RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive250

SpaceX Falcon 9 Landing
If you were watching the livestream ~20 minutes ago, you know that SpaceX, for the first time in history, landed the first stage of a rocket! DISCUSS! :)

KOM 02:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fourth time's the charm. 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I want one. Where can I get a Falcon IX for Christmas?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 12:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been done before, but good for SpaceX. SpaceX has the distinction being the first to land the first stage of a rocket that was used in an orbital launch. TheCheatI run on alcohol 14:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is impressive, but privatization of space travel seems far fetched to me. There really isn't a strong profit motive, and the potential cutting of corners could lead to disaster. It makes some amount of sense to outsource components to smaller companies, but it seems like something you really need a government to tackle (but all things considered the USSR was actually probably better in their space program, and remember they were at an incredible disadvantage right out of the gate, we got almost all of the leading Nazi rocket scientists). I would be deeply surprised if we ever see a private company put someone on the moon. Samstr (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Few points:
 * The privatization of space travel is inevitable, as soon as it it profitable, which it already is. What SpaceX has done (and to a lesser extent, Blue Origin before) is ground breaking and will cut the cost of space travel by 100 fold.  The cost of fuel in the Falcon 9 is aprox. $200,000.  The rocket itself costs about $16 million, i think.  If you can reuse the rocket (as opposed to the current model of a new rocket for each mission), you've slashed prices dramatically.  Asteroid and Lunar mining WILL be a thing in the future (and potentially hugely profitable), and this is the first big step to that.  There is currently a strong profit motive for the launching of private satellites.
 * While the Soviets did do a lot of things first, in most other ways, their space program lagged significantly behind the US. Their equivalent of the Saturn 5 never put a single kilogram into orbit (they all exploded or failed to launch), while the Saturn 5 put hundreds-of-thousands of kilos into orbit without a single loss of crew or payload, and carried humans to another world.  Their space shuttle program (the Buran), was also a failure, and never flew with a crew.  Their space program can hardly compare to the overall achievements of the US.  Yes, we do currently rely on them to send people into orbit, but that is only because the cancellation of the Shuttle program.  That will be fixed over the next 10 years with the Orion program. Petey Plane (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that asteroid mining will ever be a profitable venture. Asteroids mostly contain Iron and Nickle, as well as small amounts of Nickel. Iron is incredibly cheap, and Nickel is only of moderate price. Given the cost it would take just to send a one time mission to an asteroid, let alone the cost of a sustained operation, mining of resources here on Earth is almost guaranteed to be cheaper for the foreseeable future. When you take mining out of the picture, the only thing that makes space travel profitable is government contracts (be they military or scientific missions). Yes space travel is currently profitable, but only because the government is paying for the satellites and in this case rockets. Will recoverable boosters make space flight cheaper? Undoubtedly yes, but this isn't even a new technology per say, the Space Shuttle did something similar.
 * As for your other point, it still is true that almost every major milestone, especially those earlier in the space race were made by the USSR. The N-1 is an incredibly small fraction of the Russian space program, and seems to amount to cherry picking. The Russians were the first to go to space, put living organisms in space, send men into space and successful recover them, the first to orbit the moon, and the first to send probes to Mars. What part of their program can hardly compare to ours? Samstr (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All of them? Remind me again who marched on Berlin. CorruptUser (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it funny to even try and compare blue origin to the falcon 9 launch. If you look at the characteristics of the blue origins flight, that was already achieved by the SpaceX Grasshopper in launch tests. Going straight up and coming back down is massively different then sending a second stage to orbit, then turning around and landing at the same space port. Think about that, not going for an orbit and coming back down, launching, sending off second stage, then essentially stopping all orbital momentum, and returning to the launch site. The falcon 9 went twice as high, twice as fast (horizontally too, not straight up), and actually delivered cargo to orbit, something the blue origins craft will never do because it is in no way capable of, nor in any way designed to send a second stage to orbit. It is laughable to compare the two in any way.NolanSyKinsley (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dashes
There are three dashes, the hyphen (that's what you type on your keyboard), the en dash (which is slightly longer), and the em dash (which is longer still). There are many things to be said about this (when to use em dash vs. en dash, whether to surround the dash with spaces, etc.), but:


 * Using -- as a substitute for — is always wrong and, in my opinion, looks rather amateurish. I think it's well worth spending a few minutes to learn how to use your computer better; See wp:Wikipedia:How to make dashes for instructions. Pro tip: on Windows it sucks, but I've found that AllChars works really well (it reportedly works on Windows 8 & 10, even though it hasn't been updated in a while).

Slightly more opinionated points, while I'm talking about dashes anyway: Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Using - as a substitute for — is better, but still doesn't look very good if you ask me. If you absolutely cannot bear yourself to enter it with your keyboard, consider typing &amp;mdash;. If you don't like the length of an em dash, use an en dash – like this.
 * The en dash is almost always surrounded by spaces – whereas the spacing surrounding an em dash is a matter of style—but no spaces are most common I believe.


 * -_- Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I habitually use -- instead of an em dash in edit comments or block reasons. Be damned if I'm going to reach further than the keys right under my fingers in that context. I apologize for nothing!!!1!! Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I confess, I sometimes use the double-dash and triple-dash substitutes, as I sometimes reflexively think I'm doing LaTeX markup, which automatically converts them to the en and em dashes. Sometimes I don't catch them in wiki pages. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who uses dashes often - like now - I'm going to take this to heart, Carpet. Thanks for helping me improve! :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Cosmikdebris: Yeah, it would be great if MediaWiki would do that for us. There is probably a plugin for it, and if not, it's easy to write one. However, given that all my previous requests to solve much more serious problems on the RW software have been largely ignored, I suspect that asking for such a change is a futile effort for now... :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I use the characters that appear on my keyboard. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction using -- as a substitute for — is totally rad and makes you awesome. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Short horizontal line
I propose we adopt a policy from Wikipedia on this: Wikipedia:Short horizontal line. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

My Christmas Gift for You
In case you've missed it, here's an idea for a Christmas present for you or from you - julgeten (English)

Final call: Ray Comfort
I really like where the article is. It's gotten a week of improvement. Any objections to cover-story-ing it? 03:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I move for cover story, Mr. Whiskers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added one more fact tagging earlier, if that's fixed I think we're good to go! Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified food
Genetically modified food was moved to cover story earlier this week. I think it should be renamed as "Genetically modified organism" because there are overlapping issues with non-food GMOs that are worth covering, specifically with regard to artificial "gene drives" that can self-propagate throughout the entire breeding population. Bongolian (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the logs, it got renamed from GMO to GMF in 2013 with the reason ""Genetically modified organism" also encompasses GM bacteria used to produce a variety or biological substances, which this article does not encompass". Do we cover these topics now? Wikipedia also has separate pages on and . Not that we necessarily need to copy what WP does of course, but it may be interesting to see what the differences are between those two pages.
 * From a more practical point of view; I can't recall ever encountering the term "Genetically modified food" as such outside of our RW page. In my limited exposure to the topic, I've always seen it referred to as "genetically modified organisms" Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I renamed it. GMO is fine. 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Typing GMO in the search still shows the page as titled "Genetically modified food". Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Very disappointing
How to tell the place has been over-run by drama and newbies: nobody thought to put the Christmas hat on the brain. Tradition is dead, I suppose. 24.85.200.99 (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because we're currently engaged in a secular/liberal ploy and are waging war on Christmas. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It all goes back to the rat wiki policy not to criticise Hamas -- Jean
 * Cultural Marxism, it should have been a blue hat - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This place is so fucking boring
What happened? Rw was always full of losers and aspies but at least I knew who they were! Now the aspies have completely taken over and the fifteen year olds with tumblr and whatnot have taken over. Time for a purge. (Vote cicero 2015)Marcus Cicero SPQR 15:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Morris Creationist Calculations
"Assume an initial population of two people, the first parents. Assume they produce a total of 2c offspring, c boys and c girls, who then unite to form c families. Each of these families also has 2c children, meaning there will be 2c^2 children in the second generation. These form c^2 families, and then 2c^3 children in the third generation, and so on. In the nth generation, there will be 2c^n individuals. If we assume, for simplicity, that only one generation is alive at any one time, then the world population at the nth generation will also be 2c^n people." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 167) "In other words," said Morris, "an average population growth of 1/2 percent per year would give the present population in just 4000 years. This is only one-fourth the present rate." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, pp 167-168) 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's totally all reasonable, mathwise. Exponential population growth is a real phenomenon, and it being observed by a creationist doesn't make it wrong.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And neither does it make the earth 6000 years old ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. The fact that cookies take 10 minutes to bake and hey look there's fresh cookies doesn't make the world 10 minutes old.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He's says by now there would be too many people on the Earth for it to be as old as most scientists claim. Should've expanded on that. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This was actually addressed in the Fall 1984 issue of the Creation/Evolution Journal (yes, I know, stick with me here), in a paper called "Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid". The whole article provides a great deconstruction of Morris's paper and final conclusions (including the fact that Morris's calculations imply that there was a global population of only 750 when the Pyramids of Giza were built, and maybe a dozen very fast and strong construction workers scrambling around, building temples and towns in Akkad, Ur, Troy, Crete, Los Millares, Skara Brae, Lothal, Dengfeng, Zhejiang, Phong Châu, Norte Chico, Bighorn, and -- of course -- Stonehenge during the 3rd millennium BCE). TL;DR the "evolutionist" calculations that Morris posited assume that the growth rate of humans was constant throughout history when in older eras, the growth rate was closer to nil or even negative (such as during the plague). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But, what about the freakin' gene pool? All these brothers, sisters, first cousins having babies? Can that really work?---Mona- (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. If there aren't any dysfunctional alleles lurking around the gene pool, there won't even be any genetic disorders. The problem is that there are too many alleles in modern humans to be accounted for by the tiny founding population proposed. That is, unless there was divine intervention that made it look like the founding population was larger. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Cover nom for How come there are still monkeys?
How come there are still monkeys? should be a cover story by now - it's comprehensive, accessible, already the go-to page and worth showing off to the world. Anything missing, please note it at Talk:How_come_there_are_still_monkeys%3F. If all is well we can have this golden-brained in a week - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Lemmy!
Not immortal! *gasp*! *shock*! *horror*! At any rate, enjoy some of his missional work!

Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * :-/ — Aneris Ѽ 03:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gonna go down a shot, then break out the five-string for a while. Farewell, you glorious bastard!207.191.199.193 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sad news indeed. Salute.  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So ends the saga of one of my favorite badass motherfuckers. *Raises a glass of scotch* Cheers to you, Lemmy! Gooniepunk (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The miracle is, he lasted this long. Farewell you mad old bastard.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Was going to get, if not hammered, then at least merrily sloshed, today anyway, but this sad news requires an extra glass of whisky or two in memory of the late Kilmister. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * R.I.P. you magnificent fucker. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a glass of Jack raised for you, buddy. The Arctic Vixen [Get foxy with me ♥] 13:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I grew up watching almost no TV except tapes of The Young Ones and French & Saunders my parents had, Ace Of Spades was one of the first songs I ever learned all the lyrics to back when I was a lil' kid. Sad he's gone, always seemed like he'd basically just continue to exist in defiance of any attempts to tell him otherwise. And just because I'm a video game person, here he is playing a magical bass healer called The Kill Master in Brutal Legend, because why not. X Stickman (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing that really really bothered me in Brutal Legend is that the music stops playing when a conversation starts (and in some other scenarios), and when the conversation stops you get a different song from the start. In a game that's about music, it's a serious fuck-up and really annoyed me throughout the game. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Rating for Modern Science in the Bible
I've posted this on the article's talk page but I doubt anyone has read it, so I though't I'd post it here as well.

Does anyone think this is worth of silver? I've been having a look at the silver criteria:
 * Article topic is directly relevant to and worthy of RW's mission (i.e., potential upgrading to cover story would be uncontroversial).
 * Creationism, biblical scientific foreknowledge and pseudoscience in general are subjects relevant to the mission.


 * Article should not contain repetitive content.
 * Apart from the "Overview" section (which is, essentially, a shorter version of "Dissecting the book"), I don't see much overlap.


 * Article is almost fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
 * Look at them references. I installed multiple new templates for this. Links and categories are also taken care of.


 * Article is illustrated appropriately.
 * Side-by-side articles are hard to illustrate, but I've included the book's cover (at the top) and that of Scientific Creationism (because we had a picture of it anyway).


 * Article is free of blatant spelling and grammar errors.
 * There's undoubtedly a few errors here and there, but I don't think there are any blatant errors in the article.

--JorisEnter (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've done a kick-ass job with the MSitB article. For that, you deserve all our thanks. I think this article is Silver, if not Gold. It's close to frontpage material if you ask me. Always more to do, but... I think it's easily front page worthy and/or of Gold quality overall. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm still busy debunking his claims about evolution so I don't consider it cover story level yet, but I'll add the silver template for now. --JorisEnter (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Very good work JorisEnter!--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And just as a note on the article itself - it appears you place quotes in italics. I'd be great if you could remove the italics on all the quotes and leave them for titles, as is done otherwise on the wiki. One step closer to Gold :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the superfluous italics. There's obviously a lot more to do, but it's a start. --JorisEnter (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing the RationalWiki a happy new year
Happy New Years to all users--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * HAPPY NEW YEAR EVWYBAWDY! Dear God Zeus  Flying Spaghetti Monster Einstein it's 2016 already.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw an insult coming, anyways it is still New Years Eve where I live. So it is a crime to wish a happy new year? If so, FU. I am tired of being civil.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Happy new year to you, Rationalzombie94. I'm glad you're still with us. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Still no flying cars... no Mr. Fusion... no hoverboards, instead we get a thing that sets you on fire. jrussellwrites (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We've had flying cars for decades now, almost a century. Here's a modern one.  It turns out they suck. CorruptUser (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't take all this civility and pleasantness. It's....wrong at this wiki. So: You all make me want to vomit. And oh, Happy New Year!---Mona- (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a severe toothache so I wish nothing but pain & misery on the world at large. 01:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That, too, will pass. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought we sacrificed 2015 to the faceless god of time at least a week ago? -  Kitsunelaine  「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kitsunelaine, the best is still to come. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, time to celebrate by rolling around in a pile of oatmeal-raisin cookies, as the Goat demands. 07:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Eww, oatmeal-raisin cookies... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Mierda, shit, mierda, shit, mierda, shit...  Look! 13:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Petition: E Pluribus Unum
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/change-official-united-states-motto-e-pluribus-unum 18:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Signed it.--Palaeonictis (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Why can't disaster films follow the laws of physics
Seriously, if you think the Day After Tomorrow is bad then take a look at 2012:Doomsday, 2012:Supernova, Arctic Blast and Christmas Icetastophre. Yes you should take a look at some of these low budget disaster films that make the Day After Tomorrow look like a science documentary.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like time well spent. 19:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they'd be a lot less fun if they did. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Among other things, going by the laws of physics would disqualify a film from the disaster film category. Hertzy (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine scientists react to such films the way I do to so many courtroom dramas, to wit: That. Would. Never. Happen.---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that new Star Wars movie. Wasn't very realistic.   20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw Dumbo. Terrible, full of bad science. There's no way mice can talk. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 21:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention their terrible explanation of aerodynamics. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I can just hear the sarcasm, I am talking disaster movies.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't convinced by the latest James Bond film either. And don't get me started on Lord of the Rings.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You're a fan of zombies, and you decide to have a problem with disaster movies? FFS. -- 03:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Day After gave me nightmares after I saw it on TV, and I was 21 when it was originally aired during the peak of the Reagan era. The weird depictions of the orange sky caused by the detonation of the nukes was very striking. If there ever was a low budget disaster film that touched a great number of people, that was it. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That was probably the first time a prime time "made for TV" movie came with a week of advance warnings about possibly not letting the children watch it. It was very well done, quite scary, and very timely.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 03:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want a disaster movie that's a bit closer to reality, you could try Gravity, about a -type disaster stranding two astronauts outside of a space station. Although I've heard it exaggerates the situation somewhat, it's nowhere near the level of exaggeration that the movies you mentioned feature.  Frederick ♠♣♥♦ 23:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Election!
Voting is open! 20:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

RW Stats 15 December


Alexa.com says about 26,000th most popular, down from about 25,000th last month. Quantcast.com says 166,421 unique US visitors, 173% up from 61,068 last month. Compete.com says 468,340 unique visitors, 48.29% down from 905,763 last month, and 5,485th most popular, 2,646 up from last month. 21:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you compile these stats? Do you have a script for this? IMO it would probably be useful to distinguish between mainspace edits and $everything_else. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh. I did the simplest way possible. Manually went to User edit counts and copied it to Excel. If you want more detailed stats, ask . 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How long has Larron been away?  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 03:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

RW and poetry
https://ladysighs.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/rationalwiki/ 18:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've turned a new leaf
I promise I won't post anything silly and that I am mostly serious now can I please get whatever time span between edits removed. I have a lot to contribute in terms of categorizing, suggestions, and discussions.--Jakester499 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.  22:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jokes aside; I welcome this and I'll do my best to be available if you need help or guidance. Don't be afraid to ask! Just... just don't go "emperoring" again. Please. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Category-spamming a load of articles with tenuous categories doesn't seem like a great way to start. It might be better to discuss your changes first as a lot of them are getting reverted. 01:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Are wikis as a concept declining? Does this article have relevance for us? Do people even read posts with rhetoric questions in them?
I found this paper that argues that Wikipedia is losing ground and partially blames it on policies and the way newbies are treated over there. Now I am wondering: Is there a general trend of decline for wikis? And if so what can or do we as RW do against that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is actually well worth reading. And I'd note, the extensive discussion of reverts driving away well-intentioned newcomers who would be quality editors certainly applies to me. It is only because of my personality -- and confidence in my knowledge of the topic -- that the absurd, constant reverts to my Israel/Palestine-related articles did not push me out of here very quickly after my arrival last August. You, Avenger, were permitted to do a lot of that. I didn't take the hostility directed against me personally, finding it merely ignorant and tiresome; but most would not put up with that. Since that time, I've gone on to make many well-sourced edits to articles on myriad and diverse subjects, including founding one that fulfills a need not otherwise met on the Internet (as the talk page discussion explores) and not covered (last I checked) at WP. My own experience is one I keep in mind when dealing with new arrivals, and I do try to take an individual approach with some of them. For example, User:Read-Write is a very worthy newcomer whom I have encouraged. We should be doing more of that.---Mona- (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I spent my first three months on Wikipedia blundering around making every possible error. Other users gently put me right. If I'd been treated the way newbies get treated now, I wouldn't have stayed. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 22:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should say that I made all kinds of formatting and other boo-boos when I got here that many did "gently put me right," as you put it. This reminds me that I reverted a WIGO last nite that I don't think merits inclusion, but I should have offered a friendly explanation at the talk page of this new user. Gonna go do that now.---Mona- (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @BW: "Errors" -- like File:Toxic mowse.gif? 22:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dis not the Mowse. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 22:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)



My main observation is that it should be practical for RW to avoid the identified pitfalls of WP in relation to new editors. RW is a small community and unlikely to ever be anything more than that. Thus, it should be possible for us to guide worthwhile new editors on an ad-hoc basis. Secondly, is anyone else as surprised as me that the WP peak of active editors was only 54,000? That number just seems very low.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI: RationalWiki is steadily on a path downwards, according to Alexa. ~  03:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss site metrics, wrong post. See above.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Last time I made an innocent edit on WP I used my IP by accident. I won a warning for vandalism template on the IP talk page. I took up with the mod in question on his talk page he more-or-less told me to leave if I wan't happy. So I did.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I largely lost interest in that article after the third time it emphasized the "good article" rating. Those rating are just lily-gilding, much as ours are, and don't mean much - especially the lack of them. Anyway, I have been a noob on WP for 8-10 years now, I almost never leave edit comments, move a lot of commas around (fully 1/3 of the commas on RW came from WP), and have changed the word "whilst" to "while" over 100 times.

I blame smart phones. When browsing WP (or any wiki?) on a full-fledged computer screen, editing both tiny and large things is trivially easy. Since the mobile device has turned into the "PC" of choice for the majority of the population, I suspect their yearning to "get involved" is simply not encouraged by the interface.  ħ uman  04:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractors and the Dunning-Kruger Effect
Anyone else think a Chiropractor referring to themselves as a primary care physician an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect considering that Chiropractors are far from being medical professionals.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I was referred to a chiropractor for an insurance claim.  The first thing he said to me, after I questioned his credentials even slightly was that he was a 'doctor'.  Honestly, I'm not sure what prevented me from walking out right there on the spot. Hallucion (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain, back in 2014 I got referred to a Chiropractor and he was a jackass. Maybe we should make a mention of Chiropractors in the Dunning-Kruger Effect page--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be more inclined to mention D-K on the chiropractor article than vice-versa. They aren't a good example for the effect article, but it is an issue that should be raised on theirs.  IMHO.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 04:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 archives
Could someone not as stoopid as I in such matters create a Saloon archive for 2016? I've sort of taken on archiving this place as I see the entries become as long as the list of species, but this archive creation is a task beyond my skillz.---Mona- (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * done. for future reference (and does anyone else like how easy it is to type "reference" with two fingers?) to create a new archive, go to the most up to date one, change the number in the URL (249-->250 in this case) and hopefully Bob's yer uncle. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 23:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!---Mona- (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Of interest. Pippa (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice, thank you for sharing it. Good ol' PalMD. You get 'em, buddy! Old guard (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Doc is still highly active in the cause, indeed. Pretty much all his FB posts that aren't of his adorable family are decrying woo and pseudoscience or one kind or another. And while I applaud and congratulate his move to Forbes, theirs is one of the most appallingly conceived websites known to furrykind.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 04:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, he is the one I stole the gizmodo link about lumosity from that I just stuck on my talk page red link list.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 04:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Globalresearch
I wanted to silver it a while back. It's currently still too listy. That said, it's heavily referenced by other sites, and so it's a very useful resource. If you've got time, please try to improve it. 02:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did take a look at that article about a month ago. Honestly, I'm not sure what I think about it. While they have a lot of material on the I-P issue I do not use GR as a reference here or anywhere else. The careful writers on that issue also don't. Using a reference that allows a digression from the claim it is being used to support -- so that the dispute becomes all about the source -- is just not a good use of one's time.---Mona- (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, this place sucks
There is much less activity than there used to be. The debates are tepid and without curiosity. The majority of the talk page discussions are about procedure. All the interesting people have left and replaced by a bunch of nerds who take their sexual frustration and spectrum-like behaviour to the wiki. Its time for a purge, a cleansing. If you elect me, I will destroy the institution of the moderati and usher in a new age of liberty and freedom to rationalwiki. The mobocracy will be restored and freedom will reign once again. We will root out the aspies and hail a new order, and a new age for the wiki. Marcus Cicero SPQR 11:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * yay! The Rapture is upon us.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If elected, what actions will you take to solve these perceived problems? Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sacrificing the annoying users in the hopes that RobSmith returns. CorruptUser (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You said this last time. Then didn't do fuck all.  13:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant phrase is "All mouth and no trousers". In some areas this is stated as "All mouth and trousers." Yanks go for "All hat and no cattle" but, whichever way you phrase it, t'was always thus with our friend Marcus. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After getting elected, I'll call for a referendum - abolish the moderati. With my mandate I will hound out and ban all the aspies who are ruining the site. The last time I was elected the moderati ganged up on me and tried to force me out. Since that time, most of them have left. I return with a new agenda. We will take Rationalwiki back. If you are one of the many people who has sat back and wondered where the hell their wiki has gone - fear no more. Change is coming. A revolution. These bastards have done all they could to make the site as boring as possible. Where are the trolls? Trolls are what made this site great, once. Now everybody is annoying sincere and boring. There is no great totemic debates about ideas anymore. Instead its just a group of 15 year olds sharing memes and tumblr and all that fucking annoying shit. WE WILL TAKE OUR SITE BACK. Marcus Cicero SPQR100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And if I feel the election has been fixed, prepare yourselves for an enormous and unforeseen consequence. Marcus Cicero SPQR100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having previously been elected moderator, what would make you "feel" that the election has been fixed? Weorthe (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't put anything past these people, the powers that be. Marcus Cicero SPQR100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am unimpressed, Fat Aardvark was funnier than this. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal: you could instead just invoke the right of decimation. Get sets of 10 editors grouped by number of edits in the past month, shove them in a tent, and demand only 9 walk out.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Whats have it right.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't this that same shit MC has been spouting for about 6 years now? Get some new material bud. Acei9 22:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Did Donald Trump make an account? Make Rational Wiki great again! Get rid of the nerds! AyzmoCheers 16:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I propose we build a wall around Marcus. 16:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously this reads like a rambling conspiracy theory. The elections going to be fixed? Does jet fuel melt steel beams? 'Legion what do you want from me  16:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the correct term for it is "explosive diarrhea of the mouth". -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was really tempted to say Dank memes melt steel beams, just to piss him off, but then decided that would be too much fun. 'Legion what do you want from me  01:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * {| style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 3px double black;"

Whoops. I did a Dwarf Fortress and built the wall from the wrong side. 13:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Also Midnight Runner, being from 'Murica, specifically the SF Bay Area, I am confused about the term "all hat and no cattle" is that a southern thing? 'Legion what do you want from me  16:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * }
 * It's a cowboy reference: He's got the hat, but no actual cows. Nowhere Man (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I quite like "all foam, no beer". My father used to say that. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a description of most beers? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Only if you really suck at pouring them in to a glass. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservapedia-space
Many CP articles contain personal information (could be called doxxing) on CP admins/users: is a prime example. There's also a massive amount of childish insults, bad formatting, and generally gross content. What's the best solution? 06:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Man, can we NOT use that acronym? It means something very different to many people.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * changed it myself.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What does it mean to you then? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:08, 1 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * What it means to me matters not a jot. Rather, the concern is the most widely understood meaning of that acronym. For example, look at the | number one ranked meaning of this at Acronym Finder --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh.. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * I looked at after you did some minor edits on it yesterday. The article is bloody awful and yes it does contain a lot of personal info. If that is representative of other Conservapedia related articles, then there a crap-load of work to do.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We should establish what exactly we consider "doxing". I looked at the Conservative page last week, but didn't consider it "doxing" then; also see this discussion. I don't have any problems erring on the side of (extreme) caution by the way; adding the real name usually adds very little or nothing at all. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you know the answer already: it's only doxxing when it's personal information about people you like, or people who you count as ideological allies. 09:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't make a difference where the line of "doxxing" gets drawn. It still seems to reach a state of cattiness that makes me uncomfortable, to the point that it arouses grudging sympathy with the subject.  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

CS wrote:

Hence it makes sense to remove this, and the more pithy name-related insults.

Honestly, a whole lot of CP-space isn't worth anything at all. 20:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This should probably be raised at WIGO:CP talk where the few remaining editors who give a fuck about Conservapedia are more likely to notice it. 20:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. We really need to outgrow and get over Conservapedia. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, actual names of people behind accounts do not particularly quantify doxing. Indeed, for a number of years, the only revision delete on RationalWiki came from some nitwit who posted, IIRC, TK's mother's address. That was actual doxing. Secondly, you're building your case on the assumption that Conservapedia administrator's didn't leave a paper trail to their identities. That assertion is anywhere from weak to wrong. Terry Hurlbut, for example, had linked to his personal blog on Examiner numerous times on Conservapedia. Ed Poor, as another example, is known everywhere as Ed Poor. Others' identities were obtained through private communications either to them or other Conservapedians. Some RationalWikians, for example, had been able to get into the ranks of Conservapedia's administrators and, thus, be a part of their email groups, which contained the identities of their administrators. IIRC, one of TK's email addresses also contained his name (he had the Exculpatory email address, but he'd emailed me before from a different address that I seem to recall had, at least, part of his name in it). Bottom line, you're using far too broad a definition of what doxing really is in order to justify being spooked by Gamergate. Old guard (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK most CP admins' IRL names were obtained publicly through things like the LA Times article & occasions when they promoted their own blogs on CP etc. If some were obtained in private correspondence as you say, I would consider that doxxing.  But I'm not sure that trying to fix it several years later is worthwhile unless there have been complaints from the named CP users themselves.  12:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points. For some reason (perhaps memory lapse), I always seem to forget the LA Times article (which I haven't read in years), from which we gleamed a lot of information about Conservapedian sysops. Old guard (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For me, it isn't about what is or isn't doxing. And it isn't so much about being 'spooked by Gamergate', but rather that Gamergate is one of many episodes that remind me that when we go fucking around with real people we need to have facts straight.  And it might be a good idea to avoid ad hominem attacks, for that matter.  I'm not sure this ED style material really contributes to the credibility of the site. (Tone argument, yadda.)  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that you're talking about things that happened a very long time ago, when this Wiki was young and still controlled by whether or not Trent was making food in his microwave. Back in its day, the material of the Conservapedia space did much to dispel myths about Conservapedia being anything more than a blog run by Assfly and some cohorts. It's not perfect and, indeed, there are things I never liked about it. But it is very much apart of RationalWiki's history, very much rooted in where this Wiki came from. Furthermore, have you ever considered that, perhaps, you are treating that history in the wrong light? That RationalWiki has come and gone, and it is very much an example of how far the website has come that, even, WIGO:CP is mostly vacant these days. I look not at these as monuments of embarrassment but, rather, as a sort of photograph of past RationalWiki versus RationalWiki today. Getting rid of such relics from the past just because we decide that we are better than that today is a mistake and, indeed, the internet equivalent of the Taliban blowing up ancient Buddhist monuments because "they are blasphemous." Furthermore, I most certainly can't buy and don't accept that this has nothing to do with Gamergate scaring the userbase here. From what I've seen in the last few weeks, before I decided to come back after many years of absence, is that this Wiki is running scared from Gamergate, and this discussion is a symptom of a larger problem, which is very unfortunate but not exactly untreatable. Indeed, there are things rooted in the RationalWiki traditions of old that I think, if this current community were to undertake them, might help you all be less scared of the big, bad wolf. Old guard (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ^Agreed with everything. Typhoon (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to delete anything. It still makes me cringe. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Andy, Ken and Terry do not acknowledge the existence of Rationalwiki (other than to prevent links to it on CP). I would suggest that we keep all of the present content and revisit the subject only if we receive a formal request from them. Hclodge (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doxxing policy
"We were young and foolish" isn't a good excuse for keeping the content; "it's tradition" isn't a good excuse for keeping the content; "they haven't complained" isn't a good excuse for keeping the content; "it's only doxxing-lite" isn't a good excuse for keeping the content. The only question is: does having tons of childish pages with personal information (sometimes nigh-doxxing, sometimes not) help rebut CP (however useful that is) or merely stroke nostalgic egos? 00:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about we start by formulating a policy on doxing (assuming there is not one already that I cannot find)? If we can do that, then a clean up of these articles can at least commence. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a page on doxing & there was this forum: Forum:So, let's discuss doxxing. Wikipedia also has a policy. 01:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No one minded the names being there (and we never went beyond that) until the anti-GG folk here because obsessed with stopping any form of "doxing" and "BLP hazardous rubbish" of their favourite people that they agree with. Which sparked criticisms of hypocrisy. If it weren't for the hypocrisy, I wouldn't even mind. It's yet another problem the anti-GG folk have created for us to clean up after them. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep aware of those. But RW does not have a policy right? Given the complaints (and rightly so) about off-site doxing of RW editors, then we surely should have a policy?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so. The usual process (I think) is someone writes something up, then other people vote on whether it's shit or not. 02:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was never a written policy, but the de-facto policy so far has been "names are okay, anything else isn't". Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What to do with Conservapediaspace articles

