Talk:Hundredth monkey effect

message: This article and it's accompanying skepticism is just horrific. How can anybody call this trash balanced or neutral? This article is biased and it's more than clear some guy or organization here has a agenda to uphold.  --Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.153.86 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch. Both sides of the argument have to be present, but the writing has to be characterised by neutrality. Dogmatic sceptics, could you stay out of the way?  --Roamer 11:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right - both sides! Just like there should be both sides on whether or not gravity is generated by mass or tiny gravity faeries, or both sides should be represented on the question of the benefits of knives being stabbed into the eyes or not Jachra (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, it's well-known that Jimmy Wales is himself a dogmatic skeptic, and any article on Wikipedia that touches, however remotely, on paranormal phenomena reflects that bias. That leaves those of us seeking an objective presentation of the evidence--one with neither a New Age nor a dogmatic skeptical slant--with just about nowhere to turn. Wikipedia, for all the value it brings, is plagued by group think among the volunteer editing brigade, and nowhere is this clearer than with articles like this one.  -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.225.228 (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, this article is tainted by POV, as is much of Wikiipedia-- anything that's more sophisticated than 2 + 2 = 4 gets labeled as pseudoscience and then you get a crappy article like this. Jack B108 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:NOTFORUM.  But also, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI...  Jimbo does not determine what is in articles, reliable sources, community-built policies and community concensus do.  Wikipedia is indeed not the proper place to push fringe ideas...  I comment because this answer is also valid for other perennial rants on this talk page.  --PaleoNeonate - 23:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  blah, blah, blah. This is a biased, crappy article on a famous phenomenon. Wikipedia should stop trying to tell people how to think if it's going to be the premier, worldwide encyclopedia. I mean you would think that Michael Shermer owns Wikipedia from all the times he cited, like he's Jesus or something. He's not. He's not even Isaac Newton. Jack B108 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Jack B108 has a history of trolling article talk-pages related to pseudoscience or quackery, he has no recent mainspace edits. Basically he will go to a talk-page and moan about an article, then backchat Wikipedia and accuse other editors of bias. It is the same pattern over and over. Off-site he's been making YouTube videos critical of Wikipedia or skeptical coverage of pseudoscientific claims which he has been advertising . I find his behavior on site problematic. I am in the process of typing up an ANI report. I believe this user should be topic-banned on anything related to pseudoscience. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF??