RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Archive 2023

December 2023

Incel | Result: No consensus

Incel (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Promote to “Significantly problematic”

1. Still not fully de-Neiltyfied; I suggest a full reset to before his very first edit to it, then work from there. Kill it (COI) with fire! --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 08:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Goat

1. I'm already having flashbacks to the Child pornography AfD. (Though I also lack the context of what this Neilty did.) Luigifan18 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Me especially, I also feel a tad bit guilty about that article’s situation because of how I overreacted to that one “chaotic good” single-purpose (but still good-faith) editor who tried to (though very uncivilly) tell me- but I not only wouldn’t listen, but even said a few ignorant and outrageous things about the difficult topic that were very shit things to say. That editor was chaotic good, but I was stubbornly lawful good. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 17:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   I read the talk page, but I didn't really get the context? There's semantic arguments over what constitutes an "incel" and a bunch of flaming. I'm also curious as to the context of why this article is a shitshow. Carthage (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Carthage This section. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 18:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks. Carthage (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Luigifan18 Basically, Neiltyson1fan was an incel moron who was obsessed with hijacking particular articles (like another long-term troll banned from here who has now used this method to completely take over the decrepit remains of RW’s childhood nemesis) he believed were solely his to edit and then carpet-bombing them with so much editorializing and edit-spam that it’s now notoriously hard to scour said articles of his long-term, well-disguised vandalism without voting on drastic changes like resetting to more than 500 edits ago, before he joined our site to whitewash for his little incel hugbox or obsessively fill a particular economics article with his very enlightened economic views. How he ever got sysop rights is a mystery, I figured we ought to know that benefit of the doubt is usually wasted on self-admitted incels with COIs. Eventually, he ended up getting banned for trying to dox one GrammarCommie (a now-LANCB’d old editor he had a grudge against) and (like the incel he is) creepily simping Techpriest off-site, and then tried evading the ban using BoNs, again continuing to foul up his two favorite articles with the exact same MO (30 edits per paragraph); it got so bad we had to perma-prot them so you have to be an autoconfirmed user to edit them. The MMT article has been deshittified, but this article has not yet been such properly (someone tried to earlier, but didn’t go far back enough). --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 23:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

DAESH | Result: Bronze

DAESH (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Promotion to no brainstar

1. This article is out of date. DAESH is still a major player in regions like the Sinai, West Africa, Central Africa, Mozambique, Afghanistan, and the Phillipines. They were never defeated, and measuring the strength of an insurgent operation by much how land they control is stupid. Carthage (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Let it re-earn its bronze brain after we update it --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 23:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Demote to bronze

1. Promote it to bronze and put {{update}} at the top. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Siding with Cosmik here. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Chillpilled (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Elon Musk | Result: Demoted to Mars-base colonist

Elon Musk (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Silver

1. This article is illustrated, exhaustive, and the citations are both numerous and properly formatted. Musk's relevance to the mission is also blindingly obvious given his status as a supreme enabler of far-right politics, purveyor of bullshit, and con artist and labor rights violator extraordinare. Carthage (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
2. The write-fest continues to surprise us with all these improvements. I would help y’all out in the writing but I’ve got finals to study for. --Goatspeed. _{How's my editing}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 18:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
4. I've cleaned up references. I now support demotion. Bongolian (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Ioe bidome (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Looks good to me. Might do some tinkering later. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 21:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Goat

• A few of the citations could use some better formatting, but otherwise it looks good. Bongolian (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• I dunno. I think it certainly leaves something to be desired even though it does have a lot of good. The article isn't "messy" per se, but there's something about it that makes it almost feel like it is — one thing is perhaps that fact that the Twitter section might be too verbose (that is, it could be better summarized, given more brevity without too much loss of content — similar incidents might be clumped together into the same paragraph or sentence). I wouldn't find a demote to silver to be controversial, but I'm not sure about voting for it myself. Chillpilled (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Glenn Beck | Result: Silver

Glenn Beck (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. Promote Demote to Silver. I did a major cleanup of the page, and added the art section. Bongolian (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   You mean demote? CorruptUser 21:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Oops, yes. Bongolian (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2. I took a look at the edits. It's fine work. Carthage (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
3. I’m impressed to see how quickly it’s being improved, and how productive this site has been in general since the last time I was here, now that we’re less divided and this new AfDem system I helped implement has added fresh incentive to write things by making it easier for article status to be changed. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 23:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Youre welcome! I wish I had made it somewhat more intuitive, but FCP wasn't here to help. I cannibalized code from another thing we have here, but it works. -Cory 68.237.99.209 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Also, Demote this jerk. CorruptUser 19:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Theodore Beale | Result: Silver

