell but those are thoughts to keep to oneself and one's close friends (just like thoughts about "tory scum" or "loony left", depending on your politics). There are NHS nurses who refuse vaccines, and I new a chemistry PhD who admitted once believing in homeopathy. All the actual scientific evidence suggests essays like this and attitudes like this just create barriers to resolution and drive people to take more extremely polarised positions. -- Colin°^Talk 13:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  if your purpose is to convince someone who disagrees with you Well, if that were the purpose, then yes, it would be unhelpful. Any other approach to convincing pseudoscience fans is also unhelpful. Pseudoscience fans are pseudoscience fans because they have already immunized themselves against any reasoning against that pseudoscience. Facts will not work, insults will not work, being silent will not work, trying to be understanding will not work, false balance will not work, and pretending to agree with them will not work. They are lost. (Until, in a few cases, one of the above does work.) Usually, the best you can do is help others not to fall into the intellectual black hole the believer is already in.

  The actual purpose of linking that essay was to make it clear to the IP (who does not believe in a connection between MMR and autism) that the idea in question is far outside science and that Wikipedia handles those things differently than scientific ones, therefore the suggested false balance would be a bad idea. If you think that approach was not useful, then you should have added your own, more useful answer. That is what I do when I see a response I consider unhelpful. Instead, you are trying to take away the existing answer. The argumentative-monoculture approach, where everybody is forced to use the same non-working method from the list above, and where there are fewer chances for one of them to succeed. So, what would happen the next time, after all those "intolerant" essays had been deleted? Maybe the IP would not get an answer, because everybody would keep mum in public, like you? So, we would get Wakefield as a source added to the article? The false-balance method is just another of the methods above that do not work.

  It is nice of you to try not to offend people by publicly disagreeing with them (except in this case, where, for some reason, you use a method of persuasion you say does not work, using mean words such as "intellectual snobbery" - BTW, it really did not work), but a Wikipedia Talk page is for discussing improvements to the corresponding article. Not for convinving people to change their minds, and not for not offending anyone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Coincidentally last night I heard Jesse Morton and Jonas Kaplan on different podcasts, but more or less on this topic. Do you remember The Clergy Project? There were leaders of religious congregations that had privately become atheists but didn’t state it publicly because they would lose their careers, friends, family, identity, etc. The key here seems to be offering as little friction (or removing it where possible) to people being able to adopt a new identity that’s compatible with a belief you’re trying to get them to change. The insults, particularly when they’re framed as trait rather than a state (you’re a stupid person vs that was a stupid thing to do) seem particularly antithetical in this case. One is saying “because of something immutable about you, you’re in the out-group and you will always be the in out-group.” The other is saying “there’s a finite number of beliefs and behaviors we disagree on, and if X number of these changed you could totally be accepted by the in-group.” So, for somewhat different reasons than the OP, I see language as particularly relevant here because it’s either enables people to change/update identities, or throws up an additional wall to completing the process. - Scarpy (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

particularly antithetical in this case Good thing nobody called anybody else "stupid" then, isn't it? A know-nothing can learn and become a know-something, although becoming a know-it-all is more likely. But the discussion wasn't even about anybody who was present. As I said, the IP does not believe in the thing they wanted to give room to. If it had been an IP who believed in it, I would never have used this wording. And again: the purpose of Talk pages is not convincing people that they are wrong.

It is great that you heard from people I never heard of, a thing I have known for quite a while, which is very remotely connected to the subject this is about, but it is simply not relevant here. The only ones who are treated as an out-group by the essay in question are the "lunatic charlatans" themselves, for example those whose way of earning a living includes telling people not to get vaccinated. If they come editing here, they will be WP:SPA, have a WP:COI, and be WP:NOTHERE (all of those sound like traits, not states), and no one will attempt to convince them that they are wrong, only maybe that they are in the wrong place. Imagine someone from a news organization regarded by Wikipedia as an "unreliable source" comes here to edit. They will probably be deeply hurt by the pigeonhole they have been put in - again, a trait, not a state. Should we try to give all those rules a more palatable wording? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment If this really is in project space for the "historical" aspect (I don't believe for a second that it is) then we should rename it to something like "Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology petition to Jimmy Wales". If the purpose of this essay is, as I assume, to deter people from contributing to Wikipedia, I would vote to at least move it out of project space. I agree completely with @Tamzin:'s rationales here and at the related RfD. I also don't think we need a project space essay for every time Jimbo insults someone. Will there eventually be a page dunking on people who use IPA and spell people's names with diacritics called Wikipedia:Snobby pseudo-intellectual obscurantists?[4] – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I will say here what I said over at the RfD, but basically it seems to me that reworking the essay would be a noble endeavor. I have no problem with the idea of including critique of Jimbo Wales and discussion of the desire to move away from use of the word "lunatic" in polite society, but as this letter and response really are a part of the history of this project and deleting this essay isn't going to change that, I don't think that deletion is the answer here. I note that this is in project space. I think we lost the battle long ago for those who wanted to exclude uncomfortable or problematic things in project space. It's really only bullshit that is beyond the pale that gets deleted. This does not, to me, appear to rise to that level. jps (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - the rationale for deletion makes no sense. OP, please don't waste out time with this kind of nonsense. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think deletion is the answer here. But I do agree with Colin and jps that the essay leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, because the attitude behind it simply isn't conducive to the civil discourse we would expect on Wikipedia nowadays. I think some major editing is required one way or another even if this is kept.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The third nomination of Give 'em Enough Rope is somewhat relevant and ended in "keep and consider taking this to a different venue". A balance should be had between preserving WP history and being kind to each other. The real matter here is whether today's editors should use the article to target other editors, and whether that constitutes a personal attack, and that discussion is not for MfD. MarshallKe (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  In this day and age, anyone who takes "this person used WP:ASSHOLE at me" to ANI as a basis for claiming a civility/NPA violation is likely to get laughed out of the room. The act by itself is not sufficient to justify sanctions. It usually takes an established and continued pattern of behavior to make a claim of a personal attack. WaltCip-(talk) 17:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Didn't you just get done writing a comment in agreement with mine? We agree that the language isn't very polite. AN/I has nothing to do with it. I never even mentioned it. MarshallKe (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I know. I was agreeing with you and providing an addendum, since AN/I is usually the first stopping point for someone who feels that they are being attacked. Sorry for the confusion. WaltCip-(talk) 18:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I realize I'm in the minority here, but @Scarpy:'s argument is the most convincing to me. The term is too broadly dismissive and insulting to be wielded so frequently by Wikipedia editors. So what if Jimbo said it a long time ago? It's a patently unscientific attitude. As the social scientist Brian Martin said of the "skeptics" lauded on Wikipedia: "The Skeptics movement operates almost like a vigilante group, attacking groups deemed to be non-scientific far more than do most scientists." Yes, I realize my username has "Skeptic" in it, but I'm not talking about Pyrrhonian Skepticism here. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The same Brian Martin that bemoaned that nutter theories about AIDS were 'unfairly dismissed'? And who's sympathetic to relativity deniers and panspermia-nutters like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe? Yeah, can't say I value that guy's opinion much. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't really know anything about the guy, and I'm not on board with any of that stuff you mentioned, but the quote itself I believe warrants a thought, without ad hominem rejection. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Brain Martin is just plain wrong about the meanness of the skeptical movement. If anything, they are considerably nicer than scientists when it comes to consideration for those who hold on to out-there ideas. Skeptical debunkings may sting more just because sunlight is a disinfectant. Scientists can't be bothered to do much more than say horrible things behind closed doors and sometimes they are so dismissive as to be risable. jps (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and just for info, Brian Martin is particularly salty when it comes to Wikipedia as he doesn't like that he doesn't have editorial control. jps (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume what you mean by "nicer" is giving them an ear when scientists won't, which is true on some level. But I don't think this conversation is just about "out there" ideas. It's about applying "lunatic charlatans" in cases that aren't really warranted, for one, and using the term at all, when scientists would not (behind closed doors, sure, okay, but Wiki is not behind closed doors), because I don't think most scientists really care about "debunking things", nor do they care about deciding what to label as pseudoscience as much as some (non-scientist) editors here do. Nor do they care about who or what to call "lunatic" or "quackery". "Lunatic charlatans" is an uncivil, undefined term disguised as Wikipedia's voice, and wielded by those who want to be in the "in-group". In my opinion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This is project space we're talking about here, not article space. If Wikipedia has an article where it identified in Wikipedia's voice a subject as a "lunatic charlatan", that would be one thing. But that's not the thing we're talking about here. Is it uncivil? I am a strong advocate of civility being in the eye of the beholder. If you called me a lunatic charlatan, I would probably laugh it off. But, sure, let's not go around trying to rile up as many people as we can... that's a good principle. What I'm seeing here, though, is a mismatch between the task of volunteer editors putting together an encyclopedia and someone who is concerned about being nice to people. These are not mutually exclusive tasks, but they also are not symbiotic. Things get heated sometimes. This is one area where that happens. Where we do agree is that this is all about in-group versus out-group, but that is largely a good thing. In my opinion. There was a time when cultists held powerful roles at this website, when quack doctors were treated with deference, and when perpetual motion enthusiasts could write in articlespace about any fantastical idea they thought was worthy of inclusion. Those groups are now on the out. Whether and how you want to identify this (namecalling is just something that happens online, dochaknow?) is what this projectspace discussion is really about. For that reason alone, it seems weird to argue in favor of a memory hole. jps (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for elaborating and making some good points. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: I am a strong advocate of civility being in the eye of the beholder. I'm trying to follow this reasoning to its end. Let's consider a hypothetical dialogue.

