RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive240

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 19 March 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, (new)(back)

Election![edit]

The election booth is open for the board of trustees and will run until Friday, February 20. Sterile (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And remember, those who don't vote will get 20 lashes with a bearded dragon covered in tartar sauce by the duly appointed federal marshals once the 20th comes around. --Madman (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
We get a bearded dragon if we don't vote? Well, that settles it; I'm not voting. (Not that I could anyway.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No intercom message? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 14:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Pillory him! Nutty Roux (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What? This is the only place it is announced? I didn't see any intercom message either. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There was a site-wide message at the top for a couple days. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Any results? we're all waiting with fish-bait breath. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 23:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well that explains why NOBS is so mealy-mouthed. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 13:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Some of us didn't get the message that the voting happened, since no date was announced at the page of nominations. Nice tight ship and all that. So who lost? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel like I'm fitting in here[edit]

I don't usually feel like I fit in, so it's really nice. I was worried that I wouldn't contribute much, or would mess a bunch of stuff up. I guess my fears didn't become reality. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well imo you're taking things very gracefully. Have some kudos from someone who doesn't make a difference! :) Trick (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There's not much of a reason to not take things gracefully. Like the trolls: They can't really do much because RW has troll roots and is thus a fortress against them. Even if one of them were to get me in a keyboard-punching mood, I always put the four tildes in before I type out my thoughts. It's hard to type out an angry message if you sign first. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
No, trolls still operate just fine. There's just a very low tolerance for particular classes of bullshit argument that aren't going to get any traction, balance fallacy and the like. Ikanreed (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's an illusion. It will pass. :) --AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The trolls operating fine or my fitting in? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 18:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Both. ProblemChimp (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the screw comic has to do with that. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 07:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought you were a regular. Good to see some new blood, so don't let the old-guard intimidate you. They're just cranky. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 01:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
this is a wiki, you can be reverted faster than you can type stuff in. enjoy your stay. 198.98.209.150 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't tell if that's intended to be criticism or just a remark. Because, of course you can. Some people edit wikis malevolently, and reverts are an incredibly useful tool to that end. Ikanreed (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Saturn Cult[edit]

This hads been bothering me. An obscure theory about some satanic saturn cult running everything. Kind of liek the Illuminati. Can overlap.

The proof? Cubes, and Xs. and Circles. And Squares.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBTDmrdh9Nk

Yes, geometric shapes. Is this a parody or something? Because I can't tell.--Pokefrazer (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It’s not a parody, I’ve been seeing it a lot around 4chan’s /x/ board and for the most part these people are serious. See, for instance, http://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/15630264/ . That doesn’t make it any more coherent, though... 18.189.123.135 (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
We actually have a few resident Satorn Cultists who'll flood a talk page or two now and then with lists of Youtube videos and OVERUSE of ALL CAPS for EMPHASIS. It's mildly amusing. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'm new![edit]

Am I doing this right?

WAMozart56 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well that edit was OK. You might want to look at the links that have been put on your talk page for more instruction. And If you want to say something about yourself you can put it on your user page. Cheers and welcome.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Good sign that your username includes your birthyear rather than your deathyear. wtg. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What edit? I don't think I've edited any pages yet. WAMozart56 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think they're referring to the "Am I doing this right?", since that is technically an edit of this page to include the "Hi! I'm new!" section. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 13:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. You have now edited this page twice. Your first edit being "Am I doing this right?" and you second edit being "What edit? I don't think I've edited any pages yet.". :-)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Rational-Wiki! Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, please you the Sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Yeah, you're doing it right, because you came here to ask if you are doing it right rather than writing it in an article. :-) DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 10:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey DMorris, tell User:Conservative to get his head out of his gay bowel syndrome and and get to work on the cp:Chris Kyle article. It's a disservice to a site that's allegedly on the cutting edge of the conservative movement. I thought User:Conservative knew something about Search engine results and what conservatives are hungry for and the issues conservatives will vote on? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 04:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mention on DeSmog Blog[edit]

DeSmog links to our page on AAPS -- http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/23/anti-science-associations-rand-paul-jane-orient-art-robinson-willie-soon-and-friends Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I never know what things corporate censorware are going to declare dangerous. Apparently opposition to smog is problematic. Ikanreed (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Opposition to smog is communism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Tell that to Red China. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 02:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
China probably has more people strongly opposed to smog than any other country.--TiaC (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems like they'd be able to get that by default, given the population. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 12:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No witty comment for this.[edit]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-fighters-destroy-ancient-artefacts-mosul-museum-iraq This is just sickening. — Unsigned, by: Greatnecro / talk / contribs 13:12, 27 February 2015‎

It's hard to come up with anything particularly witty when it comes to ISIS/Daesh in general. They're a bunch of cultural nihilists with no respect for the lives of those who disagree with their fanaticism. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There were many ancient Iraqi artifacts destroyed and stolen as a result of the 2003 invasion by the US as well. Invasions destroy value of all sorts, even if it's not the US invading. I condemn it, but I'm not at all surprised by it. Ikanreed (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
c.f. Monte Cassino Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There's stuff you find along the way, and stuff you leave behind; And it all ends up as stuff that you can buy on eBay.
—Chumbawamba, "On eBay"Wikipedia's W.svg
There's a quote on it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 15:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I know of the Monte Cassino example, which does seem to have been a case of a cockup rather than deliberate cultural destruction. As for the Baghdad case, that was one of the many effed up things about the Iraq War - not to mention the disgusting nonchalance of Rumsfeld's response. I wonder if he'd respond with "It's untidy, and freedom's untidy," and that "Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things" if he was commenting on the Library of Congress getting torched. Or the stunning cultural ignorance of this Rumsfeldian gem: ""The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over, and over, and over, and it's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase, and you see it 20 times, and you think, 'My goodness, were there that many vases? Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?'" Yeah right, who could know that about what's also known as "The Cradle of Civilisation", right? Anyway it's just some old junk - kinda like that rag called the U.S. Constitution - who cares if that gets torched or used to wipe your ass, know what I mean?
Still, in the Iraq case, it was a U.S. failure to protect cultural treasures against (wholly predictable) looting and destruction, i.e. (criminal) negligence and failure to uphold law and order as is the duty of an occupation force. By contrast, ISIS/Daesh is deliberately targeting and destroying cultural treasures (not to mention their atrocious human rights record) - just like the Taliban did with the Buddhas of BamiyanWikipedia's W.svg, and what the Saudis have been doing to and in their own country for years. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I leep hearing this from some of my liberal, Democrat, and commie friends: "If only Saddam were still in power there would be peace." nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It might well be true. Shitty forms of government that oppress their people aren't mutually exclusive with sovereign stability, as much as we like to pretend they are in the west. War definitely had it's downsides for Iraq, and we can't magically see into the mirror universe where an unprovoked invasion didn't happen. Ikanreed (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's assume that is true. Let's further assume the Arab Spring was not the result of George W. Bush and the neocon conspiracy. Let's assume the Arab Spring would have occurred without Bush, Hillary & John Kerry all forcing regime change. Let's further assume Saddam died a natural death and his heir-apparent, Uday HusseinWikipedia's W.svg took power. Now, who would stand a better chance of surviving an Arab Spring uprising, Uday or Assad? and who should the US support in such a spectacle?
One more point: the US overthrew Khadafi, not because of any lawful threat to US national security, but to avert "a humanitarian disaster". Somebody please, go out on the golf course and tell the commander-in-chief there is goddamn humanitarian disaster taking place that needs his attention, again. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 17:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You're arguing against something other than what I said, thus I have no rebuttal. Ikanreed (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
ok, sorry. Let me ask a simple question: in your opinion was the Arab Spring brought about by Bush/neocon policy, or was it natural, inevitable, pathological, and on schedule in 2011? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 17:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand; why does it matter? --Castaigne (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If only Saddam were in power, or his son Uday, there would be peace. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The removal of Saddam was definitely a destabilizing element. I think it was a poor choice to remove him and not set up someone else who could control the country in the name of American interests. Don't really care about peace; that's not our problem. --Castaigne (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (Totally expected edit conflict)There's a bit of both, and a bit of neither to that. Human events are nothing if not complicated. I can't help but feel, in my own amateur assessment that there is no coincidence that Arab spring occurred during the biggest North African food price spike in decades, and by no further coincidence, the igniting factor of the first(and most successful) rebellion was sparked by a food merchant who set himself on fire in protest. Famines preceded the Haitian Revolution and the French Revolution, and as far as I know, the American revolution is almost unique in that it happened in times of plenty. That's not to say I buy into the simplistic, single-factor argument I seem to be implying. Cultural stability of tyrannical governments isn't some dream, and saying enough was enough was a long time coming(and didn't achieve as much as the revolutionaries hoped, except maybe in Tunisia).

Trying to guess at the relevance of the Iraq war to Arab spring is tricky. One thing is clear, it's almost certainly responsible for the overwhelmingly negative popular response to American intervention in affairs where people widely agree with the stated position of the US(citation possibly available if you want it). There aren't any clear traceable roots(according to my own knowledge) of the movements in Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Tunisia directly to Iraq, with the specific exception of ISIS' founders being directly extracted from American war prisons(citation possibly available if you need it). That's not to say I'm discounting, a priori, the notion that there were side effects I'm not aware of or willfully disregarding, but I think that claim needs some substantiation.

So, no, I don't buy into "time has come, suddenly revolution" 4th turning type analysis, but I'm also highly suspect of claims that Iraq 2.0 magically made people see their governments as more ephemeral and replaceable. Also note how Yemen and UAE suppressed their Arab spring counterparts through non-political concessions, particularly economic ones. Ikanreed (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The "democratic domino" theory GW Bush and others spoke of before the outset; and in almost all the other revolutions of 2011, outside influences were a factor. They were not a entirely internal and spontaneous. Hell, even RW's article on the Arab Spring basically chalks it up to technological innovation, Twitter, and Facebook. Of course we know social media knows no international boundaries. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 17:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of the neo-con think tank perspective, and I feel it's not at all validated by Arab spring. Ikanreed (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no denying that it was a factor (the idea of removing a tyrant would spur other regimes and tyrants to fall), but it's irrelevent at this point. The neocon plan required 40 or 50 year commitment to nation building, which was derailed by the Iraq insurgency and Obama. (Obama was an insurgent in the Democratic party who derailed both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, both whom supported Iraqi regime change. Whether Kerry & Hillary supported the "democratic domino theory", is another matter. Perhaps they only wanted to get rid of Saddam's WMD). nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Wrong again Rob. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. So Hillary & Kerry never were serious about spreading democracy & nation building (go ahead, google it) and only wanted regime change because of WMD. Thanks for clarifying that. And God knows, both knew more than Bush & the neocons. Why, Kerry sat on the Foreign Affairs Committtee for nearly thirty years, and Hillary had been on top of Saddam's WMD for many many more years than Bush, Papa Bush, Rummy, Cheney ever were. Frankly, I'm surprised you'd go there. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 20:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't get bent out of shape, he was clearly disagreeing with a different part of your post. Ikanreed (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That Bush flip-flopped on nation building, yes; but Kerry flipped-flopped first, rallied his whole party to it by 2004. Then came Hillary by 2006-07. Then the man who would be VP - Lieberman, was declared persona non grata in Democratic precincts. Then the only one with clean hands - Obama - takes it all and saves the world. The rest is history. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 01:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Standards for libel[edit]

It's been made clear that libel is unacceptable. However, RationalWiki doesn't have clear standards on libel. RationalWiki needs policy on:

  1. What is libel?
    1. What specific statements are libel? (ie, is calling someone a "crank" libel?)
    2. Does referencing a source prevent something from being libel?
  2. What should happen if something is libel?
    1. Should the article be deleted / protected / stripped of potential libel / pared to NPOV / equipped with (better) citations / something else?
    2. If an article is about a living person, should anything be different than above?
  3. What should happen if there's elevated risk of a libel suit?
    1. Should we remove potential libel / leave the article as is / lock the article and/or its talkpages / delete the article / something else?
    2. How should we respond to potential litigants, if at all?

I'm not the best person to bring this up. But we need something more rigorous and specific than current policy, which just says statements about living people should be referenced or removed, and current community consensus, which is "delete first, ask questions later".
Relevant, relevant, and relevant. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with non-standard libel? --2.39.58.123 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It makes people afraid to post facts about people in fear of being banned for libel, and it allows people who actually commit libel to get away with it. Necromancer 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If RWF were rich, that'd be an excellent thing to do, but it's not. So, the relevant standard is not what is libel but what might be perceived as libel. Even a baseless libel suit costs RWF money. What would make you think of suing for libel? OK, for a start, don't do that. MarmotHead (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Why have principles, when you can save money? Am I right? This may be my Swedish roots talking, but we have dug our grave and we will lie in it.--Madman (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Marmot: If so, how can RW write just about anything? Pretty much everything we do directly attacks something someone said/thought/did, and they might see it as libel. What thing(s) can RW talk about? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So basically, RWF would have more freedom of speech if it had so little money as to be judgment proof. The sites that have the most latitude to say what they want about anyone are those that are run by some indigent person using a webhost with liberal terms of service, or maybe running a beat-up web server in his mom's basement. As you become more financially successful, you become a victim of your own success because you have more to lose.
What someone should do, then, is set up a sister organization, LibelWiki Foundation (LWF), that is totally separate from and independent of RWF, and move all the libelous articles over to LibelWiki. Then people can just link to that wiki, while taking no responsibility for its content. LWF would operate on a shoestring budget and keep no assets on hand other than the bare minimum required to keep its server running. Landmartian (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You are strongly advised not to use the word "we" when talking about RationalWiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, I broke the laws of the Pronoun Police. Woe is me. FU22YC47P07470 (gossip/stalk) 18:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. What constitutes libel is determined by laws & their interpretation by courts. We can make reasonable assessments, as we have always done, about any content or comments posted onsite and amend or delete anything which is likely to be considered libellous in law, but setting up our own definition of libel is just opening the door for people posting legally dubious stuff & wikilawyering over it, something we've seen enough of already. Plus, adhering to our own definition of libel rather than actual laws is the sort of thing that probably wouldn't go down well in the event of an actual legal investigation. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Make reasonable assessments". So, is it "reasonable" to call somebody a crank? To call something a scam? To attack somebody's credentials? To attack somebody's ideas? When you respond, remember that you're basing your definition of "reasonable" on some standard you have for "reasonable", and that making sure RW has a good standard for "reasonable" is the whole point of this.
The whole reason I'm asking this is so that RW's definition of libel aligns with actual laws. FüzzyCätPötätö (gossip/stalk) 19:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
^This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. It's anally retentive wikilawyering which has no bearing on actual legality. Please leave the legal stuff to the Foundation; they're better at it than you. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Leaving it to the RMF hasn't worked, since the RMF hasn't (1) set down standards for libel or (2) policed pages in any major way. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (gossip/stalk) 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Neither of those are the Foundation's role, but RMF officers & board members have intervened (as editors) in situations where libel has been posted. Again, setting our own "standards for libel" isn't wise or desirable. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's only after the fact, though. If the RMF has standards for libel and monitors for it, why not give said standards to editors so that they can proactively not post libel? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (gossip/stalk) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, setting our own "standards for libel" isn't wise or desirable - because it's what the law says that's important here. Did you read the Wikipedia links you posted above? None of them include "standards for libel"; only editorial guidance and a policy of removing libellous content. If Wikipedia, who's been in this game a lot longer than us & withstood its fair share of legal actions, doesn't make up its own definitions of libel, why would we? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
WP doesn't set standards for what is libel, but they set standards for what can be acceptably written about somebody, and skirt around the definition of libel; the standards are to prevent libel suits and to prevent hurting somebody. The purpose of this discussion is to determine what can or can't be said about someone, and part of the reason it's relevant is because RW has gotten libel suit threats; we then need standards and policies to prevent said suits. (ie, questions 1.2-2.2) ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (gossip/stalk) 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's "standards for what can be acceptably written about somebody" are largely rooted in its NPOV, NOR and sourcing policies, as well as avoiding defamation. We already have a sound BLP policy, stating "if it's not solidly referenced, asserts something about the article's subject(s), and the article's subject(s) might object to it, it probably shouldn't be in the article at all", which is pretty much a distillation of what WP's BLP policy is once you strip away the WP-specific things like NPOV. What you're asking for - definitive answers to inane questions like "is calling someone a 'crank' libel?" - isn't going to help us; it's just adding a weight of tedious pedantic rules which are likely to make no difference to whether the RMF is sued or not. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Then WP answers 1.2: If something has a reliable source, it's OK.
The reason I'm asking stuff like "is calling someone a crank" libelous is that, for example, RW's Con artist existed for 8 years with potentially libelous content until Nutty nixed it. So calling someone a con artist isn't OK. Is calling somebody a kook or a crank OK? Why, and what's the difference? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (gossip/stalk) 21:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So, accusing someone of a crime differs from citing allegations that someone has been accused of a crime. Ok. It gets more nuanced when discussing ethical improprieties. Avoiding argumentum ad hominem is the simplest advice. Attack the stupid idea, not the man. Just say, (stupid idea) will cause the death of civilization and the planet as we know it. Mr. X is an outspoken advocate of (stupid idea). nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 18:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm tired of this and I'm tired of you. If you don't know if something is libelous, then don't post it. And if you are going to attempt to push the line, then leave. Your obessiveness is obnoxious and grating. Sterile (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

my recommendation is the you contact your lawyer for legal advice. Sterile (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Fuzzy's intent seems to be to figure out what that line is so he doesn't push it. And everyone's answer seems to be "Look it up in the law, stupid." If libel is such a serious deal for RationalWiki, why is the response to a discussion about it so vitriolic? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance on this matter, but could someone clarify for me what the position of libel laws online actually is? Who is to say on the internet what is libelous and what is not? What's libelous in Britain is not always libelous in the USA so which standard should be used? Alsto003 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Alex

There's a useful summary of UK defamation law here, and on the sub-pages. It's a notoriously tricky area, but it's worth noting that "vulgar abuse" is not defamatory. One requirement for launching a lawsuit is a letter before action, specifying what you're complaining about and giving an opportunity for reply. A statement of claim (to get a lawsuit actually started) has to be served on the defendant at an address within the court's jurisdiction - unless the court grants leave to "serve out". A claimant against RWF in UK would have lots of procedural hurdles to jump through, and imo wouldn't get very far if prompt action were taken to address the issue.
I think US first amendment principles should apply. Could RWF be sued outside New Mexico?
"Free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it" - lawyers' maxim. ProblemChimp (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Well, nominally you can be sued anywhere for anything, but I'd wager achieving anything legally against RWF would be much harder outside the US, because the foundation is based here, primarily targets an English speaking audience, and has no assets to seize outside the US. But there's a whole tangled web that requires more than one very expensive lawyer to sort out if you want any certainty about the subject. Wikipedia uses US standards because they're based in the US, and we have been sorta looking to them as a model. Ikanreed (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
To paraphrase 141.134.75.236 above, Fuzzy's intent seems to be to figure out what that line is so he can sidle right up next to it. If in doubt, don't publish it. If you really feel you must, don't say it yourself, quote the New York Times and a Federal judge saying it twice. FCP, if you really want a definition, use this: "If someone on RW thinks you crossed the line, you did. What you wrote will be removed." Everyone else can probably stick to common sense. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That's roughly the opposite of what 141 said.
Given that "common sense" hasn't prevented festering piles of libel from existing for years, I think it's pretty clear that something a little more comprehensive is needed. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (gossip/stalk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, you are correct, I used the wrong word. "Paraphrase" is not what I meant. What I meant was to say what you really want. And if you find festering piles of libel, 1. that means you must know what it is when you see it, and 2. you should work to remove it. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(1) Calling somebody a criminal is libel. What is calling somebody a crank? (2) Yes. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Calling someone a crank reflects more on the person (or entity) using the pejorative than the intended target (unless you believe people are so fucking stupid and naive they take as gospel whatever crap is churned out by commentators or news outlets, which again, is a reflection on the speaker). All it says is so-and-so pisses some people off. You can judge a man by his enemies. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 16:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see more guidance on this too. It seems at the moment we have some gurus who make opaque decisions and brook no dissent. Indeed it seems even questioning editorial decisions about libel is enough to get you banned. On my phone so can't comment at length but I think this is a vexed issue where common sense has been tried and failed. Tielec01 (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, FFS!!! Commonsense may not be common but it's a damn good starting point. Hairsplitting goes nowhere. Apply some simple tests, like this incomplete list:
(1) Is the target of this article a douche? (a) If no, go to jail go directly to jail do not collect $200. (b) If yes:
(2) Is the target of this article a Wikinotable-type douche? (a) If no, see (1a) above. (b) If yes:
(3) Can you back up your insults with solid references? (a) If no, see (1a) above. (b) If yes:
(4) Will any other RW editor bother to read this article when they could be giving two fucks instead? (a) If no, see (1a) above. (b) If yes, get stuck in.
BQ: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ProblemChimp (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
a douchebag is in the eye of the beholder. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 18:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So far[edit]

Consensus for policy on potentially libelous statements seems to be get solid refs or kill it, which is squo.
Questions needing answers:

  1. Does ie "X is a crank" need a ref / "Y called X a crank" + ref / deletion?
  2. If legal threats, then:
    1. How/if to respond?
    2. Lock/delete/rewrite page?

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If legal threats are made, comply with the demands, then discuss their merit. This is obviously better than the other way around. Do not speak for the foundation.--TiaC (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's decent policy. But what do we do if they demand that we write a piece that utterly supports their positions, even if we know said positions to be bullshit? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If legal threats are made, hold it at that - a threat. Be conciliatory. Ask, "What would you propose?". Seek compromise. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 05:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
We have a policy against onsite legal threats. Anybody making them should be referred firmly in the direction of the RMF's contact details. Rank & file editors getting into a talk page dispute with somebody making legal threats (as happened with Kevin Martin) is a recipe for disaster. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Would a short template with a link to that page, the legal FAQ, and the RMF's contact details help? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
FCP, I'm going to permanently ban you if you don't make this your last post on this subject. I will not see the risk of being sued personally enhanced because you believe you are entitled to invent a legal policy for someone else. No discussion. No negotiation. Stop this nonsense. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

CONSENSUS FOR POLICY:

  1. FuzzyCatPotato doesn't edit concerning living people.
  2. Everyone else tries not to be goddamn foolishly insane.

Seriously. Speaking as one of the people at the sharp end of your proposals, I think that iterative attempts to map the boundaries of how far we can push it horrify me. Please stop - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm definitely trying to get the RMF sued. Why does everyone assume bad faith, for me?
The point of marking the boundaries is to prevent people from getting close to the boundaries. WP does something like this with BLP policy, which is defined and then anything close to violating BLP policy is removed. This is almost exactly the same issue, and I think we should have similar policy. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
We already do have a similar policy. But what you've been asking for is an in-house definition of libel, which is an awful plan. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I'm done with this shit.
I'm glad that, since libel is such a big issue for RW, the community willing to set out clear policy and discuss it.
Thanks, Nutty, for deleting User:FuzzyCatPotato/DefamTemplate. It totally needed deletion -- as a proposed template that wasn't used on any pages, it really posed a threat to RW.
By the way, what would the block reason be? "Discussing policy about libel?" I'm glad RW is so vigilant about libel that even discussion goes too far.
When Kevin Martin comes back, the community argues with him, and he sues, I'm sure this will be remembered as a high point. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A legal policy on libel for the RMF is not for you to decide or participate in devising. It's just fucking not. If you disagree, have your mom call me so I can tell her what legal policies govern in your house. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Daily Stormer[edit]

Do we need an article on this racist trash? The Daily Stormer Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably, since it has been noteworthy enough for a few articles to mention it. I didn't even know there wasn't an article on it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 12:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it actually part of Stormfront? If so a mention there would be a good start. Else hey, go for it - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
They both mention the other quite a bit, but that seems to be all there is to it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 13:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The origin of the name seems pretty obvious - Der StürmerWikipedia's W.svg. ProblemChimp (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I made a start but this needs work from people who know the site. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not a 100% correlation, but I've noticed that right wingers and/or racists tend to use the spelling and pronunciation "moslem" more than "muslim", as is repeatedly splashed on that front page. Is there a reason for that? My grandfather also says "moslem" instead of "muslim" so I'm assuming it's generational, but I see it on more modern/younger racists too. X Stickman (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Old people that aren't racist tend to use it, too. I guess that it might have something to do with racists learning their racism from their parents or grandparents. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 19:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, judging from this graph, the correct form is actually "Mussulman", that one being the one with the most currency before 1820. "Moslem" overtakes "Mussulman" around 1880. "Muslim" barely exists before 1920, and takes over around 1940. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 23:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
"Moslem" was fairly current in textbooks and newspapers in the 1950s & 60s; by the mid 70s "Muslim" sounded more educated on the subject moreso than the vulgar stereotypes many people had. It was probably Malcolm X more than anyone who brought about the change. See here about 6 paragraphs down. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 05:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessarily racist in and of itself. It's differences in romanization. Arabic has sounds that the Latin alphabet doesn't have letters for, so there's disagreement on how to render those sounds in the Latin alphabet. There's over a dozen different standards and many more informal methods for romanizing Arabic. For an example of the resulting insanity, see how many different ways you can spell the name of the former dictator of Libya. Compro01 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything relevant at all in the spelling unless someone's deliberately setting out to cause offence. Read the preface to Seven Pillars of WisdomWikipedia's W.svg, in which the Arabist T. E. Lawrence mocked attempts to transliterate Arabic into English. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Compare also - Al Quaida/Al Quaeda, and Koran/Qu'ran, and so on. Choice of spelling sometimes suggests an agenda, but as a onetime senior moderator on MySpace taught me - "Context makes content". ProblemChimp (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If you really wanted to annoy Muslims, you'd go with "Mahometan". - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this doesn't get off the subject but, a Muslim friend told me that the "movements" baring a persons name, such as "Qutbism" & "Wahhabism" are self glorifying, idolatrous, and unIslamic - not far removed from the prohibitions against using imagery, cartoons, television pictures depicting persons. I suppose that is a big factor in why the Salafists have moreless divorced themselves from the name "Wahhabi" while retaining the doctrines. In fact, the term "Wahhabi" probably came about at least more than a hundred y ears ago by critics as a way of saying it was man-made, self-glorifying, cultish and unIslamic. I suspect this is the same reason the term "Mohammadism" has fallen out of use by non-Muslims, because it would be derogatory and offensive. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 21:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Seen on Stormer — Unsigned, by: 74.14.22.153 / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 02:40, 02 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel like making a bot.[edit]

It seems like a fun thing to do, and I've got more than a decade of programming experience. Does a bot that looks at recent article edits to find typos and recent talkpage edits to find unsigned comments seem like a useful bot? My idea is that it would display the most recent information on its own subpages, sorted by probability of error, and hopefully it would be able to remove the issues form the list automatically as they are fixed. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, another idea: Providing some sort of template that maybe is something like {{red2wp|SomeArticle|some text}} that gets put into an internal list the bot keeps. The bot then automatically changes it to {{red2wp|SomeArticle|some text|redlink=no}} when the article exists on RationalWiki without being a broken redirect. The idea is that it would be an internal link if it exists, but a Wikipedia link if it's a redlink. Unless that template can be done without bots? Is there any logic for determining if a link is a redlink? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
WP has a bot that hates unsigned posts. I'd love a copy over here. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and to determine if a page exists (and would thus be a redlink) you can use {{#ifexist:PAGE|DO IF EXIST|DO IF NOT}}. Beware, because it's expensive. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
A bot that signs unsigns posts should post the "sign" template on the offender's talk page, so they learn... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Before you do anything, make sure to look at mw:Pywikibot. A signing bot may be useful, but making a good one is tricky, as people who don't know how to sign often don't know how to comment, either, so fixing their messes may be best left to humans. As for finding and fixing typos, the usefulness probably won't be worth the additional server load, not to mention the additional issues (such as American vs English spelling and the cases when both the right and the wrong word are correctly spelled. In short: before looking for a solution, please make sure that there is actually a problem.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I was saying that it would compile a list of possible typos and signing issues, not that it would fix them. But, because the automatic signing was mentioned, I think I could actually get that to work right, if it was limited to the most obvious examples. (only one line added, no other lines changed, no links to user pages added, user does not have a link to their page elsewhere) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 19:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK, that part in the parentheses assures me you have put some thought in this. Make it "a block added" - a sequence of uninterrupted lines with equal indent, and leave some time for a "grace period" to allow the user to sign or anyone else to fix a fuck-up. The most reliable way to recognize a signature is the timestamp, I think - that's the only thing that's constant for all kinds of signature customizations. People are willing to tolerate a lack of a link to the user page, but the timestamp is always there if the user is using MediaWiki's signing mechanism.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I went and made the template mentioned. {{red2wp|Goat|goat}} gives goat, and {{red2wp|Four-toed jerboa|jerboa}} gives jerboaWikipedia's W.svg. As you can see, it has a bit of a "new line" issue that I'm going to fix really quick. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 20:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Zoo fixed it, along with making the rest of it not look like a mess. Thanks, Zoo! Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 20:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I finally got the Pywikibot thing to work. Anything I need to do with Mini Nyar? I would assume that captchas are a bit of a problem without autoconfirm or whatever it is. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 13:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope, bot's still not working right. It keeps complaining that it is unable to import json/simplejson, but I have json under C:\Python27\Lib. Do any of the editors that have bots know how to fix this? Is it because I have the pywikibot files on my desktop? I may be a great coder, but setup is my weakness. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing I do, being a python dev myself, but your error message is awfully unspecific. Could you give me to the full stack trace on my talk page? Ikanreed (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Muhuhaha! Now I have the fluffiest bot of them all! And, as an added bonus, I can even talk to myself by using his message template. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, hoomans! (and narwhal!) ~Mini Nyar (bot) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Though, maybe I should remove the timestamp from the span, or otherwise make his text easier on the eyes. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It works! While I was testing it to make sure it wouldn't bloop on a minor edit, it picked up somebody's unsigned comment. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 01:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Bot is now autonomous. Can somebody give it the bot flag? Also, as a note, the bot does not patrol this page. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a minor problem with de-redding all links like that - some red links are essentially intentional, as in they indicate things we should have articles on. "Hiding" them makes it harder to fix - perhaps? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The redlink is a template, not an automatic search-and-destroy process. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 23:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and as the unsigned talk poster (moved some stuff on my talk page), without a link to the diff it's a bit opaque. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, you should include this page, as it's one of the hardest places to either re-edit in order to add a sig, or to edit to add the unsigned template. As long as the bot works fast. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Also, I'm adding an exception to < brackets so it doesn't bwoop for that again. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 23:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Can it reach here? — Unsigned, by: NarkySawtooth / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 23:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to program it to exclude, for example, people who have been here a long time? People who have signed their posts hundreds of times, but just forgot that one time? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I can set it to ignore patrolled edits. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Which I will do after this last test (can't have it ingoring my taunts!) — Unsigned, by: NarkySawtooth / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 00:12, 01 March 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
That didn't go well. Once more! — Unsigned, by: NarkySawtooth / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 00:16, 01 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Now it's set to ignore auto-patrolled users. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 00:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It might be better to have it sign, but not remind autopatrolled users.--TiaC (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
A little issue with that is that this becomes a bit less obvious.(The signing, not the page's subject.) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 00:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, currently it's not picking up any non-patrolled edits outside the Saloon bar. So, let's see if it picks this up as unsigned. So, here's a new idea: Should I have the bot automatically greet new non-BoN people that leave messages on talk pages? — Unsigned, by: NarkySawtooth / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 18:59, 01 March 2015 (UTC)
And it tripped the edit conflict filter (which it shouldn't have) and then it didn't stop (I forgot to put a stop in right after the warning it gives). Good thing I decided to test it. Let's see what happens this time. — Unsigned, by: NarkySawtooth / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 19:05, 01 March 2015 (UTC)

Article on Defense Distributed and Cody Wilson?[edit]