 * Why is that the only question & why do you get to decide what the only question is? It looks a lot like you're muddling multiple issues here: whether the CP content constitutes doxxing, whether it "rebuts" CP, & whether that is the only objective. "Tradition" (whether you like it or not) has been that the RW missions apply most directly to content in the main article namespace, & pretty loosely (or sometimes not a all) to pages posted in other namespaces. CP space is sort of a middle ground between mainspace & fun - some of it is about analysing & refuting but some of it is just shits & giggles content. 00:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, CP-space is sometimes just for the shiggles. But when funspace pages are really bad, they get AFD'd -- there's no reason CP pages can't have the same standard applied. More importantly, even if we shuttle the pages off to another namespace, they still reflect badly on RW. (Most people don't see the difference between namespaces, and it's not clear what the CP namespace means.) Whether or not CP-space is supposed to be about refutation or fun, they hurt mainspace, which is increasingly about refutation.
 * Because I'm the Question Arbitrator and my word is unquestionable law. 01:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, FCP, you seem to believe that: . Pippa (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And you also seem to be ignoring some of what was discussed: namely the LA Times article (which even I, admittedly, had forgotten about) and various Conservapedians' own, for example, linking to their own blogs (TerryH) or saying outright who they are (RJJensen) or linking themselves to other places (Ed Poor). Old guard (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Pippa: Mmhm.
 * @OG: Certainly some of the personal information can be posted. But Carpetsmoker recently removed Karajou's military service record. What purpose did that serve? This stuff and the childish stuff are bad. 02:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't comment on the stuff about his service record, mostly, because I am unsure how it was obtained. However, for the witch hunters looking through every nook and cranny of Conservapedia space for things they don't understand, you'll probably find everything you're looking for precisely because you don't understand it. Old guard (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At least some of the info was just on his CP userpage, which was more of a CV than a userpage, but ah well. It just looked rather stupid and grasping at straws for a character assassination more than anything else. Just like the lame "joke" variations of his name at the start were stupid. I don't think we need to scrub all the CP related stuff (including some of the more childish stuff), but lets at least remove the truly embarrassing stuff (which is probably not that much). Most CP pages I looked at so far looked basically fine insofar that they're not embarrassingly terrible (for the TK page all that was needed was a reference to show his name was publicly printed). Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@OG: Would anything like RationalWiki:Do we keep these CP-related articles? be useful, so you wizened old guard might hand down your enlightenment? 02:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except, if we already had such a project, why have it again? Especially given its massive scale and the unlikely chance that anything has been added to Conservapedia space (save for WIGOs and the like) since then (2012). Old guard (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the time is ripe to discuss the future of Conservapedia space pages again precisely because the last time we did it was back in 2012. (Sod me! Was it really that long ago?) It's true that little or nothing has been added to Conservapedia space since then but this wiki has continued to develop in its own way in that time. And we've still got some rubbish that needs chucking out. Spud (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ^. 15:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ripping on people for living at home
I do not see why people mock others who live at home? It is not like people know their situation (disability, financial hardship and so on).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean "with parents". Who does mock others who live with parents? I don't. Pippa (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because if you live with parents, clearly you can't afford a house; and if you can't afford a house, clearly you're an unemployed money-grubbing bum; and if you're an unemployed money-grubbing bum, clearly you're shit on working America's heel, ready for the wiping. 02:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It also ussualy indicates that the person who lives with their parents does so, because they can't handle the real world and still need mommy and daddy's care. 'Legion what do you want from me  03:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My point exactly, you do not know a person's situation. Would it be fair to pass judgement?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "living in their mother's basement" trope (and it is usually "his", not "their") was out of date by the time it started.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 04:16, 6 January

Guess maybe I shouldn't have cast the first stone here 'Legion what do you want from me  05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Years ago, it was common to have several generations living in the same house. Then, post war I expect, everything shifted to the nuclear family. Now, in the uk at least and London particularly, its reverting back to to the several generations one house model. You've also got a hell of lot of people renting rooms and lodging and such like. Its become very Dickensian. The 'mothers basement' meme has always irked me too for its poor shaming, elitist aspects, but because also like people refering to mens rights advocates wearing fedoras or complaining about the nebulous hipsters - its just lazy stereotyping and regurgitating lazy inane memesAMassiveGay (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * seriously, never use meme. They are all appalling.AMassiveGay (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Living at home? Not that in isolation. I don't think people should be patted on the head for doing the absolute minimum to draw breath and relying on others for their living costs when they have the ability to do so themselves. Those that like to tout how they are smarter, more capable, and better than everyone else while living in destitution deserve a resounding mocking in my opinion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2016


 * Okay, what about a person with a mental or psychiatric disability? Would it be fair to judge them?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, since their condition may make it more difficult for them to live by themselves. 'Legion what do you want from me  17:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ...when they have the ability to do so themselves. A diagnosed illness that results in disability (mental/physical) generally precludes that.  It's a matter of degree, and personal actions, which takes a brain to evaluate.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 'I don't think people should be patted on the head for doing the absolute minimum to draw breath' really? Is that what people are doing if they cannot the ever rising rent for their own place? Is that what people who work all the hours in a day for minimum wage and still can't afford to even rent a tiny room with a bathroom shared by at least six other people? Are they doing the 'bare minimum'? That's what fucks me off about the bullshit mom's basement line - it ignores how hard and precarious life is for far too many people. You dont need to pat people on the back for being poor, but little bit of compassion and basic human empathy goes allng way. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound like doing the bare minimum of operating one's diaphragm and not getting bed sores....sounds like working hard as shit and not receiving enough to live off of. However, that's your opinion of what that means as I said nothing about working hard at minimum wage.  The difference between my actual opinion and what you think it is.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Those that like to tout how they are smarter, more capable, and better than everyone else while living in destitution deserve a resounding mocking in my opinion.' sounds very much like using someone's poverty as a stick to beat them with. Its a shitty thing to do regardless of whether you think they are asking for it or not. If I am wrong in this assessment please clarify, rather than playing fallacy bingo. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, let's do the clarification thing rather than a fallacy bingo and /ragedump for things not even said. I think that calling people shitty for something they haven't said is a pretty shitty thing to do as well...but you don't see me doing a /ragedump :-)
 * A concise (public) example is Martin Shkreli who touted himself as a wiz kid mocking the peasants until he has shown to a terrible CEO, worse at investing, and went from relative obscurity to a household name in making money off people who would be dying unable to afford the medications. Now because of his behavior he's likely going to be impoverished and end up in jail.  If that makes me a shitty person to you...I guess I don't understand why not being a shitty person to you was a requirement.  Being a shitty person to me doesn't seem to be much of a concern of yours.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy generalisations Batman! I not sure how you can really draw any firm conclusions about someone based solely on the fact that they live in a house with their parents.  In many social structures, this is a conscious choice and indeed viewed as a positive and enriching way to live your life.  I'm fairly sure I would hate it, but I'm not going to project my familial relationships onto someone else.  Social and family structures are complex things, and living with parents may not be down to money, or lack of independence, or any one thing.  But you knew that. Worm (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First 2 sentences, first post in this thread: Living at home? Not that in isolation. I guess why read what people actually believe?  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is the Bin for according to policy?
18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Foot Noted
Was my foot noted?--ProbablyStupid (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hits and memories, December 2015
POPULAR has the stats from December 2015. The list of pages >10,000 hits, of actual pages intended for outside readers:

218848 /Main_Page 83730 /RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_world? 49099 /RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_blogosphere? 37153 /RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_clogosphere? 26375 /RationalWiki:Copyrights 25104 /Denver_Airport_conspiracy_theories 24896 /RationalWiki:Saloon_bar 23030 /List_of_forms_of_government 21333 /FEMA_concentration_camps 21068 /Roko's_basilisk 20685 /Forum_talk:The_Official_London_Olympics_2012_thread 17096 /Alex_Jones 15677 /Crisis_actor 15330 /Abydos_helicopter 14089 /Red_Room 14057 /Gamergate 13631 /American_Indian_Genocide 12172 /Project_Blue_Beam 11262 /List_of_actions_prohibited_by_the_Bible 10429 /DAESH

Again: WTF with that forum talk page, and WTF with the copyrights page. From the detailed logs (which aren't public), the latter appears to be a single broken bot retrying repeatedly. Both get TCP_MISS:FIRST_UP_PARENT a lot, which appears to be Squid hiccupping; I'll redo the script to exclude those - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I found a YouTube video about a topic where something on-mission might have to be said
I was previously unaware of this, but the topic raised in this video seems to be common canard in the gun control debate. Don't you think we should make an article on that? Of course with a wee bit more of in depth research thaen one internet video of less thaen five minutes... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Moderator vote
Does it close today 8am UTC (midnlight PST) or tomorrow 8am UTC (midnight PST)? I forget. Unless it was supposed to be today I'll close it tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Last time it was PST (UTC -8), but I suppose waiting 8 more hours doesn't really matter... As a general note, we should do all things in UTC... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We totally should, given that's wiki standard time anyway. It's 0855 UTC as I write this (0055 PST). I'm really asking "today or tomorrow?" If it's ambiguous for me it can wait till tomorrow morning. VOTE NOW WHILE YOU CAN EVERYONE - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pah UTC. Bring back GMT I say, it never harmed anyone ;) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WE WANT OUR 0.9 SECONDS BACK! AND THE HOME SERVICE! AND THE GOON SHOW ON THE LIGHT PROGRAMME, NONE OF THIS "FIVE LIVE" TOSS! - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Home Service. Now we are talking. And the pips will forever be GMT. As will the shipping forecast. :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The fleet's lit up! Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 10:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for you all
Suggestion: To rename RationalWiki to GoatWiki. 'Nuff said. 120.144.40.84 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise: JerboaGoatWiki 'Legion what do you want from me  02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Y-You made me drop my scepter..." 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not GoatcatWiki? Nekrif58 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not anger the Ferret Overlords! Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 10:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, us foxes want inclusion too. -  Kitsunelaine  「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did the Gadgets go?
What happened to the Gadgets? I had a bunch added to my RW account, and now they all vanished. How can I get them back/will they be back? TGW me myself, andI 02:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Gadgets come and go with the wind and will continue to do so until a competent person takes over the management of the servers or hell freezes over, whichever comes first. Pippa (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they've disappeared for me as well :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now they're back. Hope they are here to stay.TGW me myself, andI 00:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha! They'll vanish overnight! Pippa (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Proof the NSA is messing with the servers! Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aaaaannnd it's gone. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it out, sort of: RationalWiki:Technical_support Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Poll's closed
and files delivered to Tielec01 - David Gerard (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Results are posted. Tielec01 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't expect to be the first choice for six people. 15:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All four have been blessed with further suck, and a bag of diapers and baby wipes - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay, diapers! :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * All jokes aside, happy to see several very active and smart members elected. The best of luck to you all. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and good luck to the winners. (You'll need it.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my 2nd choice made it, and none of the rest were my "OMGnoes." Good luck to all.---Mona- (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh crap I forgot to vote. Oh well. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Bundy Revolution
I'm new to the site and just wanted to get y'all general opinion on the Bundy situation in Oregon.