Jimmy: Wikipedia doesn't allow lunatic charlatans.

Timmy: I see what you're saying, but I have a mental illness, and this language feels uncivil. I wish you would phrase what you're saying differently.

Jimmy: Civility is in the eye of the beholder, you're just perceiving it as uncivil. There's nothing inherently uncivil about it.

Timmy: Of course, that's true. All humans have a subjective experience, I'm saying that this is having a negative impact on mine. Since we're going to be collaborators, is it at all possible that we could make an effort to avoid it or use an alternative? Especially not to use such terms as part of policy and guidelines?

Scarpy: Timmy, I've been listening and that seems entirely reasonable to me.

Maybe you would laugh this off, but some people are saying that they have a strong preference that, at least, the wording should be different. I agree that it would be untenable to accommodate every request like this, but where it's the heading and redirect in policy and guidelines, I think it's reasonable to ask for a change. (Personally, I'd go further and say it's also an antithetical attitude to bring to science communication in general). - Scarpy (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not WP:PAG. This is an essay. I can identify a lot of essays I think are garbage and think should be deleted (and a few I have asked to be deleted), but they're kept in spite of my disdain. That seems to just be the way things go here. jps (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a really good point, and I’m happy to be corrected me here. Categorically, this is just an essay. But, from what I can see, almost exclusively used in a policy-like way. If you look at what Jimmy said here it’s an edict-like “thou shalt not” commandment though it happens to appear in an essay. If you look at where it’s linked on talk pages, you’ll see it used as demonstrative evidence, rather than “you should consider this important POV in this essay.” If it’s day-to-day invocation was less of the first case and more of the second case, I would have less of an issue here. Some examples: page links from the top looking at talk pages where this is cited using “lunatic” in Talk:Gua sha, Talk:Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, Talk:Eurythmy, Talk:Lamar Smith, Talk:Osteopathic manipulation. Is this not trying to have it both ways? It’s an essay so ad hominems are more permissible than in PAG, but it’s treated like a PAG? - Scarpy (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're hoping for a change in behavior here in terms of how people might use this essay that may be a reasonable goal, but that goal is not going to be achieved just because this essay gets deleted. If not this essay then another will be wielded in similar fashion because, well, this is Wikipedia and it's allowed to make your point in any way you want. You are free to point out when people use this essay that it is "only an essay" (many people do that), but because WP:OMGLINKS are used at this website to make these sorts of points, and there is no quick an easy way to figure out when the person is doing this with respect to a policy, guideline, essay, or wikiproject, for that matter, that's the situation we are stuck in. This larger question is one you can try to bring up at village pump, but I imagine the consensus is going to be something like, "it works well enough and trying to force volunteers to adhere to some standard is nigh on impossible. Just move on." In any case, "people are using this essay as though it were policy" hasn't really been a justification for deletion before -- especially when the page is clearly marked as an essay. That's just the history of this wacky place! jps (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And who also fights against proper journalistic peer review (with an "academic freedom" excuse)... —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: There exists some redundancy between this and various other essays and even policies like WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. It however agrees with the spirit and its shortcuts could be altered if "lunatic" is the issue. —PaleoNeonate – 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful essay that describes actual factual people doing actual factual things on Wikipedia to this very day. The fact that it was described so succinctly so long ago is part of why this needs to be kept. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Is it just me or in the last year has there been a massive uptick in activism to purge every term that someone somewhere might find offensive? People on social media are always looking for a cause to rally behind, and this mentality is bleeding over. Enough. Look this word up in any dictionary, and they specifically only label it as dated or offensive when used to refer to actual mental illness. When used to refer to foolishness, it is not offensive. Any claim otherwise is itself WP:FRINGE. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I see three remedies being proposed here for the alleged wrongful hurt to the bipolar or other mentally ill persons, and I disagree with at least two of them at this time:
  • 1. The essay is said to be hurtful to certain persons, and so should be reworded. If so, discuss at WT:Lunatic charlatans.
  • 2. The essay is said to be hurtful to certain persons, and so should be renamed. First, this is a deletion discussion. Second, the title is historically accurate.
  • 3. The essay is said to contain provisions that are hurtful to certain persons, and since it is not being changed or renamed, it should be deleted. This is silly, and is not a reason to delete.
  • Also, the people that the essay is about are not mentally ill (or at least cannot be assumed to be mentally ill), but the insult is appropriate for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This page is a beacon for leaders in alternative medicine to publicly approach Wikipedia's medical editor community and call them out for a public conversation, either by posting to WP:WikiProject Medicine or just to the main forums at WP:PUMP. There have been years of continuous claims that somewhere in the world, there are health practitioners, respected medical organizations, schools of alternative medicine, or any kind of sane leadership that can defend alternative medicine either with evidence or debate. As time has passed, neither any organization nor person has come to Wikipedia with any serious counter to Wikipedia's positions criticizing alternative medicine as pseudoscience. This page is an amazing opportunity for alternative health advocates to get global media attention by proving Wikipedia wrong or showing the foolishness of Wikipedia's policies. For years the misinformation has spread that there is a shadowy conspiracy in Wikipedia suppressing information about alt med, but the reality is that pages like this one are a public discussion forum for anyone to permanently and publicly present their evidence. In all this time, no one has come forward to challenge our description of alt med as lunacy.