Theodore Beale (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. Promote to Silver. Seems detailed and well-sourced. Only one image of Beale in Creative Commons. Bongolian (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Carthage (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Jack Idema | Result: Silver

Jack Idema (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Silver

1. I believe this article adequately covers Idema, and its references are well-formatted and there are no claims not supported by the citations provided. The article could do with more illustration, but I'm not certain this article needs extra illustration beyond what is already provided. As for relevancy, Idema was a classic case of grifting militia movement assholes and taking advantage of the less-than-legal aspects of the War on Terror. Carthage (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I've begun adding extra illustrations. Carthage (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   Right, so I've pretty thoroughly expanded the article. I'm planning on adding more to his stay in Mexico and, if I can find anything, more information on his dumbass stunt with gun-running in the Emirates, but I think the article is pretty exhaustive now. Carthage (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

2. -Flandres (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. it's large enough now ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Status quo

This page lacks references please expand the article and cite more links ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It lacks references? That's not what I see. All the content I've added has been well referenced, although admittedly some references are used more than others that's not necessarily a problem. I'll admit the article isn't completely exhaustive, but I've added 4k bytes of information to the article just today. It's not a stub by any means, nor is it particularly short. Carthage (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Goat

• Is anyone actually going to add commentary or vote on this? The number of afdem cases left to slumber in limbo is honestly disappointing. Carthage (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Moms for Liberty | Result: Silver

Moms for Liberty (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Silver

1. This article is expansive, well referenced, and of prime relevance to our mission. Carthage (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

   I added two more pictures. Carthage (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

2. The article goes into plenty of detail about what Moms For Liberty is and why its very existence is an embarrassment to humanity. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Nice work since my comment here, seems my mind’s been changed for me --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 18:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. I think it's good enough for silver. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Goat

1. It needs another photo or two, I trust this wouldn't be too hard to implement (try Wikimedia Commons, maybe there's some protests or something). I only reviewed it structurally, haven't read it. So can't vote in earnest as of now. Chillpilled (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

#Same as Chillpilled, will abstain until more pics are added --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 18:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT | Result: Silver

ChatGPT (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Silver

1. Is well-cited, exhaustive, and its of extreme relevancy to the site's mssion given both the sheer impact, both potential and actual, this technology has on society and the flood of bullshit flooding the discourse surrounding this technology. Carthage (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I felt a little torn at first, because (having tried to make it thoroughly correct) I fear it could still be a bit sloppy or sketchy in places. But I've read some lousy journalism that makes it look really good by comparison, and agree it's important. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Ioe bidome (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Vladimir Putin | Result: Silver

Vladimir Putin (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to Silver

1. This article cover how authoritarian Putin is and greatly covers the ukrainian war Aethieizt (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
2. ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Goat

1. Adequate coverage is not the only qualifier necessary for silver. There's quality issues involved too. How are the references formatted? Is it properly illustrated? Is it up to date? What is the relevancy to the site mission? Carthage (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

it falls under mission 3 and 4 of the rationalwiki statement

3-Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;

4-Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Aethieizt (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence | Result: Silver

Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Silver

1. Thorough and well-cited. More images might be helpful. Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Carthage (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Jackson Hinkle | Result: Demoted to Politburo

Jackson Hinkle (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. Article is well-referenced, illustrated, and comprehensive. I propose silver. Chillpilled (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. It's also relevant to our site's mission befitting Hinkle's status as an authoritarian pundit and wannabe Aleksander Dugin. Carthage (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

   I'd argue the Lysenkoism too, but it's a bit of a minor side-point as he scarcely brings it up. Still, I'd like to make a brief section on it later. I could make an argument that Hinkle is missional based on literally any of the site mission's four planks. Chillpilled (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

3. Good work! Bongolian (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Nudity: November 2023 | Result: no change (4 to 3)

Nudity (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Silver

1. It's well referenced, illustrated, adequately covers the subject matter, and is of relevant missionality. Carthage (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Agree with Carthage ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Some of the shit I worked on get bronzed, and they don't nearly go into as much detail. This looks relatively well-sourced. If there was a brainstar we could put between bronze and silver I would do that. It's close enough I wouldn't care either way. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Status quo

1. My work on this article is about at its midpoint, with much to be said and clarified. I would rather have helpful (including critical) comments on the talk page than another "demotion" at this time. - WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
2. As per WriterArtistDC. Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

   The quality is quite good. I added a lot of internal links and removed two dubious paragraphs. Bongolian (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Aside from the problems others mentioned, the author doesn't even want it demoted, so there is really no point. Plutocow (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Goat

• Needs some reassurance that people who do associate nudity with sex (like me) and do get a sexual thrill from seeing people in the nude (like me) are not fucking weirdos who've got it all wrong, unlike the enlightened fucking naturists. Spud (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• I concur with Spud. I find the Jungian argument on locker room unconvincing. I've witnessed heterosexual bullying in nude male locker rooms because of appearance, so the argument that the practice of nude male locker rooms has ended because of gay liberation seems weak at best. The traditionally gender-segregated nude baths of Korea would seem to raise some doubt about nudity shame being restricted to Abrahamic religions. The naked Hindu ascetics (sādhus) would seem to be restricted to males, though there are female Hindu ascetics (sādhvīs), I've never heard of a naked sādhvī. Bongolian (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Based on @WriterArtistDC's recent activity, it would seem that WriterArtistDC may have LANCBed (blanking the WriterArtistDC home page and archiving the talk page).[1] I think the nudity page could be improved using some of Wikipedia as a starting point, specifically Naturism § Controversy, which addresses the issue of sex vs. nudity. Bongolian (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Alt-right glossary | Result: Gold

Alt-right glossary (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. I Cleaned the bare Http links, added sources on sections that were lacking. What else should i do? Reichtangle (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

   Some new sections were added by a BON. They could do with citations. I'd do it, but I'm gonna be busy today. Carthage (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

   added the links ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

2. Aethieizt (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Charles Murray | Result: Silver

Charles Murray (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. Well-researched and referenced. Bongolian (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

   What exactly is the proposal here? Carthage (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

   Presumably silver Ioe bidome (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, silver. Bongolian (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

2. I'll throw my lot in here then. It's not only well researched and referenced, but also well illustrated and relatively free of grammatical and stylistic errors. The subject of the article is also a race pseudoscientist who played a huge part in the revitalization of race "science" so its relevancy to the mission should be indisputable. Carthage (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok | Result: Silver

Libs of TikTok (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Silver

1. Libs of TikTok is relevant to a our mission. She is a major spreader of Anti-LGBT misinformation on the internet and was one of people who made groomer into an Anti-LGBT slur Aethieizt (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
2. It seems to be well researched, well illustrated, and the references are properly formatted (no bare links). Carthage (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
3. As a reminder, just because an article is missional, that doesn't qualify it for bronze or silver or anything. That being said, I think this article is well written, well sourced, and properly formatted (I replaced two bare twitter links with archive snapshots). The only think I don't like at all is the youtube video at the end. I think a much better summary can be provided. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

   I personally find Youtube summaries to be obnoxious. I'd support the removal. Carthage (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

   Fixed. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson | Result: Silver

E. O. Wilson (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

Promote to silver

1. Well researched and well cited. Bongolian (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Carthage (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Looks good to me. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Laura Knight-Jadczyk | Result: Silver

Laura Knight-Jadczyk (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. Silver? Or beyond silver, what would be missing for gold? Compared to all else I've found on the web, I think I've already grown it into the skeptical article on said person, works, and surrounding online community (though there's much less skeptical coverage elsewhere of LKJ than, say, David Icke). Given the broad range of stuff this article involves, there's much missionality here, though it's a less notable crank of this sort. I'm not sure if it's best to expand it much more like this, or whether it should be divided into two or more, though. But maybe best to keep it all in one place as it all revolves so much around one person. ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
2. The article could use a little bit of cleanup; otherwise I think it's fine for silver. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Carthage (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
4. ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Added a lot of links and some missing citations for quotes. Should be good for silver now. Bongolian (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Goat

• Cleanup: needs more links to existing RW pages. Otherwise it's close. Bongolian (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  I added a bunch. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Pakistan | Result: Silver

Pakistan (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Promote to silver

1. I have cleaned up most of the references Edward the eight (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
2. — Aethieizt (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Burning the Evidence | Result: Promoted to no brainstar

Conservapedia:Burning the Evidence (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Promote to no brainstar

1. This isn't getting updated anymore, it has very little references, the topic isn't particularly relevant anymore, and the page is quite messy besides. This doesn't need a bronze brainstar, let alone a silver one. Plutocow (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Carthage (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
3. I think we should consider deleting these articles. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

   It's better to keep the Conservapedia articles for historical reasons. They've already got the Cpmothball template. Bongolian (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

4. Drop it to no brainstar but keep for historical purposes. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Second Cosmik. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Flat Earth | Result: Gold

Flat Earth (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. Well-cited, well-written, funny and comprehensive. Truly the cream of the crop if you ask me, and that's why it should be a cover story. Moon Sock (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Spud (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
3. given the massiveness of the flat earth world and controversy, i'm surprised it isn't. demote! Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 16:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Bongolian (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Worthy of Gold CorruptUser 05:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Looks good. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Goat

1. Does this have a cover story prepared? Carthage (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, Template:Cover_abstract/Flat_Earth. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

   Can we demote this now? ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Libertarian paradise | Result: Silver

Libertarian paradise (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. I have merged the page with Seasteading, completely reviewed it, cleaned it up, and given it better background information (via Craib's book Adventure Capitalism. Bongolian (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Carthage (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
3. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
4. BobJohnson (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Laughing at libertarians is such fun sport.-Flandres (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Id like to see a top image, but the rest looks fine. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Goat

I'm a bit on the fence here. I appreciate the work Bongolian put here, but is the topic that relevant to RW's mission? Indeed, Libertarian paradises are cranky ideas, but I'm not sure if they are relevant enough for silver (and possibly gold in the future). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Our mission covers both authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and contrary to what right-libertarians posit right-libertarianism lends itself to a kind of feudalism, which is absolutely authoritarian. If only the most wealthy can afford to live in a paradise, with everyone else being subjected to systemic violence to maintain an even nastier form of capitalism than what exists in the already pretty laissez-faire United States, how is that not authoritarian? People already need three jobs to pay rent nowadays, and if they lose even one of those jobs they got violently thrown out onto the streets. Now, imagine that but without any social infrastructure. Bongolian, for instance, posited that one potential downfall of Tuvalu moving to Meta is libertarians getting control of the now virtual country and evicting anyone too poor to pay citizenship fees. The market can easily lend itself to authority, as it's democracy-neutral. Carthage (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Right-libertarianism (as any form of stateless society) lends itself to feudalism.[2] Which I agree. But it's not on the article. The rest of your rant is irrelevant, since the US is not a libertarian paradise, not even according to the article. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't. I was comparing the US, which is dominated in large part by laissez-faire polito-economics, to a hypothetical ancapistan. It serves a rhetorical point. Libertarian utopias would be even worse than the American socioeconomic situation, which already fucking sucks. Carthage (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

...Something that, again, is not on our article. Also, I don't want to derail this topic, but the US is far from being dominated by laissez-faire politico-economics, don't use terms that you don't understand. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I said "in large part". The US' welfare state is a lot weaker compared to, say, the Nordic Model or even the UK. Regulations are pretty weak and receive weak enforcement too in a lot of cases, and there is a strong laissez-faire tradition here in the states. Please explain how I don't understand these concepts then. You're quotemining me and ignoring the rest. Would you prefer I say "neoliberal"? The US is as close to laissez-faire as you can get and still have a regulatory welfare state. Carthage (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Because that's not remotely what laissez-faire is. A Laissez-faire economic system is one with unrestrained capitalism. The US in the XIXth century was a good example, but the post-New Deal, post Great Society (two overall good, important programs, if you want my opinion) is not. Saying that the US is close to it just because other countries have a larger social security is silly to say the least, almost like saying that Sweden is socialist because the government does stuff there. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, you don't know what quotemining is either, but yeah, "neoliberal" is good enough. Not that it addresses the points I've made. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you stop insulting my competence for once? It was either "cherry-pick" or "quote-mine" (and you are paraphrasing me whenever you respond), and given how you're ignoring large sections of my argument including my mentioning of Bongolian's Tuvaluan scenario, both arguably fit. Also, either way large sectors of the US economy run without meaningful regulation. Take rent for example. The rent crisis is unsustainable, and as of now there is no meaningful government intervention into the problem. Carthage (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) Can you please stay on topic for once? If you don't want your competence to be checked, then start showing it. Your only argument that is relevant for this subject is about Vanuatu. And I'm not convinced that a single case on this huge article is enough for it to be missional. The word "authoritarian" appears only three times on this article, in none of them it is suggested that libertarian paradise is inherently authoritarian. Which is, if you want my opinion, but is not clear enough yet why. Right now, the pseudoeconomics (surprise, social sciences are sciences) of libertarian paradises are more prominent than authoritarianism, if you want to see missionality here. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

1) You were the one who cherrypicked my usage of the US as a rhetorical tool in the first place. Neoliberalism has been compared to laissez faire in the literature before, even if you continue to insist otherwise and ignore all arguments to the contrary. (Like my argument about the rent crisis and the complete or near-complete lack of intervention that could mitigate it.)

2) You can have degrees of anything. Just because the US isn't purely laissez-faire is not an argument that it's deregulationist tendencies are in spirit laissez-faire (that is, reducing or eliminating government intervention in the economy).

3) You continue to ignore the Tuvalu argument. (That is, Tuvalu moving to Meta. As Bongolian pointed out on the Saloon Bar libertarians could take over and evict any people too poor to afford citizenship fees. You know, systemic violence. You know: an unjust application of authority. You know what that's called? Authoritarianism.

4) Systemic violence would be needed to enforce a libertarian utopia. (Take the fact that libertarian utopias would lend itself to feudalism. Any rebellion against that would be met with overwhelming force. Ie, an unjust application of authority to keep the serfs in their place.) How is that not authoritarian?

5) The article covers scams, so even if you're not convinced of the authoritarian angle scams are still missional.

6) You have not demonstrated that my competence is in doubt, at least not fairly. What you've been doing is poisoning the well. It grows tiresome.

7) You responded to my argument, and therefore paraphrased segments of it in responding. The fact that you cherrypicked one specific part of my argument can be arguably called quote-mining as a result. Carthage (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC)1 It is an stupid argument (as it is, indeed using Hayek and Friedman as the main authors of neoliberalism in 2023. Just read what they used to say and compare with any modern "neoliberal" textbook, they were radicals). Anyway, this is offtopic.

2 Yes. And the US is not remotely close to laissez-faire. And this is also offtopic.

3 No, this is a blantant lie. [3]

4 And you don't want me to question your competence. I already said that it is two or three times. What I said is that is not as prominent on the article as it should be.

5 Scams are missional, but not crucial to our mission, just read them. And I said that pseudoeconomics are missional.

6 and 7 Offtopic. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Libertarian paradise is a crank idea; that's why it fits the mission. There are parallels with "libertarian paradise" and other topics covered in RW like survivalism. For survivalism, there is no argument that being prepared for emergencies is a good thing, however the fringes of the survivalism movement are obsessed with nutty, anti-society ideas that range from the impractical to the batshit insane. Often these fringes have absolutely no idea on how humanity works in the wake of a disaster. Likewise, while there are certainly cases where reducing government bureaucracy is a good thing, libertarian paradise advocates often have extremely cranky ideas about both government and how the human communities work, which is why libertarian paradises have tended to fail spectacularly when put into practice. While not the same topic, Bitcoin/crypto is another topic attractive to libertarians that is mostly mission oriented due to the huge amount of crankery and scams surrounding it. BobJohnson (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a better argument. But out bitcoin argument explains the pseudoscientific ideas behind it, while I'm not sure this one does. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Bitcoin is a separate concept, though related, to Libertarian paradises. This articles does a pretty good job of explaining the crankiness behind it. It also goes to cover the colonial history of such ideas, including their roots in 19th century adventurism in Central America. Carthage (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more pseudo-legal / anti-legal than pseudo-scientific myself. Generally speaking, my impression is that libertarian paradise idealists have very little concept of how "the law" works or even why laws exist, and promote a fantastical world that has no (or extremely little) government, bureaucracy, law, or taxes due to various personal reasons. When attempting to implement this in the "real world", it's no wonder the lot runs into problems (including outright scams). Extend the libertarian paradise attitude only a little further, after all, and you end up with nonsense like sovereign citizen and freeman on the land.