--Bonesquad11 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hah, Cliven Bundy again. Only in America! You folks are crazy for letting any random insane redneck stock up on guns and then say "it promotes peace, freedom, and safety" you know. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it is his son. He thinks he's a militia. It's pretty funny. Bonesquad11 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of fundamentalist Mormon theology mixed up in their protest too, so it's definitely ripe material for this site.Petey Plane (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why they're tolerated, they're showing people that armed takeovers of gov property is acceptable. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw a picture somewhere that's the "Don't Tread On Me" flag, but with a baby snake saying "Pwease no steppy." Sums it up. 23:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can give my opinions to-the-point or roundabout. Let's do to-the-point. I think they're idiots and they need to go home. They aren't doing anything useful by being there, and are most likely making white conservatives look even more stupid to moderates and liberals. I also think they are breaking the law and should be arrested, tried and fined. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of Rationalwiki
Yo dawgs.

I saw the post on Ghazi and I would like to have a go at the Timeline of Gamergate article. Obviously this is a brand new account so I understand if you distrust me. Judge me on my results! You can always bin or ban this account if it makes you unhappy.

I am not going to give any real world information from this account. The recent drama and threats mean I am scared to. Clarity (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Fuzzy ticked your "autopatrolled" userright, edit a bit and after a few days you'll get "autoconfirmed". (I can't find a magickal tickable way around this, annoyingly.) Edit decently in general and you'll probably be opped in short order, because ~everyone is unless there's an actual reason not to - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

White Male Privilege does not EXIST
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/i-hate-to-break-it-to-feminists-but-white-male-privilege-is-a-myth/

Can someone debunk this article? It makes a pretty good point and it makes sense rationally to see this feminist SJW stuff as racist and sexist against white males. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 99.244.178.171 / talk / contribs