Years ago I really thought that somewhere in the world, the alternative medicine community had some research, some publications, some evidence, or something somewhere which we could cite in Wikipedia as the evidence of what exists. After so much time has passed and so many people have either posted complaints or personally emailed me saying that they had a book or a paper or something to share, but then they never delivered. I think Wikipedia made a valuable discovery. At this point everyone who is a major teacher of alt med knows about Wikipedia, and uniformly, no thought leader in this space has even attempted mutual understanding with Wikipedia or a public conversation. We have extended a lot of invitations, and in return, I have not seen the citations. This page draws a line between evidence based medicine and alt med without evidence, and so far as I can tell, we are the first organization to clearly call out to the world that we are certain we looked everywhere and found no reason to doubt that the evidence we have compiled in Wikipedia is the best description anyone has compiled for alt med. If anyone comes up with better text, then of course, they can post it and get Wikipedia's editorial review and show that to the world. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sometimes bad at parsing out key details, though. Take hypnotherapy. It's called alternative medicine on Wikipedia, yet if you read the article it says, "A 2019 meta-analysis of hypnosis as a treatment for anxiety found that "the average participant receiving hypnosis reduced anxiety more than about 79% of control participants," and then if I go out and do my own research to see what medical establishments say and read this from Merck: "Hypnotherapy has been used with some success to help people stop smoking. It can reduce pain and anxiety during medical procedures in adults and children." So as a reader, I might be confused that something that Wikipedia defines as total quackery, pseudoscientific lunacy, has in fact produced scientific evidence. Now, some editors will cry foul of that research, and other research, or say that it's WP:UNDUE. But that's one example where there is not always a one-size-fits-all approach. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good thing our article on hypnotherapy doesn't describe it as complete bollocks without any scientific merit, but rather partly bollocks, with many potential cases where it could be legit. And that it's a particularly hard subject to research due to poorly understood/complex mechanisms which makes hard it to test its claim. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

But surely you can see the flaw in the logic equation, right?