Unfortunately, I was not able to find (at least by the Google) of too many resources looking more in depth at the philosophical problems of what other places probably would call a "libertarian commune" (libertarian paradise is the pejorative term for these sorts of community attempts). A lot of articles tend to focus on the implementation disaster of various attempts. I guess the problem is kind of like the "sovereign citizen" / "freemen on the land" angle; you can't just make laws and taxes and whatnot (and the societies that build them) disappear by magically waving your "wand" and making them go away, and its hard to even attempt to take something very seriously which is so out of whack, and contrary to human society for centuries or even millennia. Humans have always been social species that have thrived in part by cooperating in groups, something that the extreme "going Galt" crowd seems to hardly understand. But yes, I don't think it's a problem if an expansion is made on the crankery, should we find some good source material that goes into it. BobJohnson (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a good interview on the subject. One area we could potentially expand upon is the impact libertarian adventurism has on local communities in the areas the libertarians are trying to colonize. The article notes that "just the mere prospect of exiter schemes created enormous political and social stress as communities worried about land loss and new forms of colonization." Carthage (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was arguing. Extreme deregulation lends itself to absolute disaster. I was using the US as a rhetorical tool to showcase that the US is the furthest conceivably you can go with having a deregulationist society and still be somewhat functional. Libertarian utopias would be an absolute disaster as a result. I love how GJK comes bulldozing in, throwing shade at me, and then when met with objections calls them irrelevant despite being the one to throw shade in the first place. Whatever. Are we done here? Carthage (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not what you were arguing for, but whatever (and even if it was the case that would be wrong, as societies that were far more deregulated than the US today prospered, even though it's not a desirable model for 2023). I'll probably add a section on how a libertarian paradise cannot provide public goods in the future. Then I might change my mind. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Which segments of society in those societies prospered? Also, it is what I was arguing for, despite your insistence to the otherwise. "People already need three jobs to pay rent nowadays, and if they lose even one of those jobs they got violently thrown out onto the streets. Now, imagine that but without any social infrastructure." Social infrastructure = welfare programs in this context. Please tell me how that's not what I was arguing when it was literally what I was arguing. The argument being that libertarians would prefer no protections for tenants at all, nor for social programs to provide, say, low-income housing. All of which falls under "social infrastructure". So, yes, I was arguing the same exact thing as Bob. This is ignoring the systemic violence angle BTW. So I would appreciate it if you toned down the passive-aggressiveness just a little bit. It's excessive and uncalled for. Carthage (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This has gotten way off topic for the most part. I think the idea that it is not missional enough seems like a bogus argument. Not once since 2012 has the issue of missionality been raised on the talk pages (Talk:Seasteading or Talk:Libertarian paradise). It's clearly missional based on the commonly-used category Category:Libertarianism), it's neo-colonial aspects, and its obvious nuttiness if for no other reason because of endless failures of permutations of the idea. Bongolian (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bongolian I mean, it's missional for main space, I'd never AfD it, but is it missional for silver and gold? as per RationalWiki:Article rating, only articles that are highly relevant should be demoted. That was my question. Also, I'd like to see a better exploration of the pseudoscientific aspects of a libertarian paradise (like their difficulties to provide public goods and deal with externalities). Sure, you can argue that I should write about them myself, but I'm already doing it on the anarchocapitalism page [4] and I'm not sure how to do it without making articles redundant. Do you have any ideas at how we can analyze the theoretical problems of libertarian paradises? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't actually recall that ever being raised as an issue for demotions before. There are some such silver/gold articles essentially grandfathered-in that seem kind of quaint at this point now that there are only essentially two geezers left holding up the fort at CP. Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Both Conservapedia:Burning the evidence and Blazing Saddles would be promoted if GJK got his way. Libertarianism is also a silver-level article, which is of direct relevance to this AfD. Carthage (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Uh, no? I'd support deleting the Conservapedia:Burning the evidence article (or any article on the CP space that we still have), but the Blazing Saddles covers racism a lot, which is missional. Also, let's keep in mind that until not so long ago, demoting an article was far less easy than it is today. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

And Libertarian utopia deals with crank pseudoeconomics, far-right politics, and the harmful effects of neocolonialism and unfettered market worship. All of which are easily missional enough for silver, if racism is enough for Blazing Saddles. The only objection you have is a poor and ultimately arbitrary one. Carthage (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll pretend you forgot our conversation from not so long ago when I said that the article doesn't cover enough of pseudoeconomics (the words "externalities" and "public goods" are not mentioned a single time on the article) nor authoritarianism (hence you can only give one example, Vanuatu). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read the article since it mentions the Filibusterers in Central America, who were very authoritarian. The article also covers crypto and the associated pseudoeconomics underlying it. It might not be enough to your arbitrary standards, but we already have a silver-level article on libertarianism (which you keep ignoring). As for the Filibusterers, I already mentioned how the article could go more in-depth on the effects of libertarian adventurism on local communities. Either way, it's still mentioned. The article also covers the coup and follow-up authoritarian government in Honduras. Carthage (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(EC) What does the libertarianism article has to do with anything? Yes, the article talks about crypto, but still doesn't touch other important aspects of pseudoeconomics. In other words, it is incomplete in this regard. If it mentioned public goods and externalities, but not crypto, my vote would remain. So, there are two examples of authoritarianism in the article (one of them, according to you, could be more well-developed). I still think it's not enough for a problem this big. The article has many, many examples, but the authoritarianism in most of them is not explored. Also, I don't think you understand how voting on a Afdem works. Of course the my vote is based on subjective standards (which, for me, they don't pass). Sorry if I have higher standards than you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, here we have another example of you poisoning the well. It's tiresome. Please justify my supposed lack of understanding of AfDEM voting. This article is illustrated, is well-formatted, and covers the subject of libertarian utopias in-depth even if it's lacking in a few areas. This is silver, not gold. The exhaustive detail criterion is for gold, not silver. If anything, you don't understand how this works. Also, I'm criticizing your standards. That doesn't mean I don't understand the process. Carthage (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) I already did. You can vote according to your own subjective standards. Anyway this is offtopic (again). Since you're clearly not engaging with my points, I'll stop answering. Go ahead, have the last post, I know it's very important for you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

sigh Carthage (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the concept is dumb enough to be missional. It might be completely discredited, but the idea is funny and interesting to me. Note that I haven’t read the fight above cuz I ain’t got time for that. Just my two cents. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Ron DeSantis | Result: Silver

Ron DeSantis (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. I have read through the whole page, fixed citations, and added content. It looks well-referenced, thorough and has adequate images. Bongolian (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Edward the eight (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Carthage (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
5. Silver will do until it gets gold. A somebody. (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Goat

