Help talk:Contents

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

I love this website[edit]

I think you guys are doing great work. I'm a dyed in the wool liberal secular atheist so its refreshing to see some sanity on the internet.. i do have a request for my brethren/fellow travelers.. I made a website and am trying to develope a kind of secular religion/life philosophy.. some of it disagrees with certain aspects of traditional science but over all i think its pretty sound. is there anyway you guys can help me promote it? specifically with talk pages bashing it and an article so the google webbots will index it? id appreciate it and again.. thanks you guys you really are doing good work. my site. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


I'd like to ask some users to help me with editing multiple pages of the Annotated Quran. Which webpage should I do it on? ShabiDOO 02:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Some Issues[edit]

Would it be possible to change Rollback to have a user preference, not the default setting, to confirm the rollback? A couple of times I've screwed this up because my fat fingers hit the wrong link. Could be because I use a mobile.

Is it poor etiquette to not mark an edit as minor without giving a reason? Just because I think it's obvious doesn't necessarily mean others don't. Combined with the previous issue maybe the answer is for me to take better effort to avoid rollback at all costs.

Twice I've received alerts that a watch list item has been linked to somewhere else, but when I check the fossil record the link doesn't even show as being deleted, much less linked in the first place. Just curious.

Sometimes when I mark a page as patrolled it still shows on Recent Changes as !. Antigem (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Rollback is a function specifically designed to avoid confirmation - and there is no such thing in the Preferences. I don't know how much thought has been put into making things easier on mobile here. Maybe I can have a look at how to do it with adaptive CSS, but I'm not sure how often things are changed on MediaWiki:Common.css or by whom, and to be honest, I'm probably too lazy to do anything unless other people show interest.
As far as edit summaries are concerned, first off, I don't know. Secondly, you're definitely not doing anything wrong by always adding an edit summary. Thirdly, I operate under the assumption that most minor edits aren't worth an edit summary. Minor edits shouldn't be about content anyway, rather about formatting and such.
Yes, this happened to me as well and I turned notifications off. I think the reason for that are templates including random articles, so it might have been generated for one user, but once you're accessing the page, it will be a different random page, given a large enough category. Not sure, though.
This kind of sounds like the server cache not having been refreshed - or your browser cache. Have you tried overriding your cache yet?
RSamys (bla) 13:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Contribution to talk page marked as spam[edit]

Not spam. What do I do? — Unsigned, by: Morpheos / talk / contribs

@Morpheos Try taking it to RationalWiki:Technical support. --RWRW (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to ask for help on RationalWiki:Technical support. Maybe I am stupid.
On another topic is RationalWiki dying? It seems from my qualitative experience that contributions peaked around the early 2010s. There don't seem to be articles on recent issues. — Unsigned, by: Morpheos / talk / contribs
That is strange. I posted something about it for you. As for the second point I don't really know. I have only been here just over a year. --RWRW (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Had no idea my public IP would be an issue. Can we put it in my user account instead?[edit]

I recently created the Suspicious0bservers page and I have become nervous about retribution from the followers of that gunk. Can the post be attributed to this account? Or can it be removed and re-posted by me?

Anything you can do to help protect my privacy. I am sorry for not fully understanding how this all worked. I saw I could post, and I didn't think twice (been wanting a debunk page on that clown for a long time).

Thanks for the help.

-Angela N. — Unsigned, by: Realist4 / talk / contribs

I'm pretty sure the Techs will answer about attribution for you. Also, when you write a message here, always use a signature by typing four tildes at the end. -𝓪𝓵𝓮𝔁 here! 12:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is everyone on here anonymous?[edit]