 * REFUTATION: "This article is by Brendan O'Neil, in the Spectator" - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Has a point, though. Identity politics doesn’t totally smother class considerations, however; it helps to facilitate a new, PC version of class hatred. The bile spat by feminists and others at certain white men — the uncouth, most derided ones — is really old-fashioned loathing for the lower orders dolled up as a radical stand against ‘male privilege’.  If your "radical" and "progressive" politics is all about social or cultural "marginalization" you obviously lead a quite comfortable life.  This is why "privilege" cant sounds so hollow. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One of my favorite subtle things about this wiki is when I see "Has a point" about a shitheaded article, I know the post is going to end with LOAD "*", 8, 1. That's not a joke, nor intended to be an insult, just I can always count on you to endorse people being angry about people being angry.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * He really doesn't. He just used a keyword that caught your eye; that's not having a point - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to experience a bit of that "privilege" in my workplace (a day program for disabled adults). My black (except for one) female coworkers who occasionally hug our clients and declare a couple their "favorites" (in a humorous way) look upon me as a (white) man with immense suspicion if one of our clients hugs me (I don't initiate hugs, as I don't like them from anyone) or if I try to spend a little extra time with one or two of them to try to get to know a bit more about them. Instead of any sort of acknowledgment that this attitude towards men in my line of work, of whom there are few, could even possibly be a problem, the common response is vacuous tirades about "well your life is so much easier everywhere else"; I'm only talking about this and not "everywhere else", and to the extent my life is easier than my aforementioned coworkers it's because I made different (not better, not worse, just different) choices in my life that any of them could have and didn't. (Also, don't get the wrong idea about how I view my work; I absolutely love what I do) Regardless of whether this writer makes a convincing argument, at the very least the common slogan of "privileged white male" is far from the universal truth I so commonly hear it made out to be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The point I think he has is that "privilege" cant interacts with actual social class in interesting ways. To learn to see the world through the "privilege" filter, you must be miseducated in fairly specific ways.  You had to go to a university where the idea is current and thought important; or at least you need a fair amount of time to hang out on the Internet.  Only privileged people (in the original sense) talk about "privilege" (in the cant sense) this way.  And "privilege" is used to marginalize certain people: the doctrine condemns them as ignorant, clueless, and thoughtless.  Familiar old stereotypes are applied, in other words.  Those condemned by "privilege" form a genuine underclass. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The article also uses the kind of "bad science" it accuses feminists of: drawing its conclusions from a few statistics rather than looking at the broader picture. It's also full of bullshit strawmen. Literally nobody argues that "all white men must have lovely lives" or "all white men have a certain kind of life or outlook". & The concept is privilege is the concept of "haves and have nots", including class privilege among many other examples, irrespective of whether these are "fixed traits". 18:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The absurdity of claiming no white male privilege exists is barely worth engaging. That some people identified as "SJWs" make some poor, overstated and even vicious arguments doesn't change the fact of white male privilege. Anyone who has ever worked in the U.S. justice system (criminal especially, but also civil) sees daily the effects of white male privilege.---Mona- (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * White men comprise an overwhelming majority of politicians, legislators and CEOs, yet apparently white male privilege doesn't exist. This article isn't even worth debunking because reality does a good enough job at that on its own.Petey Plane (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. It links 2 studies, one about the number of women who applied (not accepted) to college in the UK in 2006 and data on earning in the UK for women 22-29 (which reversed by 8x once people hit 30) and 2 additional articles about the same studies.  The first states it's mostly due to women getting a positions while not being able to advance into senior and full time roles.  The second is applications, not acceptance, so what does he want to do...force men to go to college against their wills?  The same research group shows men earn drastically more and are more likely to be promoted than women.  Where's that in his blog post?  Then 3 opinion polls because opinions are obviously facts.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * sṬ®8 ώΉίɨĕ ṃĔΝ 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * White privilege is indeed a BS term. In most countries it's meaningless, as most countries aren't the USA and as such don't have this slavery history. It's also ahistorical, because "white" meant different things at different times. Most people from southern Europe weren't considered white but they are now. Irish people weren't considered white, either. It'a also useless in most other countries in Europe where xenophobia or xenoracism is more of an issue than "whiteness" as construed by intersectionality identity politics imbeciles. The pecking order doesn't neatly fall along skin colours. In some countries, longer established ethnic groups are more accepted than, e.g. snow-white Eastern Europeans who came later. When you look at Peggy McIntosh's original Invisible Knapsack take, that started it, it gets even loopier. She lists as privilege, right out of the gate:
 * "1. I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time."
 * How is this even a privilege? What about people in the Bronx during the time of her writing, how about people in Jakarta, or Namibia? White privilege!?
 * "2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area that I can afford and in which I would want to live."
 * Except when you're a homeless. Read the thing and try to grasp what "privilge" even means. Sometimes it means "unfair advantage", sometimes it means "convenience".
 * "17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider."
 * Great. Let's abolish such mean privileges, what an unfair thing!
 * Also, excellent point, Smerdis of Tlön. This ideology is sectarian and doesn't give a hoot about poverty. That's all of course connected with CRT, as you can read also on the article on . Critical Race Theory as rubbish tenets such as these:
 * Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality"—using narrative to illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression.[15]
 * Essentialism philosophy —reducing the experience of a category (gender or race) to the experience of one sub-group (white women or African-Americans). Basically, all oppressed people share the commonality of oppression. However, that oppression varies by gender, class, race, etc., so the aims and strategies will differ for each of these groups.[15][19]
 * Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism, Black nationalism—exploring more radical views arguing for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid.[15]
 * Which is a key building block for the current social justice movement, together with intersectionality (invented by some of the same people, e.g. . Complete pseudo-science hogwash out of Harward Law School, not social science departments. Here you can also have a Marxist critique of white supremacy (the even stronger version). Before someone complains, these are the origins of the terms and how they were used and how they evolved. The big problem of this whole movement is, all of their ideas are mumbo-jumbo buzzwords that are near-meaningless and vague and often used idiosyncratically. People mean to say "white people have it easier" in some specific settings in some countries and then try to sound academcial and call it "privilege" when it adds nothing. Maybe someone has retroactively invented some BS framework that folkloristically makes some sort of sense, but that whole CRT premises are rotten. Essentialist philosophy on human races is pure racism. Nationalism!? Storytelling and "naming one's reality"!? The red flags should make your eyes bleed by now. How come this stuff has ANY traction among "skeptics" or critical thinkers at all? If you are unclear about the connection, just look at the relevant articles and dig a bit further, and to David's et al delight let's also point out that the roots of Critical Race Theory lie in postmodernism. No surprise that "white privilege" was . Hogwash is hogwash. And dividing people among races or genders, but ignoring class adds insult to injury. Rich people have "privilege". Also, if you haven't already. Check your Privilege here. They leave you alone then (allegedly, bugged). ~ 04:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, your own WP link White privilege contradicts your claims. Do see. It starts with W. E. B. Du Bois and by the 60s -- with the turbulent civil rights activism -- it became increasingly used and seen, including in the press.---Mona- (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The current incarnation comes via and Intersectionality, and the common strain is CRT. You can look up feminist sources and you likely come across McIntosh. Quick (maybe not the best) example: "W.E.B. Du Bois wrote about the privileges White people receive in society as far back as 1935, and countless scholars of Color have explored the implications of White privilege (though notably and problematically the most famous scholar on the subject is a White, cisgender woman – Peggy McIntosh)." says EverydayFeminism.com (which is a pretty mainstream SJW source). (EDIT: I see which sentence you mean, I shoild have been better written "popularized" instead of invented.) ~  04:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris there have been studies that have been done to show that society does give privileges to whites. Like someone above already said this doesn't mean whites don't have problems. It just means that they receive benefits that minorities don't. One noticeable example is applying for a job. Several studies have been done that have shown there is a favoritism for white people in the hiring process.--Bonesquad11 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is true. We've tried to fix this by law, but the laws are difficult to enforce and employers can easily make up pretexts and generate paper trails that hide what they're doing.  You can call this a vast interlocking system of oppression if you want, and I won't contest the validity of that as one viewpoint.  What I'm also seeing, though, is one of the limits of what mere legislation can accomplish.  There are things that politics cannot achieve, because human beings are too flawed and weak to carry them out.  Xenophobia and clannishness appear to be heritable personality traits.  They'll always be with us, more with some individuals than others.  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 06:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Smerdis of Tlon. In the U.S., white privilege is a fact, and I don't take seriously anyone who denies it. That said, the full contours of what it means or implies, well, some manage to wrangle a whole lot of outré crap out of the fact. But, and while to an extent white privilege can't be changed, it does need to be ameliorated. Most importantly in our justice system, if equality before the law is to be anything but a dark joke.---Mona- (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✻ I have absolutely no doubt that dis/advantages exist based characterisitics such as skin colour, gender, sex etc. In the USA (and similar countries), I have no doubt whatsoever that people of colour, especially poorer ones, have to deal with a lot of problems their white skinned neighbours don't have to put up with. The USA have a long history of slavery and discrimmation with a very long tail.
 * ✻ But internationally, or as a working academic concept it's a useless term that adds more obfuscation. It's trivially true that foreigners or migrants or otherwise “not native” looking people will have disadvantages in most places, for most of the time. If you return to the humanities and sciences you'll find such things as . Humans are pattern-seeking monkeys, making associations. If some characteristic is for whatever reasons deemed favourable, perhaps historically, it'll confer advantages to people who have that trait. Likewise, if some trait is deemed unfavourable, it works its social magic, too.
 * ✻ In some places and times it was better to “look local”, like a native. But when a different ruler class exists, it could become to be seen as attractive or desirable to look differently, and it's flipped around. Depending on situation, time and place, having the wrong skin colour can get you muderered or admired. It has nothing to do with some magical property called “white privilege”, which is not even wrong on an international context (the “social justice movement” is international). What's more, there are also white underclasses in the USA, as soon you go more rural. Their mannerisms, language and other traits will work against a stereotypical member, too. And then, there are Asians, for example, who “tend to have higher mean levels of educational achievements, and several recent studies indicate approximate parity with whites in most arenas of the labor market” (Sakamoto et al, Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans, 2009). Just because you want to express banal observations that being “white tends to make things easier in the US” you don't need pseudo-academic jargon with ill-defined concepts. ~ 15:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your'e being really obtuse about this. "White privilege" is a term used in the US to describe the advantages that American society gives to those who are perceived as being white. It doesn't work internationally because it is an observation on American society not on various societies around the world.--Bonesquad11 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * American society as portrayed by Or what meant the author to say with “Yet towards the end of 2015 it was revealed that there’s a social group in Britain more derided and less successful than pretty much every other social group.” Not to mention that the term is commonly used and in no way confined to the US discourse, or Tumblr. Help me out, Bonesquad11, I seem to be "really obtuse about this" ~  18:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Britain also has a white majority. So the term can be use there. The term isn't use at a global scale. That is a strawman. It is use to described the societies that do give an advantage to white people. RW already has an entire article dedicated to the idea of privilege.--Bonesquad11 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Slymepitters such as Aneris don't understand the concept of privilege. Shocking. Typhoon (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Privilege exists for both sexes. Having a pissing contest on who has "more privilege" or outright denial of certain privileges is not exactly constructive. Both of the "extreme" sides ("men have all the privilege" and "men don't have any privilege") are equally wrong. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as commonly used, "group x has privilege" means that group x has more power / social advantages than not-x. As such, it really is a binary, which gives cause for arguments about who has it easier or harder since that determines who has privilege. Of course, as you pointed out, groups in the real world commonly have both advantages and disadvantages. Extracting a binary privilege model from that requires a subjective value judgement about how much particular differences matter. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, if one has to explain to you why "white privilege" would also pertain in the UK, well, I don't know that you can be reasoned with. Ask the "coloreds" of India. Or the descendants of black slaves the British also owned. There are also a great many colonized Arabs you could consult. No reasonable person denies the reality of white privilege in the U.S. or the UK. Indeed, The Brits and some in the 19th century U.S., referred to the Irish as "white niggers" and such. Irish in the U.S. became virulently racist against blacks, in large part to demand their whiteness be acknowledged and thereby acquire some of the privileges that come with that.---Mona- (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * “I don't know that you can be reasoned with.” Let's see. Polish people are white, aren't they? If they are white people, they have this magical trait, called “white privilege” and we pretend the situation was the same as in the US. Polish overlords who oppress the people of colour whose ancestors are from India, correct? Then, why is there an . Even though the “process has been remarkably friendly and successful […] In 2007 Polish people living in London reported 42 ethnically motivated attacks against them, compared with 28 in 2004 […]”. You seem to confuse being homegrown (e.g. british) with being white, and ignore virtually everything I wrote above, simply prattling about as if I deny that natives have it easier, or that I was somehow denying that xenoracism existed. Of COURSE IT DOES. But is a black/white dichotomy a good way to look at a complex situation? Do we have to accept a naive concept of “human races” and incorporate that into our worldview, like it is in CRT and identity politics, because the existence of racism require it? That's again bad thinking. You can accept Creationists exist without accepting their conception of the world. Furthermore “The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races. — Directive 2000/43/EC”, which your beliefs decidedly does. There's what's called “explanatory power” (David Deutsch, 1997). You can of course claim that the sun is pulled by Helios in an invisible chariot and zealously accuse other people of being obtuse, because they won't see the obvious, that the sun is moving across the sky, or that you don't know whether someone “can be reasoned with”, but what does it give you? We should argue more. It makes it rather clear what the situation is. ~  00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris, none of that rambling non sequitur is responsive to my points about the UK, the U.S., and the Irish.---Mona- (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you say. You propose “white privilege” as a model to explain discrimmination also in the UK, I showed you numerous counter-examples that undermine the concept on many fronts; white people (e.g. Polish) being discrimminated against; or “whiteness” as an ahistorical concept (e.g. Irish considered non-white for long), or the dubiousness to assume identity categories based on human races in general, which is rejected in Europe. ~ 00:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I stated the reality that white privilege has long existed in the West. This is a fact. And a very old one, not one created by these postmodernists or SJWs you always on about.---Mona- (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also a reality that the sun moves across the sky. That doesn't make the explanation that Helios is pulling it a good one. You also reverted back to a trivially true notion, while true on first glance, becomes ahistorical under closer inspection and doesn't work that way. And thus you argue like a postmodernist. You tap into the trivially true and you try to woo your audience with pseudo-scientific jargon, then selectively switch around meanings and traditions of the term, and simply mash together folk history. Are jews white, Mona? Are they oppressors or oppressed? Let us know how this system deals with such cases? Furthermore, the current movement that uses the term is without any doubt in the Critical Race Theory or Intersectionality tradition. Which isn't a secret either. Just read the blogs, listen to the social justice movement YouTubers and you will certainly come across Intersectionality. Another link comes from 3rd Wave feminism which mingles into the whole thing, too. The link to postmodernism is also dead obvious, not just by looking at the people (e.g. Crenshaw) and origins, but also by looking at the tenets, e.g. “naming one's own reality” or “lived experience”. ~ 01:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The real question for me has always been, are Catholics White? That said, you touch on one of the problems with "privilege".  On the one hand, it's a valid sociological concept; and on the other, it's a political slogan that can and should be contested.  One problem is that something very much like "privilege" is going to be a feature of any human society.  All of them are going to have tests by which insiders are distinguished from outsiders.  Pretty near all of them will have some kind of ideal about what it takes to be a member in good standing of that society.  These ideals will include matters of physical appearance, appropriate dress, and grooming.  They probably will also include a skin color that conforms to the perceived majority or that is associated with the cultural founders.  In the United States, those are almost all nordic Caicasians.  "White male privilege" is an equivocal label that's been attached to this set of historical facts.  On the one hand, it's a simple description of the circumstance that White men dominate the standard narrative of American history, and that they continue to be overrepresented in political and especially corporate power, to an extent that the average person's image of "an American" is a White man.  On the other hand, "white male privilege" is a political slogan that makes a claim that these historical circumstances must be overthrown.  That's going to be a messy business, and it's an agenda you ought to be allowed to object to. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Aneris spews: "You tap into the trivially true and you try to woo your audience with pseudo-scientific jargon" No, what I do is insist that this "trivial truth" is, in fact, true. Did you see the header of this section? That is false. As is your initial claim that "white privilege" is "indeed a BS term." At no point -- you are simply lying -- did I say, or imply, what I think should flow from that FACT. Much less proceed to employ "woo" and "pseudo-scientific jargon." In fact, to a degree, I share Smerdis of Tlon's outlook, with the caveat that some circumstances absolutely must be "overthrown." As I've said for the third time now, especially in the justice system.---Mona- (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: I did say changes in the justice system should flow by acknowledging white privilege. But I have not argued for any over-arching political ideology based on that fact, other than my usual and constant devotion to civil liberties.---Mona- (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree. Black communities need to be given more power over what the local rules are and how the law is enforced among themselves.  It's hard to get American law to recognize this fact; if it will inconvenience the wrong people, legalistic color-blindness will be piously invoked to hold 'we can't have that'. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Where's the RSS icon?
I'm almost certain that there was an rss icon with a link labled "Atom" in the sidebar. After that browsing session, it was gone. Will giving the URL of the link labeled "Atom" help (assuming the page still exists)? Also, if the page has been deleted, please let me know. Oh, and pet a goat while you're at it!--107.222.124.21 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still get the icon under "Tools", but only on pages where it makes sense: Special:RecentChanges, Special:Watchlist, and the history of pages. Here's the full URL for RecentChanges: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom . Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered about this... What is this RSS/Atom feed stuff exactly and what's it for? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Monitoring changes in an - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Human rights in Saudi Arabia
While I'm at it, I though I might direct this message to the general RW populace as well. As you probably already know, Saudi Arabia is cracking down on activism and government criticism. But what some are perhaps less aware of is through what means they as an individual might help to make a meaningful difference.