Should we create an article on Cody R. Wilson and Defense Distributed? Any thoughts or notes? 74.14.49.84 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Who's we? Not you, Mr 74. BicyclewheelModerator 18:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Defense Distributed is a famous movement that advocates for freedom and liberty in firearm ownership, internet regulation etc.— Unsigned, by: some twonk who can't even put his name to what he says / talk / contribs
Defense Distributed are into #D printed guns. Total freedom of gun ownership leads to freedom only for people unafraid to kill other people. Is that truly libertarian, or is it simply transferring power from the known and accountable to the anonymous and unaccountable? BicyclewheelModerator 20:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Although, that aside aside, why not mention the company in the 3D printing article? BicyclewheelModerator 20:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. There are other examples that fit the theme there already. Compro01 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me but I seem to have forgotten...[edit]

What happened to "edit [0]"? Or the edit button that replaced it? The one that lets an editor edit just the section of a page above the ToC? Thanks in advance... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's still in the Gadgets, but whether the Gadgets will be loaded during any session seems to depend on the phase of the moon and the direction of local wind.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I had a nightmare a few nights ago[edit]

In this nightmare, I was talking to someone in a hazy room. They looked sort of familiar, but I couldn't quite make out their facial features. And then they began to laugh. The sound was like Jeff Goldblum having an aneurism. And then, it I figured it out. There was only one person with that laugh. This is a true story, by the way. I really did have this nightmare (the subject isn't very topical anymore anyways).
On a related note, does anybody ever have "phantom editing?" Sometimes I'll feel like everything I'm doing is actually a RationalWiki edit. It's a pretty well-documented thing for video games; I once played so much Disgaea that my brain kept coming up with the most efficient ways to throw people around a room to reach the door quicker (makes sense in context). Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 03:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you do anything enough, especially repetitively, it will tend to invade other areas of life, even sleep (the assembly line worker's bane!). So don't do things a lot that you don't really enjoy. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I walk into classes and imagine where people would fly if I shot rockets at their feet. I think it's a result of too much gaming... Bad @ splleing... (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

When I played too much Skyrim I would try to quicksave before I walked into a room. Trick (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"I had a most extraordinary dream today. I was in a lecture theatre, teaching my class of students. Then I suddenly woke up. And do you know what? I was." ProblemChimp (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I remember when i was in seventh grade; i had a dream in which a dragon landed in the middle of the schoolyard. I shouted GOL HAH DOV: Earth,Mind,Dragon. I then mounted this dragon and proceeded to burn down the entire school.'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I had a dream once where nothing weird happened. Then I woke up and thought, That was weird, because it wasn't. Fonzie (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Editcount[edit]

Is it possible to make it display more than 999 users? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The answer is apparently yes(Sorry rationalwiki database server, I wasn't trying to be mean). If you're running firefox: right click the text box for max results, inspect element, change maxlength variable to something larger. The script will then accept your larger input. Ikanreed (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sneaky. Is it possible to just edit the feature's script so that this is unnecessary? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Or just edit the "&limit" parameter in the URL. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

If anyone cares, here's the stats that Special:Editcount unwillingly relinquished. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Rationalwiki?[edit]

The One Party State Question[edit]

So let's say that the democratic party is hypothetically banned, and we live in a one party (republican) state. Of the candidates in the 2016 primaries for republican who do you vote for? I'd personally vote for Rand Paul as he seems the least insane and most socially progressive. Even if he does believe in voodoo economics.

Donald Trump. All the Republican candidates are insane in one way or the other, so I'd want somebody who I could properly hate in office. Should provide good material for the late-night comedians, anyway. (Agrajag (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC))
My opinion on all Republican candidates in the last couple elections is that they've been either massively uninteresting or embarrassing to witness, or (often) both. Really, you'd think the party of the plutocrats would be better at choosing, managing and marketing their candidates than this. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The chilling answer would be that they've worked out that it doesn't matter. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This. The GOP is picking its battles. Having the White House would be nice, for sure. Having the Senate for the long term, keeping the House in perpetuity, and getting more governorships/state houses/state legislatures? That makes the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue far less relevant, and lets them do way more stuff. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I already get to do this hypothetical every election - the only people are "conservatives/tea party and conservative democrats". I look for one that supports an issue i support and go "well why not". LAst election was gay marriage--Miekal 07:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Scott Walker, because if I go republican, I'm going all the way. Bad @ splleing... (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Once you go 'whack', you never go back? Queexchthonic murmurings 16:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
AgingHippie nailed it: "getting more governorships/state houses/state legislatures". That's how the GOP opposes "big government", i.e., the federal juggernaut. As someone just said at the CPAC convention, "the states created the federal government, the federal government did not create the states". nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 20:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you telling me that none of you would become revolutionaries in this scenario? Ikanreed (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's just a hypothetical. If you want to look too deeply into it I'm sure the party itself would suffer a schism, giving us actual people to "respect." Trick (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there'd be a split between the Tea Party and the Normal People. BicyclewheelModerator 19:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There are normal people in the Republican Party? O_o 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
When we're talking about the republicans 'normal' and 'sane' are relative terms. Also on a completely irrelevant note: I would find Mitch McConnell sort of adorable for his famous turtle look if he weren't so evil.Samstr (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just one party? I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren. Because everyone would join the One Party, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "party of the plutocrats" - they can't, and usually didn't, win. They need some other portion of the electorate to vote against the Democrats to win. For the last generation (or more) they have thrown their hat in with the Christian Right, starting with Reagan's embrace of the anti-abortion movement. Going back further, Nixon used race to attract white southern working class voters. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving Pseudoscience up to cover story status[edit]

Proposal here. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Last call[edit]

Last call for objections to golding. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 23:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking a week, this is the first I noticed it for one - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, will do. 13 March, then. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Placing this here in regards to Inquisitor Ehrenstein[edit]

I have recently lost all contact with Inquisitor Ehrenstein, and all projects I used to collaborate with her on have gone down, apparently as a result of Encyclopedia Dramatica "doxxing" her (and while I don't revel in that, I can't deny the schadenfreude in that considering recent events involving her and doxxing), and not only do I want to make clear that I never supported any illegal acts by her or her associates (I did my best to restrain the possibility of them), I wrote a blog post on my personal blog giving further information as to my exact role in relation to her here. I am providing this information in the interests of transparency so that any questions as to my association with her can be answered. I also want to reiterate that while I do not plan to further contribute to RationalWiki, I very strongly condemn any attempts to cause this project or it's membership harm, and I will do my best to inform the RW staff of any information I come across in regards to any further incidents such those I reported not too long ago. Arcane (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok.--Miekal 14:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The More You Know™. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Nani wo surunda? Yuruzan! 14:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In all honesty, I think you're a good guy, Arcane. You did seemed genuinely devoted to Krasnaya's original purpose, though I must question your choice in friends. --Madman (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
A man is known by the company he keeps.

