Talk:Denis Rancourt

Fringe theories template for climate change views
I think the template has been addressed and can be removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm... I guess I was wrong. There are no reliable sources here, only crackpots.
 * But here is a good source for other crazy anti-science views of this guy: - apparently he believes there are no viruses. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@User:Eric - The sources currently cited are WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. They do not belong on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't have a dog in the race. The material you deleted did not come across to me as promoting an opinion. Your edit summary for deleting the material, delete reception by two other crackpots, improving the quality of the section from -3 to -1, did not sound like it came from a neutral viewpoint. Merely invoking the uninformative and seemingly gratuitous term "fringe", with no other explanation, does not help support your case. Some readers may not consider the sources cited, namely The Nation and the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to be "fringe" sources. Eric talk 13:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It does not matter how it sounds to you. Climate change denial is ideologically motivated pseudoscience, it is outside of Rancourt's expertise, the two guys who agree with him are scientifically illiterate, and their opinions are uninformed bullshit. They are not reliable sources for anything scientific, no matter where they publish it. That is how it is, it's not my fault.
 * Generally, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to scan the output of the articles' subjects for whatever the editors find interesting. Instead, if reliable WP:SECONDARY sources take note of what they say, then it can be added. Otherwise, Wikipedia turns into a megaphone for all sorts of garbage. The whole section should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You state that my read does not matter, then attempt to substantiate that gratuitous dismissal with a series of strong opinions presented as factual assertions. Am I to take this as a reasonable justification for deleting the material you did not like? Eric talk 21:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about "not liking" them. It's about the low quality of those sources. They all push an anti-science ideology.
 * You really need to familiarize yourself with what the scientific consensus is. Read scientific consensus on climate change and climate change denial. Then read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE and re-think your attitude. You are in the same boat as flat-earthers who demand equal time with round-earthers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have alerted WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This apparently goes back to an edit by Hob Gadling on 4 April 2022 with edit summary = "‎Climate change views: cut anti-science crap quotes", which removed a lot and stated that Alexander Cockburn and James Inhofe are "climate change deniers". An IP 46.210.46.48 on 11 March 2024 changed deniers to skeptics. Hob Gadling on 19 March 2024 removed entirely the mentions of Mr Cockburn and Mr Inhofe with edit summary "Climate change views: delete reception by two other crackpots, improving the quality of the section from -3 to -1". Eric on 19 March 2024 reverted Hob Gadling's edit, with edit summary "Reverting edit(s) by Hob Gadling (talk) to rev. 1213231519 by 46.210.46.48: rv unexplained and apparently ideologically motivated deletion (RW 16.1)". IP 208.87.236.202 on 19 March 2024 effectively undid Eric's change, with edit summary "rv per WP:FRINGE". Eric on 19 March 2024 reverted the IP's change, with edit summary = "undo unexplained revert from repeat contentious IP". IP 208.87.236.202 on 20 March 2024 changed skeptics to denialists, and went to Eric's talk page to say that Eric was in an edit war. Eric on 20 March 2024 changed denialists to skeptics, with edit summary "‎Climate change views: restore terminology that was more neutral and less politically charged". ... Since Hob Gadling was the editor who inserted "denier", and the IPs cancel each other out, this looks to me like a no-consensus in a BLP so far. But I now add support for Eric's editing since opinions are allowed in the article by prominent people, and Hob Gadling's language e.g. "anti-science crap" and "crackpots" strikes me as inappropriate even for edit summaries or talk page threads -- WP:BLP applies even outside articles. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No surprise here. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And on the other forum Hob Gadling says "Problematic WP:FALSEBALANCE user does not want to listen to me." Later 208.87.236.202 says "And PG has shown up to spew his usual crap towards climate science." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Anti Vaxxer/Covid Denier to the list
Rancourt runs a site that does open anti vax and covid denialism. He thinks the covid vaccine killed 17 million people. he also doesnt believe in covid actually causing any illness 2A03:80:43C:7400:BCA6:A888:18DE:21C3 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)