What is the reason that people on here are so anonymous? RationalWiki wants to be a reputable source for reason and logic, and yet it is composed of anonymous contributors, lessening the credibility of the entire site. Why won't authors post their real names? Especially given the numerous articles on here that skewer public individuals, scientists (or crack-scientists as you call them) by name, it is a bit immature to skewer someone publicly with an internet meme. At least the person being skewered had the guts to go public with their stance and put their name behind it, and then get rebutted by unnamed anonymous people makes this site less credible in my opinion. I'd love to know the actual names of the people who write articles on here, until that happens, my opinion of this site is basically this: A site full of pseudointellectuals too scared to put their real names to the content they are writing about. For example, look at all the profane anger on this page here: F-bombs gallore, very angry people yelling and screaming. It shows me (the end user) that behind all the dispassionate semantic prose on the front of the articles, are angry people bubbling with hostile emotion, full of presuppositions and biases, and who use every ounce of self control to craft a document that doesn't scream with emotion. And yet, even when I read some of your articles (the front side), I can sense extreme emotion seeping through the false attempt at being dispassionate and logical. For example, I really enjoyed the extra anger on this page here: in the first paragraph where the atheist author (anonymous, of course) writes, "Really, the only way this argument could cause nightmares is in how traumatically bad of an argument it is." Hah, that was entertaining, to say the least, and an objective reader can almost feel the emotions squeezing out of the author (don't take this as a defense of the absurd argument in that article but instead my point is that authors here can't help themselves from pouring emotion into their writing, a sign of an amateur philosopher) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I am anonymous because the internet can be dangerous, stalkers, doxers, and hackers. Also with your name people can find your location and other personal info. Commie Lib (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
But am I right in saying (and I'm not sure, but just suspecting) that most people who frequently use this site are atheists, and because they are non-religious that there would be nothing to fear? I mean, if religion is the major cause for violence in the world, we should have far less to worry about having our names on a skeptic/atheistic website than, for example, names on a religious website? I'm just speculating here. Plus if we want to be credible sources, (like a journalist or researcher, for example), a name is required, else you cannot really be considered very credible. I mean no disrespect to anyone here, but it seems like a credibility issue if an entire site is composed of anonymous writing, and then the site as a whole wants to be credible when all of its particulars are written by unknown sources.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Anonymous users are not credible. That's why we're expected to cite sources. Also, Rationalwiki does not intend to be a dispassionate and unbiased source. If something is fucking stupid, we'll call it fucking stupid. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
what a friendly welcome. With that, I'm out. — Unsigned, by: / talk
You could say the same for wikipedia. Also giving out names is the first thing you learn not to do on the internet. Commie Lib (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
You're right, I hate pseudo-intellectuals who don't use their real name. Never accomplish anything that way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
See also the many suspicious monikers in Category:YouTube. --Annanoon (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, youtube is an even more base and depraved form of communication than being a fucking wiki editor. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Formatting Help[edit]

I am trying to format Template:User Texan2 to make the words fit into an area the same size as the flag just like on any other userbox. Can anyone help me with this? Summa Atheologica (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Denied changes made to page:[edit]


I made an addition to the page mentioned above, under the section "Gender of Allah." I simply wanted reason for it's refusal by User: Matty the Damned.

The original text read, "Unlike the Christians and Jews who generally refer to God as male, Allah is neither male nor female. In fact, it is a specific blasphemy to call Allah 'male' or 'female.' Allah is at one time both and neither. Because of the nature of Arabic, when a pronoun for Allah is used, it must be the male pronoun, huwa, but this is based on the gender of the word, and not the fact that it is a 'male' thing.[note 1]"

My edited text corrected a falsity, as Learned Christians and Jews both know that God transcends sex and would also call it blasphemy to attribute to him a proper sex. It read:

"Unlike the Christians and Jews who might refer to God as male, conflating gender in language with sex or the Incarnation with the transcendent divine, (though not all Christians or Jews do this - CCC 239 specifically reads, "[...] The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible [...] We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. [...]"), Allah is neither male nor female. In fact, it is a specific blasphemy to call Allah "male" or "female." Allah is at one time both and neither. Because of the nature of Arabic, when a pronoun for Allah is used, it must be the male pronoun, huwa, but this is based on the gender of the word, and not the fact that it is a "male" thing.[note 1]"

I would appreciate that all peoples be treated fairly and that faith groups not be ascribed doctrine or belief without proper citation, something above given.

For citation, here is an online english translation of the section of the Cathechism within which this Christian doctrine is clearly defined:

I would appreciate your help — Unsigned, by: Theokid12 / talk / contribs

You put this in the wrong place: either on the talk page of the page in question (Allah?) or the talk page of the user who you're mentioning (Matt the Damned?). Oh and sign your posts please. Scream!! (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Why can't I edit WIGO (What's going on in the world)?[edit]

I would like to make new entries in WIGO, but the "View Source" page tells me that I don't have permission to edit this page.