Don't worry though, I won't be 'spamming' Amnesty International links on any regular basis and we can keep the wiki cynical and not-RL-activist. But human rights are an issue that, I think, is of interest to many RW users, so feel free to check out the site regularly and do as little or as much in support of human rights as you feel comfortable with. Cheers! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * In 1993, Margaret Thatcher gave a speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs announcing that: "I am a great admirer of Saudi Arabia...& King Fahd." She could not say enough nice things about them. And about their human rights record? Well:

"I have no intention of meddling in that country's internal affairs. It is one of my firmest beliefs that although there are certain basic standards and goals we should expect from every member of the international community, the precise pace and approach must reflect different societies' cultural, social, economic and historical backgrounds. And Saudi Arabia, in particular, is a complex society which Westerners do not often fully comprehend. I recall that the great British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, a statesman who was not always noted for his humility, once modestly said, 'The Arab world is a university in which the student never takes his degree'. And if in that university there were to be a special college of Saudi Arabian studies, I suspect that its examinations would be the hardest of all."
 * ---Mona- (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the Saudis are sort of left wing... In the sense that the rulers ARE trying to reform the country in many ways that'd be closer to the egalitarian utopia than they currently are, but the country is further to the right than they are. Whenever they kill an atheist or heretic, it's less "death to apostates and traitors!" and more "the people think you should die, so to the chopping block you go".  Its not fundamentalism in the rulers, but the rulers kowtowing to fundamentalists.CorruptUser (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * CorruptUser, can you give me some specific policies or behaviors that indicate this supposed left-wing reformist stance held by the Saudi governors? Because I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. It is one of the most right-wing regimes in recent history, and I have not noticed any reformist positions from that government; it has murdered thousands of innocent people over the past year alone for crimes like living under Shia rule, drug use, atheism, witchcraft, apostasy, and opposing the government. If you believe allowing women to run in elections and hold office constitutes a reformist stance, you should at least frame your argument in context of all the other human rights abuses that occur daily there.
 * PS: I don't support that regime, you don't support that regime, and Mona does not support that regime. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1962, they banned slavery. 1973, they allowed televisions (and murdered a king as a result).  Currently there are talks about letting women drive.  They are not left wing in comparison to anyone in Europe, just in comparison to their population.  Otherwise you'd have to make the case that MLK was an arch conservative because he didn't back gay marriage.  People are not right or left based on their positions but their positions within their society.CorruptUser (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * CorruptUser, with that, you need to be added as an example in our Poe's Law article.---Mona- (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "batshit crazy murderous dictatorship is less conservative than the average person living in the regime" is a Poe. CorruptUser (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are less conservative than the average person in the country. That's part of my point. Seeing as about 50% of the country are women, most of whom want to have more rights, and also some of the men also support that, that's well over 50% of the population that is more liberal in opinion than the government. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Read our article on Salafism, and remember that most Saudis are Salafis or Wahhabis, then make that claim.
 * Let's say for arguments sake that the average Cuban is a commie. Currently, Raul Castro is trying to allow private ownership in some small amounts.  I'd say this makes him right-wing in comparison to the average Cuban, even though he is one of the leftmost dictators out there.CorruptUser (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. As you said yourself, left and right are relative to one's society.  That means a Cuban supporting the regime's conventional policies is conservative (i.e. right wing) and one supporting reform is progressive (i.e. left wing).  As for Saudi Arabia, based on my experience with young Saudis I reckon that most are significantly more progressive than their government.  03:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read that article, CorruptUser. Less than 50% of the total Saudi population is Salafi. Source. A good deal are non-Salafi Sunni and Shia. To the point, most Saudis don't share the ultra-conservative ideology the government espouses. Sure, they don't approach Asia, Europe, or America; but the average Saudi man doesn't think Nimr al-Nimr should have been killed, for example. Most people living there don't agree with the government's position; it's just that they are too repressed to say this in public.
 * I would also like to note that the positioning of the Castros or similar leaders on the left-right chart can be misleading. He could be considered a 'commie' for wanting total government control of the economy, but his positions hugely differ from Marx, Engles, and Trotsky, the founders and main shapers of communist ideology. I would say that most Cubans dislike the current government and want a freer, more liberal one. Liberal in the sense that there is reform and change. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There are some things that can't or shouldn't be relativized. The rule of the House of Saud may be marginally better than the rule of Kim Jong-Un; it's just a rich police state with something the world needs, and they know it. The largest problem is that the Saudi government uses their money to fund the spread of Wahhabi theology and represent it as Muslim orthodoxy, in the same way that in the USA fundamentalist Christianity is imagined to be more authentic or representative of historical Christian teachings; not because of its authenticity, but because of the noise it makes. The Wahhabi vision that the customs and folkways of the companions of Muhammad represent a pristine rather than a rudimentary Islam is pretty much foundational for all of the Sunni Islamist groups. Saudi money funds all this. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said, though two issues. The first sentence, well, that's where we are arguing.  It's basically the problem with people at the tail ends of the horseshoe; Stalin is almost indistinguishable from early years Pinochet, in spite of being "opposites".  The second issue is, how are you certain that the Wahhabis are not "authentic"?  Personally I view Mohammed (and his early followers) as mostly a "good" guy in the sense that he was significantly better than what came before, ostensibly, not because I would ever consider trading life in a liberal democracy for the craphole that was 7th century Arabia.  The Salafis are "right wing" because they see liberal democracies, they see the craphole, and they try drown the whole world in crap. CorruptUser (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What's pretty remarkable is how Muhammad and the Rashidun caliphs that followed him were in some ways more moderate than the Wahabis, Salafis and Qutbists that try to emulate them today. The dreaded -punishments (public stoning, lashing, cutting off hands etc.) were typically accompanied by impossible-to-fulfil evidentiary standards. Muhammad himself is even said to have ordered Muslim judges to 'ward off the Hudud with ambiguities'. Then again, revivalists getting lots of stuff wrong about the past they're trying to revive isn't exactly something new. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:28, 10 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

For decades I've been reading apologists for the Saudis claiming they are just about to really reform. It's gonna be great. Just wait and see. Never happens. King Abdullah promised a decade ago that they'd have "true democracy" in 20 yeas. pffft.---Mona- (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

CaptureBot4
There's a new archive bot in the form of. It's a complete rewrite of as I couldn't get that to work (in case you're wondering, that's CaptureBot3).

Because it's a rewrite, it may also have some problems that Capturebot2 didn't have; so if you use it, it's probably a good idea to check if it works!

A new feature is that it will detect links used in Template:a and send that off to archive.is to be archived. This is especially useful for references and such. For example  will give you

Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Love it. 14:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I found a very strange part of the clogosphere
apologeticsministries.com I found a diamond example of what happens when you warp a religion. Just look at this website and look at some of the articles, I think it needs a page of it's own. I don't what this is but it is not Christianity.

http://apologeticsministries.com/the-sun-is-not-a-star/ http://apologeticsministries.com/gravity-is-only-a-theory/ http://apologeticsministries.com/be-quiet-woman-theres-a-man-in-charge/ http://apologeticsministries.com/doctor-who-fun-show-or-satanic-brainwashing/ http://apologeticsministries.com/hoisting-secular-scientists-on-their-own-petard/ http://apologeticsministries.com/true-christians-are-perfect/ http://apologeticsministries.com/the-decline-in-christianity-is-a-good-thing/

68.148.171.6 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember that hilarious sun article, read it about a year ago. Thought it was satire at first. It is in fact a Christian site, they say so themselves. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because someone says they are not doing satire does not mean they are not doing satire. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, but he said "I don't what this is but it is not Christianity". TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this is satire. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Prolly the most entertaining thing to read at Landover is their archive of emails from Christians who want to discuss their "theological errors" with them.---Mona- (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe CS is more correct than I thought "You tell them, Freedom Ranger! Travel should be locked down from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Senegal, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Guinea, Zaire, Sudan, Philippines, Ivory Coast, South Africa, Uganda, France, England and Texas. We can’t be too careful. And let’s not forget Mexico. There have been no reported cases there, but it’s probably where it will come from, since it’s so dirty and poor" - Christian Apologetics Ministries. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mona; heh, I remember that back in the day lots of people had a similar problem with Jesux, which was a joke Linux distribution... (see this). Although there actually a real Christian Linux distro, it would seem... Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was decompiled for our sins, debugged, and recompiled three days later by a jealous programmer. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, ChristWire is a Christian site, and it's satire. 23:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The site's been totally dead since October, at least. It definitely looks like satire to me. Then again, lots of people think the Aggressive Christianity Missionary Training Corps web site is satire, too. –Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the current situation in Oregon is satire of right-wing extremists. It's just a prank bro. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But, the Bundys don't have a Time Cube-ish web site, at least not yet. –Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What are mores here for posting emails between 2 users?
A conversation on Bicycle Wheel's talk page has at least one user stating that this site does post private emails, at least if they can be said to pertain to RW business. Is that how others understand it? I have always followed the more common Internet convention that one doesn't publish private emails absent permission, except in the most extreme circumstances -- threats, harassment etc. (And one should always assume a journo might publish if you don't expressly first get agreement the exchange is off the record.) Is it different here?---Mona- (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there are any these days? I haven't seen anyone post an email here in the time that I've been here (that I can recall), so it doesn't generally come up. Well, except with the Vordrak stuff recently. Personally, I don't have any major issue with people posting content from mails sent to them as long as any personal information relating to the sender is redacted from it. And that last bit's kind of the major issue in this case. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Well, if there actually are no prohibitions on posting private emails here, that's information many would no doubt wish to have.---Mona- (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * From the chicken coop archive 41:

"[header] Email just received [/header]

Legal status: put it this way, I'm posting it here - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)"