You "never supported any illegal acts by her or her associates"? You "did [your] best to restrain the possibility of them happening"? You casually enabled Ehrenstein for years by continuing to associate with him or her after he or she engaged in unlawful conduct, following him or her from site to site like a puppy, and repeatedly coming here to RW to apologize for, explain, justify, and argue on behalf of him or her. Don't lie to us anymore. In fact, don't come back. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Arcane just has some emotional attachment to Ehrenstein and feels morally obliged to watch out for her and clean up her messes, kind of like how a cat owner just can't feel angry at his cat for shredding up the toilet paper. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet. 16:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Who is this Ehrenstein person? (Agrajag (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC))
Sometime Arcane continued associating with after he or she doxed me while decrying doxing, threatened to turn me in to the legal ethics board, called me a neo Nazi and pro rape, accused Mikal of a crime, and said something absolutely unacceptable about Sophie and oddly ironic considering claims Ehrenstein made about himself or herself. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Beleive it or not, I tried to convince her to let it go. I thought she was blowing things out of proportion and making a mountain of ticking dynamite out of benign molehill, and I've come to realize my attempts to keep that dynamite from exploding were a fool's errand. Sure, I thought she got a bit harshly treated here, but I just was trying to convince her to pull up stakes and leave, but for some strange reason she was utterly convinced you guys were wanting to screw her over at some future date, which I frankly thought was pants on head crazy. Arcane (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear god, people are shit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, Ehrenstein's crusade for Nutty's disbarment. It was hilarious. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 21:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I bet it wasn't for Nutty. I can't imagine if internet shit spilled over into my life. Even if it was the most specious shit, I'd be really pissed, not bemused. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it was hilarious because I knew Ehrenstein didn't have the power to get Nutty disbarred and the threats were completely and utterly empty. Also someone posted a really hilarious reducto ad absurdio of Ehrenstein's underlying logic, so it may be mostly that. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Here we are now, entertain us 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what actually occurred, but I don't think it's hilarious. If somebody contacted my boss or any external agency that was related my work with some sort of complaint about my online activities I'd be extremely upset about it. It makes no difference that they'd have no case for getting me fired; the complaint would probably mean me having to explain & justify a load of stuff about RW which has nothing to do my job or offline life. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Boss. So there's this website that's kinda like wikipedia, but run by a guy named "Assfly," and we started teasing him online, and then,there was this think about Flying kitties. And a guy who thought he was a Bat-god named Maratrean. And, well, a porn star named Karla or Kara, and anyway, this guy named TK died, and then for some reason we...you know what, I'll just go pack up my desk. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. My online and offline lives are radically different and I don't particularly relish the thought of getting a letter from my state Supreme Court saying "hey we got the enclosed beef from an anonymous Internet troll accusing you of... something incoherent and being a Nazi. Your response to the complaint is due in 10 days. " I didn't deserve that threat. FFS I would rather pretend none of you exist except as poorly programmed AIS let alone have to even think about interacting with you. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll add this to the list of times Hippie's "Peace." made him seem gangsta. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
How big a thing was this? How on Earth do you piss off Enyclopedia Dramatica that much? Was this a political thing or a personal vendetta? Should I board up my windows? How much are tasers going for these days?(Agrajag (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC))
Should we be worried about Ehrenstein possessing (any of) our dox, knowing her history?--Madman (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
It really wasn't cool & it's slightly worrying that Sasha now seems to be poking at RW again a year later. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I can put those fears at ease. Even those it's now been salted and burned (I hope), what little I saw of her "dox" was the same boilerplate insanity about how everyone at RW is a Nazi rape apologist bullshit (her plan to bot email/Facebook post this idiocy far and wide as some foolish countermeasure against some attack against herself I was convinced existed only in her mind). I told her from day one it was totally stupid and would be libel if it was ever released, and I informed her if there was a chance it would be released, I would immediately turn that information over to RationalWiki. Arcane (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, because your mastery of of libel laws in the multiple countries represented by our membership is going to save people from having a really freakin' awkward conversation with bosses, customers, students, teachers, clients, friends and co-workers when they se a Facebook post or something saying that Joe Blow condones Nazism and worse. What you're talking about is called "closing the barn door after the horse has bolted." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Put it this way. Without my intervention, you guys might have never known she was going to do this, and I would have been able to do sod all to help. At least this way I was able to restrain this insanity long enough to stop it ever getting off the ground, and now you all have the information you need to make sure that shit will never fly, and I've already pledged to provide further information if I catch wind of it to RW staff. I agree, what she wanted to do was insane, that why I tried to stop it, and I will happily testify against her and her associates in a court of law should it ever be reattempted. Arcane (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright alright alright. You're laying it on too thick there. And how exactly doors anyone here stop a crazy person from sending a letter or make sure that shit don't fly just because you've been so very magnanimous in looking out for us that you told us about an ED article? Like Ehrenstein, you also seem to have a distorted view of yourself. You're nobody's savior. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the ED articles about Ehrenstein were posted by User:Michaeldsuarez. I've left a message on his/her RW talk page asking what it's all about. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not. I wrote that when I was worked up about this and it was foolish. I guess I'm just pissed despite all my efforts to convince a crazy person to go back to sanity, she decided to do crazy shit anyway and a bunch of retards egged her on. Frankly, I want nothing more to do with her since it's obvious all my efforts to be a good influence were for naught. Arcane (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been speaking with Michael myself on Wikipediocracy (under my alternate username GethN7) in the Orain thread there. The parts detailing that start here. Arcane (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Michael, I get that you are coming from a different culture, but I don't think it's fair to put up all this personal and identifying information. That it's also on ED or elsewhere doesn't make me comfortable seeing it here since I think it's fair to say our general ethic (it's certainly mine) is to leave people's personal lives alone. Sure, Ehrenstein went out of his or her way to poke several of us with sticks, but I'm above seeing it done back on RationalWiki. Would someone please get rid of this stuff? I don't know how to do it when there have been intervening edits. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the details of the doxxing have been safely eradicated. PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no - there's still one revision in there wit the text visible in diffs. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop by to see what's going on during my agonisingly slow move away from RW and I read this. And it all helps when making decisions.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Let it Goat![edit]

PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

goat Samstr (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Tone argument/policing[edit]

When people on the internet use the term "tone argument", the premise seems to be that any tactic, term, insult, etc. is justified as long as the one using it is probably less privileged than whoever they're using it on, which seems logically unsound. It often seems to be accompanied by the notion that any criticism of tone or (good ole' definition slip) disagreement (real or imagined) with your interlocutor means that you are just as bad as Vox Day/Bill O'Reilly and should just shut up because you don't know shit. If you hand someone, no matter how right they generally are, this kind of weapon, it will be copied and abused by the less scrupulous. So when should accusations of tone policing be used, if at all?(Agrajag (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

The thing about tone arguments is that you have a right to disregard them, and continue to present your point. Rude things can be true, important things. Ikanreed (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The same thing is true about rude arguments, of course. You have a right to disregard them, and to assume that the point is to bring the psychodrama rather than to be persuasive or even understood. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
In dealing with people one must learn patience; "tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed (of your position, POV, arguments, etc)". nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 03:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
sure sure, that's all well and dandy for arguments where you're trying to prove a point rationally in a debate. But that's just not every argument. Sometimes arguments can arise out of situations demanding a bit of force. Ikanreed (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
An argument where the person you're arguing with isn't trying to prove points rationally is definitely an argument you should walk away from. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 17:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Three words: Civil Rights Movement. "If instead of all those protests and sit-ins and marches, those coloreds had instead waited politely and patiently for their turn to speak, and spoken all soft and gentlemanly with respect for their betters, I'm sure we would have given them their due."
That was a quote from my great-grandmother, by the by. --Castaigne (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's one in every family :D . No, no I'm all in favor of confrontation, it's more the random insults/assumption of bad faith online that I was talking about. (Agrajag (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC))
Telling someone they're being rude isn't necessarily a tone argument. That's when you suggest that somebody's argument is invalid or should be disregarded because they're being rude, or where you derail a discussion from its purpose & make it all about how rude somebody is being. This is like the confusion over ad hominem, which many people seem to think means the same as insult. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
there is no point in being 'right' if people stop listening because you are being a massive arsehole. Or your arseholishness causes your opponents to dig their heels in instead of conceding the point. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Except that one is not required to educate others. Too often, people wish to claim that they must be argued with civilly and politely, and what goes unsaid is that they will mire everything in diplomatic bullwash and derail the discussion. Thus eventually, the Civil Rights Movement. Thus eventually, the current gay marriage cases. As punks were well aware, oftentimes the best way to prove you're right is to show it - and screw what people say about tone. --Castaigne (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I find this notion of "derailing" problematic for the same reason I find the notion of the "problematic" problematic. It isn't a real conversation if any of the parties gets to require everything to be about their message. That's not a conversation, that's a harangue. And it's your cue to stop paying attention. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Your problem is that you continually assume your opponent/the other side/the other party/whatever actually intends to hold a conversation in good faith. Newsflash: the people who opposed the Civil Rights Movement did not have any good-faith intentions. Neither do the people opposing gay marriage. Or the MRAs. Or the Neo-Reactionaries. Or the YECers. There is no good faith there. And all your attempts to have a good-faith conversation with those people will end in your eventual defeat, marginalization, and if you're really unlucky or your opponents are vicious enough, death. --Castaigne (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
You're trying to cast me in the role of "the one who's optimistic about human nature!" Holy sh.... I get that. There are people who are worth listening to, and there are those who aren't. I've even tried to reason with neo-reactionaries; so it goes. All I mean to say is that "people who aren't worth your time talking to" is a two way street. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 06:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
But we both know that the purpose of a debate is rarely to convince your opponent, but the audience. However much "we" (insert cause here) may be annoyed by the moderates and undecideds, we need them to prevail in society at large, and random insults and trying to simply humiliate your opponent may not accomplish that. As for the notion that all "our" opponents argue in ad faith, I don't think that that's entirely true. Neoreaction, for one, seems like it could be a phase thing which could be ended early in many people with the proper tactics. I'd imagine it has a lot of appeal to socially ostracized teenagers and even older people who have seen themselves cast out by people who are (genuinely) pretty fucking stupid, and who, instead of taking steps to become less alienated or just getting on with their life, try to further their own sense of superiority by channeling their frustration into dreams of despotism/glory. I would imagine that medieval imagery, with its grand, eternal, stable aesthetics, holds particular appeal to those who feel that their life is going nowhere, and devotion to God/a monarch may play to repressed sadomasochism. Dealing with neoreaction calls for empathy, persuasion, and a sense of community to replace the negative one that has given them "shelter" so far. Similar things may be true of the MRAs/gators, a significant minority of whom seem to be generally politically liberal (remember how many of the gators got pissed off by the Colbert/Sarkeesian interview?), and who mostly consume liberal media in which they see themselves vilified. This pushes them further into paranoia, but by explaining to them why they may feel the way they do and trying to talk them out of it, many of them could be "brought back". I know because I would probably be one of them if I hadn't chosen to go to public high school. (Agrajag (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC))