I have a RationalWiki account, so why can't I edit this page? — Unsigned, by: Louis1643 / talk / contribs

Due to excessive vandalism in the past and the secondary issues that causes, WIGOs are restricted to users who have been around for a little and made enough edits to show that they're genuine. I believe the talk pages don't have that restriction if you have a suggestion. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

RINO Page is Broken[edit]

A user is submitting an edit claiming that Ted Cruz is a RINO. The whole claim is based on a fallacy. This user claims that Ted Cruz is a RINO because Bob Dole CLAIMS he is a RINO. How can this Wiki posit to be "Rational" when entire pages are dedicated to ad hominem attacks? In fact, when approached in a logical way, the entirety of the RINO page is dubious. We need better standards if we are going to hold claims to be credible.— Unsigned, by: TedCruzIsNotA RINO / talk / contribs

Calm down. The section that was added to is titled "Republicans accused of being RINOs". Nobody here is saying the claim isn't ridiculous or that Ted Cruz is anything but a wingnut, but the accusations nonetheless seem to be out there. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed a trend of single issue users posting comments pleading for more "rationality" and attempting to appeal to the ingroup with statements like "We need better standards if we are going to hold claims to be credible." in the same breath, all while appearing completely tone deaf? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Tone it down a little[edit]

Stop swearing and using made-up pejoratives; it's unprofessional. You wouldn't hear swearing in a formal debate, would you? Also, it would be good to edit out any artifacts of spoken English; these include using "like" when you're not supposed to, among other things. — Unsigned, by: 2601:183:CB80:A800:1590:47EB:5382:5002 / talk

It might help if you actually read the links in this article to begin with. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"Stop swearing and using made-up pejoratives; it's unprofessional." Yeah no. If someone says something that is blatantly false, I'm calling the claim bullshit and the person making it an idiot. Don't like it? Tough shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Where is the relocate button?[edit]

I need to change the title of a page. The Help page says click on the relocate button. Where is this button? It's possible that I can't see it because I'm missing privileges, in which case, what do I do? Thanks. — Unsigned, by: Aporadox / talk / contribs

@Aporadox On the top bar, between the search box and the little star, there should be a "More" tab. Hover over it, and "Relocate" should be one of the options. You probably couldn't see it earlier since you weren't a sysop (which Oxy just gave you).
Also, just as an aside, we ask folks to end their posts with four tildes on talk pages (e.g. "Text text text blah blah blah ~~~~"). This is called "Signing," and it basically sticks your name and a timestamp to the end of whatever you're writing, so we can keep track of who says what :)
Thanks! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Duly noted, thank you. Aporadox (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


On this Rational Wiki page: Someone said: "Lysander Spooner: 19th-century anarchist and one of Rothbard's heroes. Spooner (fascinating name) was the original libertarian advocate for pedophilia in Vices are Not Crimes, saying it is okay to lure kids with rewards to have sex" That is not what it says. What it actually says is this: ""To have carnal knowledge of a woman, against her will, is the highest crime, next to murder, that can be committed against her. But to have carnal knowledge of her, with her consent, is no crime; but at most, a vice. And it is usually holden that a female child, of no more than ten years of age, has such reasonable discretion, that her consent, even though procured by rewards, or promises of reward, is sufficient to convert the act, which would otherwise be a high crime, into a simple act of vice." As someone who has taught developmental psychology, I disagree with this ridiculous conclusion. But it certainly is not the same as the lurid "saying it is okay to lure kids with rewards to have sex" I consider the whole comment I noted above as being made by someone who had it in for the Mises Institute and wanted to smear them as much as possible. I think the Mises Institute is a bunch of creeps too but poor Spooner deserves better.

The Spooner quote is from The Collected Works of Lysander Spooner, 2nd Edition, Volume 5.

NEW information: "Ages of consent in the United States - Wikipedia › wiki › Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States While the general age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7."

I am a psychologist who has taught developmental psychology and think this was wrong then as it is now but it does put Spooner's comment in a different light. — Unsigned, by: Sharon P / talk / contribs My suggestion is to delete the whole reference to Spooner

@Sharon P, you've put this comment on the wrong page. You should put it on the talk page for the Ludwig von Mises Institute page itself: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute. Bongolian (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with video.[edit]

I uploaded a video to Wikimedia Commons and called it from my Wikipedia sandbox. It plays OK. But if I call it from RationalWiki, I only get audio playback. To see the problem, go to and look at the first section. Barry Desborough (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Barry Desborough, The place to ask for help on technical issues is here: RationalWiki:Technical support. Bongolian (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Barry Desborough (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Mobile responsive?[edit]