 * Followed by the full text and complete headers of the email. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 03:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's different. He posted that with his mod hat on because it contained legal threats.---Mona- (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is no reason to post the full headers. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. But the body of the email was a business matter.---Mona- (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted the full headers to show its full provenance. If you send me an email with a spurious legal threat saying you'll take my house, I'm going to post the fucking thing - we learnt that against Scientology twenty years ago. Your concern trolling is querulous - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So what I gather is it is ok if it is ok. Or if a mod does it. Got it.
 * Believe me, it doesn't bother me, correspondence intended for and received by a person is their property to do with as they see fit. I just wanted to quote the master of adding attacks to a conversation rather than share it as my opinion. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're citing legal rights when the topic was about the convention(s) used on this wiki. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * It's a baseline to work from, if nothing else. Is drifting to a slightly broader perspective against current mores? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This wiki is hemorrhaging users
Ask yourself why that is. Or don't. I don't care. I don't know how many users you can count who either rather loudly or very quietly have thrown in the towel in recent times. I don't want to speculate as for reasons, but a wiki without users is a rather pointless thing indeed. Maybe this wiki will gain new users again in the future. But don't count on it. Farewell. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is still wrong. See image. 21:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Some people that hadn't been around for a long time because they were only interested in the Conservapedia stuffs returned just to say they were leaving. No problem there. 21:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Shock news - stop the press! Whiny disruptive editor remains vandal-binned and then posts that the site is hemorrhaging users. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am truly sorry Avenger could never learn to see -- and fix  -- what made his presence here so intolerable for so many. Perhaps hubris played a role. He declared, practically from my arrival here, that I would be leaving soon. This he glibly predicted on many occasions, including, most recently, in a summary of a vandal-edit. In my early interactions with him I sought to find compromises to our differing POV, but these he entirely and flatly rejected. As far as he was concerned he controlled the I-P issue and I was simply going to have to accept that. Then there was that nonsense he drove some others crazy with over British v. U.S. English. People, many people, tried reasoning with him, giving him many, many chances. But he could not, or would not, accept that he had done the slightest thing wrong. I wish him well.---Mona- (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Mona, can I assume from this that the marriage was never consummated? ;) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are walking on the thinnest of ice, sir. I see another coop case in the offing....---Mona- (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biggest crime on RW is disrespecting the police. :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I dunno about editors leaving, but I have certainly stopped recommending this site to people specifically because of people like avenger and some others were continually shitting all over place. It just embarrassing to tell folk you think such and such is nonsense spouted by lunatics go here and see why when you know if they look behind the curtain and they will find nutjobs every bit egregious as the folk I had been warning them about. It saddens me that I now feel this way about the site. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I really doubt most people "look behind the curtain". I doubt they know it is even there.  They probably read the article they were linked to, and perhaps one or two more, then go back to FB.  Obviously a small percentage will dig around, but if they are aware enough to find off-article shitting they will also see all the fine upstanding commentary and discussion going on. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 01:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The wiki is, year on year, gaining both editors and readers. See editor graphs and the web hits table at Forum:RationalWiki viewership . If we lose Avenger, I expect we'll get by somehow - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Methinks Avenger is now BoN-ing around. Pippa (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could also be Arisboch. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could be both! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Ehh, we are getting more editors than usual... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Mierda, shit, mierda, shit, mierda, shit...  Look! 03:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Crisis actor
According to Alexa.com, fully 2.20% of search traffic that leads to RW comes from this term. We haven't even rated it bronze yet, when it should be at least silver. Need moar material! 01:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it quite bronze yet, it still looks like a framework rather than an article. I put a call out on the twitter and the official FB - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Alexa still a toolbar that "some people" install on their machine? Wouldn't it be more accurate to analyze the server logs? Not that raising the quality of any article for any reason isn't a good thing... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 01:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Birth and the Miracle of Life
Christians, but not nearly only Christians, talk about how such a miracle birth is and how the fact Humans can do such things is simply amazing. Have they actually ever seen a baby being born? Don't look like a miracle mate. Looks nasty ah. Demonic crap right there. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've described it to my children as "a miracle, but a wet, goopy, gross, ugly miracle." Also showed them a picture of my brother to disprove the adage "all babies are cute." 207.191.199.193 (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have an uncle who insists all babies look like Winston ChurchillAMassiveGay (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No no no, you misunderstand. He is actually saying they resemble the Instron at Church Hill. TheArrogantSkeptic (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have literally no clue what that isAMassiveGay (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It actually takes a lot more effort not to make babies. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 01:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we have an article on this?
There’s plenty of time for evolution, a scientific response from 2010 to the people who consider evolution to be chance. 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell your sig looks almost Russian mate. Was that intended? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This user has a piece of code that varies their signature each time they post. For example, another is FuzzyCatTomato, and another is ℲnzzʎƆɐʇԀoʇɐʇo. They just want to seem hip.  Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All versions at http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig&action=edit. I'm cool! Right? Right?!
 * custom sigs are an affront to god and anyone not registered blind. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is my very favourite Wikipedia terrible discussion, on literally page-breaking signatures and the people who will fight to the death for them. Note which side has ordinary signatures and which side has baroque monstrosities - David Gerard (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Add WIGO election icon?
I asked David Gerard whether we could put an election WIGO button with the other four, and he said if people want it and someone wants to do, that sounds fine. Are there any objections, and can someone do that? Among other things, if it's "right there," it would encourage people to post in the right WIGO when the news story is election-related. I know I just had a story moved there, and prolly would have put it in the right place initially if I could have just clicked the right icon.---Mona- (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not a bad idea. FYI, you can do this by editing Template:WIGO NAV. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh by all means, take the pleasure yourself. ;) I could cause the wiki to blow up. Seriously.---Mona- (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to gin something up a week or so ago, but couldn't make the right icon display in the preview, so said fukkit. I also did not want to blow up the wiki. Then I noticed a discussion from about six weeks ago at RationalWiki talk:What is going on with the elections? where Walker asked the same question. The response was a unanimous "don't bother" from three credible contributors. SmartFeller (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WIGO:Elections got 3113 hits last month, compared to 83k for WIGO:World, 49k for WIGO:Blogs and 37k for WIGO:Clogs. And 3745 for WIGO:CP. While those numbers are known-sorta-bogus (the weird Squid stuff I noted and am not quite sure how to allow for in the script, given it's visible in the full Apache logs but not in the pageview logs), they're comparable. Make elections better maybe, put it on the template around an election season? - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But isn't it a catch-22? You won't get more hits unless it's visible somewhere, but in order for it to be visible somewhere it has to get more hits. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what Brxbrx said about the godawful WIGO:Webcomics. 23:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ehh...so? Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So it's not a compelling argument. The page has to be worth promoting before it's worth promoting.  00:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So it's not a compelling argument because "here's what an idiot once said about a somewhat related topic which is vaguely reminiscent of what you just said"? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) There's very little clarity about what's supposed to be posted there or moved there. I've raised this on the talk pages to both WIGO:Elections and WIGO:World, & got no response from anyone other than a shrug from Mona. My perception is that there's minimal interest in WIGO:Elections as a distinct entity beyond the half dozen or so editors who've posted there, so I'm disinclined to make more of a big deal of it than it is. 23:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well this is my preference: leave my/everyone's Hillary and other candidate-related WIGOS on the regular page unless and until we have the icon to promote the use and reading of the election WIGO.---Mona- (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Right there in the left margin under "Community" is a link to What Is Going On?, where WIGO election has as much exposure as WIGO CP and WIGO CZ. If election goes in the nav template, then those two should appear as well. That said, nobody should be on the edge of their seat waiting for Oprah to give out link buttons for all. At most, the SHINY NEW THING could be given a bit more prominence on WIGO world, where it is most relevant, and election-related WIGOs should stay in the election section, to be found by those who care about them. SmartFeller (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not really a fair argument since WIGO:CP & WIGO:CZ are has-beens which are dying a slow death whereas WIGO:Elections is something newly launched. My main problem with it is that I think it's too oddly specific a concept to catch on.  It was proposed as a solution to the deluge of US Presidential candidate related (mostly Trump related) stories that have been swamping WIGO:World.  Having a temporary WIGO page just for the 2016 Presidential election would seem OK to me, but this idea of bunching together all of the world's election related news stories (but not other party politics or government related stories) seems like a weirdly arbitrary solution.  If we were going to carve up WIGO:World properly into separate pages (which I don't suggest we do), the obvious split would be something like WIGO:Science/WIGO:Politics/WIGO:PopularCulture.  Hiving off just elections as a separate subject area doesn't make a lot of sense.  00:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Weaseloid:  00:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my only real argument for splitting out elections is an emotional one, namely annoyance when the page fills up with tales of spin and posturing. Sequester or include, I can probably live with it either way. SmartFeller (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I must note that I quite like WIGO:Elections and follow it, and wouldn't object at all to it being in the template. It's just not actually that popular, 'cos it's new - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine part of the lack of popularity is that people may not know it existed. I didn't until yesterday. AyzmoCheers 19:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cracker Atheist get cut up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ResDnSaFmdM

The whole video is impossible to watch, but basically a bunch of moronic Black Hebrew Israelites debate atheists of lesser melanin whom they refer to as "cracker", get destroyed, awkwardly pretend they won, and upload the video to one of their YouTube channels claiming victory in an astonishing display of mind-numbing stupidity. I was watching their videos and discovered threats of assault with weapons, intimidation, battery/assault, and general scumbag activies whilst carrying out blatant public hate speech against Muslims, Jews, Caucasians, et cetera and ran into this video just before my mind was melted entirely. We already have an article on them, but the insanity goes well beyond what is written on them. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well now I wish I could have been there.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki and Alexa
Our Alexa ranking has been falling for 6 months. Siteinfo for RationalWiki. Is the problem with the way Alexa tries to get statistics or with us? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See here particularly the Squid logs which are actually accurate, unlike Alexa. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, squid logs measures page hits, not individual visitors... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alexa may have issues with us because what we wrote about them isn't nice. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alexa rankings are meaningless noise for any serious purpose - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet Wikipedia still cites them quite frequently...
 * So what? Wikipedia does a lot of silly things. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Include links to Wikivoyage
Now Rationalwiki is not a travel guide, but many people reading our articles about countries might become interested in visiting them and thus hit the googles. But it should be a great service to our readers to instead link them to http://www.wikivoyage.org the leading free online travel guide in wiki format. We might even include this in the country information template below the democracy index and the GDP. What do you think? 17:28, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * It is an interesting wiki, but I do not think it fits with the RationalWiki mission. SmartFeller (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fit the mission at all. There are thousands of wikis out there, what's so special about this one? Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 21:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We need an article on
I would add this to the to do list, but I cannot edit there because someone locked it. Basically this guy is full of stuff that RW can focus on. He was killed by someone (Mossad, Iran, CIA, Saddam Hussein himself, take your pick) after he had worked for - among others Apartheid South Africa, Iraq under Saddam and Canada. His "invention" was basically an overblown artillery cannon that was supposedly designed to shoot satellites into low earth orbit for a fraction of the cost of normal spaceflight. Though (as the Soviets noticed in the 1950s and The USA soon after) everything that can shoot stuff into space can also shoot it onto the heads of your opponents. And here come the intriguing parts: Bull died in 1990. Surely there are prototypes or blueprints somewhere. If his weapon was really so revolutionary (and a dual use good to boot), why has nobody picked up where he left off? And if his weapon was nothing but smoke and mirrors, why was he killed? And yes, the internet (including worldnetdaily) is full with speculation about him... 95.90.213.64 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There were many things wrong with the idea, but at heart it was that the paradigm of battle had already shifted to render large immobile weapon systems almost completely useless in the flowing battlefields of the late 20th. Hooray, you got off 4-5 shots from your supergun equivalent to several kilotons of conventional plane-delivered bombs! Cue bombardment of the large, expensive, easily-disabled, fixed-position target. No mobility, no point. Unless you're some kind of power-mad dictator trying to emphasize your massive greatness; witness the Schwerer Gustav - which even in World War 2 was more effective as a piece of propaganda than as a weapon (and was even train-mounted). Semipenultimate (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also not really correct the materials disappeared as in the Wikipedia article linked is a photo of one of the sections of the gun on display, as well as a link to photos of several different sections. The materials went with the team to Canada as stated in the article as well.  It was revolutionary in terms of it's size...but not much more.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Most Wanted getting fat
We could up the threshold to (say) 75 ... but I'd like to leave this list to stew for a bit and see if any of us have good ideas (or too much time on our hands to minute-by-minute annotate a neo-Nazi documentary or whatever). I've posted calls for help to the RW social media, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)