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with pretty much all of that. Regardless of where you're coming from, there are discussions that seek understanding if not agreement, and there are discussions that consist of nothing but posing for applause. The first are generally more worthwhile, while in the latter you're only a supporting character, and may be cast as the villain, in somebody's melodrama. That's a role you should decline.

Not everything in the neoreactionary's, the libertarian's, or the identity politics fan's world view is wrong. More importantly, they want things that are sensible if inconsistent to want; the libertarian wants Freedom, the identity politician wants Equality, and the neoreactionary wants Order. None of these things are bad things to want. It's only that libertarianism won't make Freedom, identity politics won't achieve Equality and has an inherent need for someone to dehumanize, and the Order the neoreactionary will get will break all his toys. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's far more than one. Southern gentility on one side, Nazis on the other. Still, one must prevail. --Castaigne (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
cut to RationalWiki:Robrail
the robrail post was very much mission specific as it pertains to the anti-science movement and studying authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Why was it cut? Is this not the place to discuss RW's Mission? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 22:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Content dumps[edit]

For those who care, RationalWiki:Content dumps has the dumps I ran last Wednesday. They are goddamn huge. I would be interested to know if you can actually get a RationalWiki back out of them, I haven't tried. I need to get around to uploading these to archive.org. - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to feel about that. There has been at least two attempts to fork RW by former users, including an especially deranged one, and making dumps accessible will ease such efforts in the future. Also, I sure archive.org will be overjoyed about all the cock pictures and all the other stuff with dubious copyright status.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
And forking is bad because...? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg The middling bomb of complementing! 21:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm tempted to open that highly compressed xml file but I feel like my computer's processor will explode. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Ritsuko, the truth is... 21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Splitting the community is rarely a very good idea for a website, and many forks have high chances of one or both then dying out--Miekal 23:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This site needs to be fishbowled and purged. A fork might be a very good idea. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Or forking could result in exactly what Miekal mentioned. Half of the users go one way, half of the users go the other and in the end neither site has enough regular visitors to survive. That being said I don't think having a backup is necessarily a bad idea. Samstr (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Or forking presents a way to honestly consider the direction this site has taken, create a committee of non obsessive mentally ill zealot whatever adults empowered to actually handle RW's daily business since the RMF cannot, and shunt half the active editors off to their own fork to make as disreputable and embarrassing as they wish. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
You're free to start your own Roux-RW if that's your sentiment, Nutty. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's obviously not. I don't think you know who I am. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
And the people you dislike will just magically prefer whatever the fork is? That seems unlikely. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Might want to reconsider the sustainability, let alone the possibility of passing the "point and laugh" test, of RationalCitizendium with some Midwestern cobbler as arbiter of who is Serious Enough to be given edit rights. Unique pinion (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but I'm going to reply regardless. Most wikis fail. They never gather a real audience. That's not a surprise, but that doesn't prevent anyone from making them. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It was directed at a Great Lakes leather worker who has been complaining for a long time, about RW not living up to his dreams of how the Good Old Days might have unrolled. IMO he is chasing a forlorn hope, and letting the elite purity of his quest justify him being a bully and a griefer. Without him, the wiki would be nothing. Unique pinion (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Google stalking me to come up with tidbits to drop into a post shitting on me as the sockpuppet of an already anonymous poster on a shitty website isn't creepy at all. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Attempted doxxing is shitty behavior, Unique pinion. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Doxxing? Not really. The dots are right here on RW, waiting to be connected. Most of them were volunteered by the one who said "I don't think you know who I am." His tweets are boring and self-absorbed, so I won't link to them. Unique pinion (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's a wiki about a show, in which case you will find a userbase. A userbase of drooling monomaniacs, but still an userbase. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg EVERY SINGLE MISSILE HIT THE TARGET!!! AAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!! 22:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, someone's gotta document the wardrobe choices of guest characters on a 90's sitcom, and note that it shares a universe with another one because of that one crossover episode. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
And also extensively document the hairstyle evolution of our protagonist across episodes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Some men just want to watch RW burn 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To answer the original question: I consider those two particular fork attempts "bad" due to the nature of the people (or in one case, single person) involved. I wouldn't like to see anything similar in the future.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's nothing that isn't already accessible the hard way. Are you volunteering to clean up the File: space? Note, by the way, that having no inclusions doesn't mean an image is unlinked, e.g. most of the screen captures - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Deeper answer: pretty much the whole point of CC-by-sa is "use our stuff, please!" And any forks can use the other tine's stuff. We write all of this so that it will be used. They may just Citizendium, but they may in fact do it better - David Gerard (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
"Half of the users go one way, half of the users go the other and in the end neither site has enough regular visitors to survive." Has that ever happened before? It's also easy for forks to re-consolidate, since they have the same licensing and wiki markup. People can give up on one of the wikis and take their content over to the other one. Since there are so many advantages to putting all the effort into one wiki, that seems to be a more common scenario. Landmartian (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it happen when communities moved away from Wikia by starting their own forks. The Wikia site will be mostly dead, perhaps with a few users sticking around maintaining a semblance of activity, and meanwhile the community that moved to the fork suffers from a major decrease in public visibility. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
They may lose visibility but they gain respectability/credibility by moving away from Wikia, since they can get rid of the ads and tweak the MediaWiki installation to their liking. Landmartian (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
keeping existing Visibility is somewhat more important than what credibility you'll get from not being on wikia, which most people who aren't already part of wiki culture wouldn't care much about. Also Memory Alpha/Beta (Which is an example of a successful fork but had a workable reason behind doing it) and Wookipedia (Who discussed a fork after disney bought the franchise but decided it wasn't a good idea) seem to be doing pretty well on wikia, without any credibility problems--Miekal 16:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So is there any reason not to move RationalWiki over to Wikia, to achieve greater visibility? Landmartian (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Because we already have this one, there's no benefit to moving. You don't lose visibility (or gain it) by being on wikia, besides maybe being the "there's also THIS wikia!" spam on the button of pages. Wen we say lose or gain visibility, it's about being a new website. People know about the old website, it's already got the google views to push it up in searches, and it already has link penetration, a new website doesn't and is thus predisposed to fail, even if everybody agrees to move from the old one (which would never happen unless you purposefully shut down the website, and then they'd just not come altogether).--Miekal 17:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread takes on an entirely different meaning if you read the first word as an adjective and not a noun. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"They are goddamn huge" -David Gerard, 3/3/2015 Trick (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Shit, we've been discussing Gerard's dumps all this time. o_o 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

HOWTO[edit]

I wrote a little guide to conveniently (once you have it set up) working with the content dump. As a minimum you need to know command line basics and SQL. You also need 30GB+ of free disk space.

Of course, bean counting edits is pretty underwhelming compared to everything that's possible with a full content dump. I'll look into actually analyzing the content text, classifying edits etc. next.