We going for silver here? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC) 17:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Republican Party | Result: Demoted to silver

Republican Party (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to silver

1. Edward the eight (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
2. They're the closest thing RationalWiki has to an archenemy right now (what with Conservapedia being all but entirely discredited and all). Luigifan18 (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

   The article as is is still shit. Vee^Meow? 03:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

   I fixed most of the links any problems that are left ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

3. Vee^Meow? 17:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Aethieizt (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. The brick wall (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
6. OK, references are cleaned up now. Bongolian (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

   Also no one has cleaned up the references. Bongolian (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

   I am now trying to clean the references ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

   Most of the references are fixed Now ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Status quo

1. Lots of work to be done on this one before I would support demoting it to silver. Many, many bare link references need to be cleaned up. Twitter references and references to sites that are paywalled need to use archive snapshots. And there's no pictures or diagrams or other visual aids. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
2. No way, not yet. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

   Also something should be done about the ugly listicle in the "GOP Members" section. Vee^Meow? 18:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

   I am in favor of vaporizing the entire "An incomplete list of Republicans" section. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Goat

• So I've been adding illustration. Any objections to what I've added? Vee^Meow? 15:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• How is the Article right now? ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

it been more than four months now since I started this I think it's time to demote the article to silver now ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

John Birch Society | Result: Demoted to silver

John Birch Society (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. I'm proposing to change from bronze to silver. I've cleaned up the article and nearly doubled the size, primarily based on the 2023 book by Matthew Dallek, Birchers. Bongolian (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Carthage (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Plutocow (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Demote it. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
5. Edward the eight (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Southern Strategy | Result: Demoted to silver

Southern Strategy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. I've made substantial additions this month: cleaned up all references, added information to a new historical analysis of the Southern Strategy (book chapter by Kevin M. Kruse), added a new section on denialists, and for fun: Dick Cheney snark. Bongolian (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
2. -Flandres (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
4. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Goat

1. Ah, yes, the triumph of bigotry that ruined the Republican Party forever. Luigifan18 (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Not that I exactly wanted to come back here, but there is a consensus to demote and it hasn't been attended to in a few weeks, and it's raining here in NY so I have nothing better to do. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

William Lane Craig | Result: Demote to gold

William Lane Craig (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to gold

1. I have read and edited the whole page. It's well-sourced and thorough. It's also substantially better than the WP page on him. Bongolian (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
2. I'll go ahead and back Bongo on this one. Looks good, and I trust his judgement. I also added some images. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Vee^Meow? 19:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Yum. SolPyre (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Definitely worthy of gold. Spud (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
7. I haven't vetted the sources, but I can say it's pretty well written. I have barely any training/education in philosophy or apologetics, but I was still able to grasp why his arguments are logically unsound (putting the "Rational" in "RationalWiki", no?). DietMondrian (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Jack Chick | Result: Demoted to gold

Jack Chick (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to Gold

1. GoodEye (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   There are still bare 'http' links that need to be fixed. There is no cover abstract. Bongolian (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   The cover abstract and http issues are fixed, but reading through it, there are still citation and link issues. Bongolian (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

2. 123goaway (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
3. The brick wall (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Aethieizt (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
5. I did a major cleanup, so I'll support it now. Bongolian (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
6. Vee^Meow? 04:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
7. Since Bongolian overhauled this article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
8. Has my support. Spud (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Status quo

1. As per what @Bongolian said. Vee (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

   Bongolian (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Ignaz Trebitsch Lincoln | Result: Successful demotion

Ignaz Trebitsch Lincoln (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Proposal

1. I'm biased since I did most of the writing for this page, but it's far better than the corresponding Wikipedia page. Bongolian (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   Proposal for what exactly? Vee (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   This is a transclusion for the RationalWiki:Articles for demotion page. Bongolian (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   I mean, what specific brainstar in question do you think the article should be demoted to? Vee (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   Silver. Bongolian (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

2. Support demoting to silver. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
3. I'll throw my two cents in then. Vee (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Switched vote. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
5. Looks good. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Status quo

1. Still no improvement to the intro. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

   @DuceMoosolini, I've put in some more work on the intro. Bongolian (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Much better now. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Goat

1. The article needs a better intro. The top of the article is barely two paragraphs long, and reading the intro leaves me with no idea as to who this person was. The body of the article is good, but the intro does it no justice. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Anyone have a problem with closing this AfDEM? Vee^Meow? 19:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Consensus is to demote. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank fuck someone decided to close it. Vee^Meow? 01:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