1. Wikipedia says that all alternative medicine has no scientific merit

2. Wikipedia says that hypnotherapy is alternative medicine

3. Ergo, hypnotherapy has no scientific merit

But that conclusion does not match up with the facts that you and I just agreed upon, does it? This is what I'm saying about inconsistencies that confuse readers. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia says that all alternative medicine has no scientific merit" No, Wikipedia says, broadly speaking, that 'alternative medicine' is either a) not proven to work (either at all, or as efficiently as non-alternative medicine), or b) proven not to work (either at all, or as efficiently as non-alternative medicine). The part that's proven to work as effectively or better than non-alternative medicine then becomes non-alternative medicine itself. For instance, this summer, I was prescribed/recommended by a real medical doctor, with real qualifications, to do nasal rinse with saline for a nasty throat/ear/sinus infection that just wouldn't go away, in combination with antiviral and antibiotic treatments. You can go "but wait, holistic/organic/Ayurvedic medicine proponents love saline, that's alternative medicine." And the answer to that is no, it's not alternative medicine / Ayurvedic medicine, it's plain jane medicine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia says "Anything classified as alternative medicine by definition does not have a healing or medical effect." So if something like hypnotherapy is used in the medical field and is shown by evidence to have medical benefits, something has to give. Either it should be reclassified away from alternative medicine, defined as complementary or integrative medicine, or sentences like the one I just shared should be reworded. Pfizer is unlikely to extract a "hypnotic compound" anytime soon, so it's not as straightforward as herbs vs drugs. I hope you're feeling better, by the way. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia says "Anything classified as alternative medicine by definition does not have a healing or medical effect." I'm going to put a big fat on that. And I'm fine now, the infection went away, because antivirals/antibiotics/nasal rinses work, unlike homeopathy and Ayurvedic nonsense like magic pills laced with heavy metals. You know, the kind of stuff promoted by lunatic charlatans. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that's warranted. Glad you're feeling better and staying away from those lead and mercury pills. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem the proven to work / not proven to work / proven to not work sets is that it is way too simplistic. It isn't like medicine is entirely in the first pot, and alt medicine is entirely in the second and third pots. Truly evidence-based medicine is a tiny subset of medicine. And then there's the whole effects/side-effects problem. Thalidomide was evidence-based and an effective sedative, etc. They gave mice huge doses and they came to no harm. Patients could overdose on it and be ok, unlike barbiturates (another evidence-based medicine) that would likely kill you. But if you were pregnant... Plenty cases of surgeons performing ops that everyone knows are ineffective and were never shown to be effective, or implanting meshes that caused terrible harm, or painkiller addiction epidemics, or sedating problem psychiatric patients, etc, etc. This is the problem with essays like this. They are so ridiculously arrogant. -- Colin°^Talk 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me as ironic and somewhat hypocritical to use a polemic like "ridiculously arrogant" to attack an essay that you say you don't like because it is a polemic. jps (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

To call this essay a "polemic" is insulting to polemics. Lame and counterproductive would be more appropriate adjectives. All of us here agree on the facts about effective medicines and ineffective nonsense. The problem is the approach. As I said, these essays and user boxes don't serve any purpose other than tribal signalling. Anyone citing this cause they think they'll change minds about why Wikipedia adopts certain policies is quite deluded. During the Brexit debate, the Remainers focused their attention on why leaving was stupid and how anyone who suggested it was a good idea was the biggest lunatic charlatan, peddling lies about immigration and red tape and extra money for the NHS. They lost. And what is ironic, is that there is scientific evidence that this sort of approach doesn't work. -- Colin°^Talk 21:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"doesn't work"? If the target audience was quacks, of course not, but this is singing to the choir, IOW venting, so that's a bit of a straw man assertion. -- Valjean (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, see my comment above about tribal signalling. But unfortunately pro-science editors don't cite this at other pro-science editors in some cozy smug "are't we just the cleverest folk" conversation. They cite it (like at talk Autism) at anyone asking about our balance wrt alt-medicine. Have a look at the "what links here". So I do think they believe this might convince someone of the error of their ways. -- Colin°^Talk 07:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this can be misused, but misuse is not a good argument for deletion. Pro-science activists and quackbusters aren't always the most tactful people, and since they are in the trenches constantly surrounded by idiots, charlatans, liars, and those who threaten their lives and threaten their children, patience can wear thin and they don't react to that pressure with patient and wise responses. That's life. Execute the bunch of them and let the quacks rule, fleece victims, and cause needless deaths! (Don't worry. I don't think you take that position.)