Rationalwiki appears to load a desktop orientated site while using a mobile phone. In contrast, conservapedia opts for a fully responsive mobile version similar to that of Wikipedia. Is there any planned future implementation of such a feature? It would make Rationalwiki much more mobile friendly where most web traffic stems from today. --Debunky (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's (see "making time") in hand. Scream!! (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Debunky (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi there. I was wondering if someone could tell me how to create an essay. I am fairly new to RationalWiki and I am unfamiliar with editing. Thanks! Eggtime (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Eggtime

In the search box type: "Essay: My title" (without the inverted commas) and carry on from there. Scream!! (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!Eggtime (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Eggtime

API search by domain and site names?[edit]

For a new site,, an index of unreliable sources (mainly for mis/disinfo researchers), I'd like to find all sites in my Index with RationalWiki pages. Is there a API way to generate a list of all RW page URLs? Or to do a API search by domain or site name?

I'm also working on a WikiCred project to do the same with Wikipedia and Wikidata (i.e., find pages there for sites in the Iffy Index). FYI, this query returns all Wikidata items with a RationalWiki ID (728 results):

(Hit the blue-arrow button to run the query). The table lists Wikidata, Wikipedia, and RationalWiki URLs. However, not all RW topics/pages with corresponding Wikidata/pedia pages are in these results. Some don't have a value yet for the RationalWiki ID property. If I can find these missing ones, like via an API search, I'll update Wikidata.
Thx, Hearvox (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

From draft to mainspace[edit]

I am currently working on The Grayzone and Xinjiang Re-education Camps. Since I have noticed a lot of propaganda being spread by the Grayzone (especially Xinjiang), I would like to know when and how to convert the article from draft to mainspace. --Noobmaster420 (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I am currently editing the page Draft:MGTOW TV and I was wondering how to get this page into the mainspace.--Eric.the.erich (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

SOLVED - link to own user page[edit]

Just wondering how one would format a link to the reader's own user page. I'm sure I've seen this before. Cheers, Kauri0.o (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I found Special:MyPage. How do I format it so the text also displays the reader's own username?
Do this: Visit your own page. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Mm partial solution Kauri0.o (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Figured it out: This visitor,orwhateveryouwanttocallarandom Kauri0.o (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My first page. Any advice?[edit]

Hello Everyone

So I've been on this wiki for a while and have often pondered adding a page or two. I finally mustered up the patience to come up with a draft so I'd just like to ask for some input. I know the formatting is far from done so please don't kill me (yet), neither is my phrasing in English perfect. Please feel free to correct or rephrase any of the stuff written.

Content-wise I tried to keep it somewhat short for now. I might add things as time goes on. What do you think so far? Any sections I should merge or delete? Anything I should definitely expand? Anything that goes against Rationalwiki standards?

Cheers ;)

NastyNugget 13:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

— Unsigned, by: Kenje / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I’d add in some links to other articles where relevant, see WP:Help:cheatsheet for a rundown on how. I’d also remove all the spaces around references, it just looks a bit better. It could do with a bit of reformatting, but I think it’s good enough to become a proper article. Christopher (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. I think the article is good to go. As mentioned before, I think I will occasionally update the article if news come up. Now how do I "publish" the article? I could not find information about it on the "Help" page. Would you be so kind to redirect me?

Cheers --NastyNugget 08:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: Kenje / talk / contribs

Probably because most of the Help pages were written before the Draft space existed 😎. Above the article click "More" and then "Relocate" and select "(Main)", add a reason and -- done! Simples. Scream!! (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your response though the "More" button seems to be missing on the draft page. --NastyNugget 06:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: Kenje / talk / contribs
At the top next to the search space. Scream!! (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not there. I only have "Read", "Edit", "Fossil record", "Add to watchlist" (the Star) and then the search bar. --NastyNugget 13:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Kenje / talk / contribs
I'll move it as soon as you learn to sign your comments by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. Scream!! (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
You'll never force me to sign! NastyNugget (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
It hath been moved. See here. Could do withj a redirect from "Bjorn Hocke" though. Scream!! (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Sir 😊👍 NastyNugget (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Tomatis Method[edit]

I'm new here and I can't quite figure on where to put this, so I thought I'd put it here and see what it leads to. If I've got this on the wrong page/forum then I apologise and if I need to retype this in another area, please let me know.