HPV vaccine | Result: Demoted to silver

HPV vaccine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Silver

1. This article is properly cited, properly illustrated, and is a relevant and concise article on the subject. It does well to refute the many myths surrounding the HPV vaccine. Vee (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Seconding Vee's opinion. I think that the rise in anti-vaccination propaganda warrants a continued emphasis on why vaccines work, indicating this article's relevance. It is well-sourced and seems to cover and debunk the basic arguments against HPV vaccination. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
3. Ready for silver. I would collapse all the youtube embeds, though, but this is a personal preference. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Bongolian (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Goat

• Is the subject even relevant at this point? Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 16:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Considering a large chunk of the population hasn't taken their HPV vaccine, and people still suffer from it... I'd say yeah, it's still relevant. As any health issue is. Certainly much more relevant than anything related to young earth creationism. Vee (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Men's rights movement | Result: Status quo

Men's rights movement (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Promote to bronze

1. Hyrogen oxide (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Status quo

1. Can you please elaborate why this should be promoted to bronze? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Vee (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Demote to Gold

good article certainly missional Aethieizt (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Article has two uses of Template:Fact, an automatic disqualifier for gold. Plutocow (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

   Also, 114 references seems like a lot, but when there are entire sections with no references it's clearly not sufficient. It's just not ready for gold unfortunately. Plutocow (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Prejudice plus power | Result: Promoted to no brainstar

Prejudice plus power (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Remove Brainstar

1. The article is poorly researched and ideologically slanted towards a somewhat reactionary bent. The article seems to think that the implication of "prejudice + power" is that it's okay to mistreat white people for being white; which is an obvious strawman. Also the fact the article opens with a Sarkeesian quote instead of citing something from say race studies or sociology kind of betrays a lack of familiarity with the topic when it's critically engaged with academically. It's not that this concept is not without criticism, but that criticism should be presented in a good faith interpretation of the concept. The principle of charity is solely lacking. This is an observation voiced repeatedly in the talk page, and some folks with said reactionary bent are singing this article's praises. Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Vee (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Goat

• I believe promotions from bronze can be done unilaterally, so there's no need for an AFDem Plutocow (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Given how contentious this is, that would be unwise. Andrew5 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Promotions can be done unilaterally but it's better to shoot a talk page discussion than hold a vote IMO but anyway, that ship has sailed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Can I just remove the brainstar then? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Technically you can and then write up a talk page comment explaining such. If someone reverts, then yeah better chat. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Alt-right | Result: No consensus

Alt-right (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to bronze

1. Thebestveed (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   You don't need to propose an AfDEM to demote an article to bronze. Vee (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Good article The brick wall (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Edward the eight (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Aethieizt (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Status quo

1. No. Too many reference and quotation issues. Some paragraphs are minimally cited. It's close, but the article needs cleanup before it can be considered for bronze. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Agree. Bongolian (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Per cosmik. Would also note that this article is a bit overfocused on the early alt-right and makes no mention of their more recent activities. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
4. 4-3 isn't a solid majority, and because someone decided to close this afdem unilaterally I'm gonna throw my vote in. No mention of the many issues cited in the No section. Vee (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
5. The G (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Goat

• Let's close this afdem because you can demote articles to bronze without afdem - _/The brick wall (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Nope. Has opposition now. Andrew5 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  This comment gave me a headache. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Some brain cells spontaneously disintegrated in a flash when I read it. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Can we finally close this? It's been weeks now. Vee (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump | Result: Status quo

Donald Trump (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)

Demote to silver

Edward the eight (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

1. good article .Contains a lot of links and is very long.-Aethieizt (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2. 123goaway (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
3. The brick wall (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Status quo

1. Automatically inegligible for Silver; page contains 10 bare http links in the references on a search alone. Outside of that no direct complaints. If this is resolved, we can consider looking into whether or not Gold status is warranted; the page is much better than it was a year ago when this page was last proposed (in the bar iirc as a broader effort to try and get some more recent Gold articles up) at the very least. I also would like to caution against doing what is basically the "WP:NOTNEWS" tendency; we aren't a newspage, not every shit Trump takes or fail he does has to be reported there. Keep it to the major ones, especially now that Trump re-announced his candidacy. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

   This page isn't fit for gold,I am surprised that they tried to make this article cover story Edward the eight (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Yeah, still not good enough. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Christopher (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Since Trumpf is still an emerging story, it's hard to tell if whatever new behavior emerges will be noteworthy in the long run or not. Still, I'd rather have the choice of pruning irrelevant stuff later than not have it here in the first place. Since Trump is an "ongoing new story" I don't think it is appropriate to demote to silver any time soon. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Too unstable for silver, probably will be like that until he dies.Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
6. Per reasons the article is in bronze to begin with. None of them appear to have been addressed. If they are indeed addressed, please clarify if that's the case. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)