Deletion of the offensive redirect is another matter, and I tend to support that idea. Otherwise, that something is offensive is rarely a good enough justification for deletion. We are uncensored, and that means we have content here which will inevitably offend someone or some group. (BTW, one of my children has autism.) -- Valjean (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: I suppose this is the opposite of canvassing, since I mildly disagree with you about the redirect, but based on your comment in bold, I'm just making sure you're aware of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_28#Wikipedia:LUNATICS. I didn't see your signature there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, I hope it is clear I'm on the same side as the "pro-science" folk. While your characterisation of their battle is certainly true for some (I vividly remember Simon Singh's libel case), the sad truth is that many are just folk in their bedrooms arguing on the internet to make themselves feel superior. You know the kind, who think it is really clever to insult those who believe in "sky fairies" and who use the word "sheeple" without irony. Wrt deletion, yes I know wikipedia won't delete this because it has a high tolerance for allowing people to make a fool of themselves online. My vote is more of a "If it were up to me..." kind of opinion. -- Colin°^Talk 09:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Colin, I know exactly what you're talking about. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion for those who oppose this essay or think radical changes should be made, how about starting a different essay, something like Wikipedia:Annotated critique of the "Lunatic charlatans" essay"? Go for it. There is nothing that forbids copying and then systematically annotating the essay. -- Valjean (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

They can if they like but that would be a chunk of work and I don't really see the point. I think the more productive thing to do here is to just close this MfD and move on to discussing a better name for the essay. Personally, I think "Quacks and charlatans" would address whatever legitimate concerns there may be here while retaining the overall tone and impact of the title. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The name is fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy keep As someone on the spectrum the use seemed absolutely appropriate. I've watch a long time as charlatans have used those like myself to spread what is quite correctly labelled lunacy. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Question Is it the content of the essay that your find offensive, or just the short cut used? I would keep the essay because, however vigorously expressed, the idea is important. I'd be completely behind depreciating the shortcut though. Red Fiona (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Red Fiona, the shortcut is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 28. -- Colin°^Talk 07:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Answer I'm offended by the alignment of the title with the content. A lunatic charlatan, in my experience, is someone who simply becomes inexplicably less trustworthy for around three days of each month; nothing inherently medical or technological. If this report had another author, I'd say "Delete", but I feel partially responsible for this OP's mysterious disappearance and the human part of me doesn't want to pile on any extra disagreement. He was/is a pretty smart and talented guy, just a bit "mad". Keep, does no harm. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the essay which reflects the mainstream view of pseudoscientific and pseudomedical information on Wikipedia. It doesn't need to be at this title, though, and the editors whose objections are solely based on the title might consider suggesting a better one. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see any valid arguments for deletion. Any concerns over the article's title or shortcut should take place in another forum.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Bad MfD request The problem the OP seems to have is with the (potential misuse of) a shortcut and not the specific content of the essay, which in no uncertain terms suggests we are against pseudoscience (and I think we can't stress it enough). Since Bangalamania cannot point to specific problems of the essay (as opposed to the shortcut), the request should be dismissed as malformed. I will comment on the shortcut in a separate discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The main argument for delete seems to be that this essay antagonizes pseudoscience believers and a more gentle approach should be taken. But Wikipedia is not a propaganda outlet. It's not here to win over pseudoscience believers. It does take a stance on its handling of pseudoscience, but that does not mean Wikipedia should try to 'convert' believers, not aggressively, nor gently. Besides, consider this: merely calling a theory pseudoscience is frequently perceived as insulting by believers. As for the arguments against the term 'lunatic', which as a rather mild term, comparatively speaking. Of course, it should not be used in articles in Wikipedia's voice, but this is an essay, and I think it's completely legitimate here. Av = λv (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I hadn't read this essay in years. From some of the comments above, I expected to find it had devolved into a mean spirited rant accusing advocates for fringe ideas of being mentally ill. Instead, I was glad to see it was still framed within the historical context of Jimmy Wales 2013 response to the ACEP's petition as an unapologetic endorsement of the encyclopedia's NPOV policy on pseudoscience. A majority of editors agree that Wales' comments faithfully interpret Wikipedia's editorial policies on pseudoscience. If his use of the term "lunatic" is felt to be insensitive or problematic, there could be disclaimer added to acknowledge the societal shift away from using this term since Wales' writings of 8 years ago, and/or clarify that Wikipedia doesn't intend or endorse stigmatizing the mentally ill. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's keep political correctness to the minimum, this essay is not offensive. If anyone uses the term 'lunatic' as a PA, that's a user conduct issue that has nothing to do with this essay (I've likewise seen a link WP:TROLL and such used as PAs, nobody thinks that page should go, right?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I'm often sympathetic to claims that we should adjust some phrasing or other in order to avoid stigmatizing a marginalized group or propagating an old injustice. But even accepting that "lunatic" is a term we shouldn't use any more, that doesn't give us a reason to delete this essay entirely. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.