There's a pseudoscientific method that has been active for some decades now, and it has managed to fool many people, including seasoned psychologists, into handing over large sums of money for training and equipment. It's catchcry is "Educating the brain to empower communication, learning and emotional calmness" and it also claims that "The Tomatis® Method re-patterns the connection between the ear, the brain, the body, and even the heart at the emotional level. In this way, people of all ages continue to improve their lives, especially their auditory and sensory processing, emotional balance and their overall quality of life"

They make claims about being able heal all sorts of brain related ailments, including autism, all with their expensive headphones and electronically modified music as well as other sounds and voices. A friend of mine who had concerns about her child being on the spectrum was sucked into this scheme, and it cost their family a lot in time, effort, and particularly money.

I have no doubt there'd be much better abled people than myself to write the appropriate words so this insidious scheme can be exposed on this website, hopefully alerting others to it's ludicrous claims. I'm happy to contribute whatever I can if someone could help me by starting the process. — Unsigned, by: Sporran66 / talk / contribs

So, apparently, I was banned by Summa Atheologica and Kevlarstar. I'm not sure if this will post? Any way let's see if this work....[edit]

So, these guys had issues with what I wrote, and they banned me rather than following the guidelines set down on the site, "Malicious editing occurs when somebody wants to harm RationalWiki. Because it does not contribute to constructive dialogue, and merely causes disorder, malicious editing is a blockable offense." This was not the case as I provide constructive dialogue to the page.

08:01, 28 February 2021 Kevlarstar (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Mytechtoday (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Suspected sock. Prove us wrong)

21:35, 25 February 2021 Summa Atheologica (talk | contribs) blocked Mytechtoday (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Shilling, likely ban evasion.)

So, Kevlarstar, here I am proving you wrong.

And Summa Atheologica, here I am providing facts and science, which apparently you disagree with, and rather than engaging in constructive dialog, you banned me. You think I'm a shill, meaning you think I am being paid to visit this site? Is that what you think? That's loco. No, I searched google for a topic, found rationalwiki's page, saw that it was filled with inaccuracies, and attempted to correct them in a constructive manner with proper citations to the supporting scientific papers that supported what I wrote. I have no interest in rationalwiki's greater mission or any of the nonsense that goes on between the contributors here. Rationalwiki is supposed to be an information resource that uses reason and science to dispel mumbo-jumbo, right? How can the site succeed if your censoring scientific information? Do you want to just live smugly with your preconceived notions of the world, good luck with that? — Unsigned, by: Mytechtoday / talk / contribs

I'm guessing you're bored since I locked the thread you love to edit so much? Plutocow (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing Help[edit]

How do I edit pages without completing reCAPTCHA? Mpadilla0139 (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mpadilla0139 After 1 day, if you’ve made at least 10 edits, you’ll be given the “autoconfirmed” user right which makes all CAPTCHAs go away. Christopher (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

What is this website's ideology?[edit]

Given that it takes such strong stances against certain ideologies, I'm assuming it must have one of its own. But given that it's been cited by the Guardian, the Telegraph, Gawker and The Blaze, not exactly ideologically aligned publications, I'd be interested to know what ideology this website espouses. Thanks. (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Reading RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? and RationalWiki:Newcomers should answer your questions. But if you have anything more specific then go here. And welcome :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


How can I translate the wiki for Portuguese? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

This is satire, right?[edit]

The level of misinformation and op-ed inserts is alarming if this is intended to be an actual source of information. Please change the name of the site to "Leftopedia" or be more open about being satirical. Somebody on Reddit actually referenced an article from here hahaha.

Anyway - good stuff. Lots of laughs, guys.— Unsigned, by: / talk 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


Ufo UAP page needs to be updated, including new information and confirmed from the pentagon. — Unsigned, by: 2001:1970:53E3:BC00:1DA2:C89F:EB76:860C / talk

What exactly needs to be updated? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
If you think there is something wrong with with the UFO page - then that talk page on that subject would be the place to talk about it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

These are surely worthy of a RationalWiki entry[edit]

I am surprised there is no RationalWiki entry on:

1. Mark Passio ( 2. Richard D Hall ( 3. Statement Analysis - appears to validate or at least lend weight to the conspiracy theories of #2 ( — Unsigned, by: SupernaturalPolitics / talk / contribs