--Someon (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good Lord. YOU WIN ALL THE INTERNETS. Seriously, I can't tell you how pleased I am to see someone use this thing for something - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
So... how fast is your PC? I just downloaded that xml and there's no way I'm decompressing that unless I know my processor won't melt. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 05:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
XZ actually uncompresses pretty fast. It's compression that takes ages - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Article on Tony Robinson?[edit]

Cut to Forum:Mr 74 said something BicyclewheelModerator 21:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone looking for work?[edit]

Fifty shiny bucks! - David Gerard (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't specify that it has to stay that way. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Any idea what the link is? ... anybody ... Scream!! (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect it's a company selling a woo product rather than an individual. I'd guess overpriced magic water or something like ShooTag. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving Moderator 07:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
odesk.com has a clean VirusTotal report and an excellent WOT rating. It's a sort of hiring fair for online freelancers. I suspect that the WOT score has been faked, but the only two really bad reviews relate to poor customer support. ProblemChimp (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw an ad on one of these things for someone to make a "Facebook clone" - also $50. Fonzie (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sure after they capture that billion dollar industry, they'd raise your salary to minimum wage. What programmer could refuse? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
They're based out of Pakistan, whoever they are. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the bidder, not OP, is based in PK. To anyone contemplating taking up the offer, as a better deal I can offer you ten-foot poles at wholesale prices. ProblemChimp (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny Stories[edit]

My plane is delayed and I'm bored, anyone have any funny stories?BlackProg (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A psychic midget has escaped from police custody. There is now a small medium at large. 68.187.218.86 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
If you've got some time, there's the longest joke in the world. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Last time somebody made that psychic joke, it wasn't relevant for me to mention Powerpuff Girls. "Realizing her goose was about to be cooked, the psychic flew into the grill. The girls agreed that it's quite rare for a medium to be so well done." or some-such. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 08:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Why do all the ladies love Jesus? *Hold arms out wide* because he's hung like this. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How many MRAs does it take to change a lightbulb? Not all of them. How many gaters does it take to make a piece of armor? 50. 1 to forge, 1 to model, and 48 to bitch that it's not THEIR shield. Trick (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rationalwiki themed bad jokes. Good idea!
A man walks into a bar and says "Gimme a homeopathic whiskey, but no ice, I don't want it getting watered down"
A woman goes to an alt-med clinic and says "Help me doctor, I think I'm a duck!" She gets a huge bill. the real joke is that she called him a doctor. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just dropped a major ban on an editor, and here I explain myself.[edit]

I just banned User:1ABC3 for three months with all the boxes checked. This after Weasel, I think binned him. He is a troll who is only here to make posts advocating pedophilia. See User:Tisane for precedent. We don't need this kind of nonsense. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey AH, I don't disagree with imposing sanctions on paedophilia advocates, but in the future would you mind calling in the mob, rather than going all one-man army? ScepticWombat (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't need this kind of nonsense. In this instance, bold action followed by raising its visibility here in the SB seems perfectly appropriate. Any sysop who thinks AH overstepped can overturn the ban with a few clicks. Any takers? Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it was a good decision. Call the mob, but don't let the guy post pedo nonsense while it's confirmed after just getting banned for the same thing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, if I had been wielding the mop it would have been years rather than months and I would have spat in the eye of anyone who thought it was too harsh. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Holy Fuck, some of 1ABC3's posts remind me of the late and very much unlamented Paedophile Information ExchangeWikipedia's W.svg. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I am completely okay with this, do please continue as needed - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You haven't gone far enough. If what you are saying is true, and this individual is advocating pedophilia, then his IP address must be sent to the FBI, as even advocating pedophilia is against the law (at least here in the states). Also, it's best to get these people on file, as if this person is ever caught searching for this content, their IP address will already be in the database. Parogar (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Advocating for X and advocating that people do X are two distinct acts, one is suggesting a change in laws(legal), one is incitement(illegal). Unless you think they were telling people to commit crimes against children, it's not illegal, and banning is fine. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hummm, apologetics is not a crime...while telling people to commit a crime is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all for the feedback. If Parogar is correct, that is out of my hands, as I cannot check IP addresses. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Landmartian showed up[edit]

Even telling people to commit a crime is legal, as long as you're not posing a clear and present danger. You can advocate without inciting, you can prepare without attempting, and you can assemble without conspiring. What 1ABC3 was saying didn't come close to being illegal speech.

By the way, talking about "pedophilia advocacy" instead of "child sexual abuse advocacy" is like talking about "zoophilia advocacy" instead of "bestiality advocacy". People rarely go around advocating for a paraphilia or sexual orientation, because it's not something that can be changed.

For example, what would be the point of saying "It's wonderful to be gay; everyone should be gay"? People who aren't already gay can't choose to become gay, so such advocacy would be pointless. It's another thing entirely to say "It's wonderful to have gay sex; everyone should have gay sex". Being gay isn't even a requirement for having gay sex, so that wouldn't really be gay advocacy, even though gays might be more likely to want to have gay sex, and therefore would be impacted more by whether there's a stigma against gay sex.

There's no law against pedophilia, just as there's no law against zoophilia and there was never (to my knowledge) a law against homosexuality. Landmartian (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

> There was never a law against homosexuality
> Oscar Wilde was arrested and convicted of homosexuality
> Nine states still had anti-homosexuality laws up until 2003
"To my knowledge" your knowledge sucks, Landmartian. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg So kawaii my doki doki just committed sudoku. 16:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There might have been an argument about the laws proscribing 'sodomy' rather than 'being homosexual', were it not for the fact that the two have often been considered interchangeable terms, even in the legal sphere. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Source, Raysenn or Queex? Black's Law Dictionary or something else reliable? Landmartian (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Here. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox 17:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
For the UK law under which Wilde was convicted:
"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with an other male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour." The Labouchere AmendmentWikipedia's W.svg, of 1885.
"there was never (to my knowledge) a law against homosexuality". Read and learn. That UK law remained in force until 1968. It was for certain enforced as late as 1954, in the Beaulieu case.Wikipedia's W.svg
Your move, Landmartian. ProblemChimp (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. @@Landmartian, a ProTip. I've looked at your talk page. So don't bother to post the tired argument that gay people are as free as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
And far-right anti-LGBT hate groups (and some on the far-left, like tankies) use "sodomite" as a snarl word against LGBT folk. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I'm the coolest driver's high 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That's probably because that's the term the Old Testament uses. They figure if that was a good enough word for God to use, it's a good enough word for them to use too. Landmartian (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
In regards to paraphilias and laws thereof, I'll just quote Wikipedia here. "In the United States, following a series of landmark cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, persons diagnosed with paraphilias and a history of anti-social behavior, particularly pedophilia (Kansas v. Hendricks, 1997) and exhibitionism (Kansas v. Crane, 2002), can be held indefinitely in civil confinement under various state legislation generically known as sexually violent predator laws and the federal Adam Walsh Act (United States v. Comstock, 2010)." Take that for what you will. --Castaigne (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Read the fine print, though. They first have to have been accused of an actual sex crime that involves action (even if just the act of downloading child porn) rather than only thought or sexual attraction. Well, with one exception, which is that if someone is believed, based on some evidence, by a magistrate to be mentally ill and an imminent danger (e.g. they publicly announced "I'm going to go to the South Side Elementary School and rape a child today") they might be committed without having committed a crime yet. State laws on that vary, although the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in sometimes to impose a few uniform standards (such as a clear and convincing evidence standard, in Addington v. Texas). Landmartian (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
So, people can still be locked up when they haven't actually done anything illegal...which seems to be Castaigne's point? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Yes they can. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No article or section on Erin Pizzey?[edit]

Erin Pizzey is part of "A Voice for Men." She's of particular note because of her pseudo-scientific views about psychology and sociology. She claims that emotional abuse is not as bad as physical violence (in a worse way than I'm making it out to be). She also claims that hormones are the main cause of women getting stuck in abusive relationships, and in a masochistic way. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 08:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, here's the part where she's more important to RW's mission statement: Her words seem to carry some weight as a result of her earlier advocacy. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 08:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not add a section on her in the Manosphere article? --Castaigne (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion theory crafting[edit]

What would happen if Logicmaster debated Animalian? Trick (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Database write failed: not enough free space on disc. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be like 2 monkeys banging on a typewriter that cannot understand what the other is writing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Two MST3K stars to riff a movie at atheist convention: update[edit]

  • The film that Trace "Crow/Dr. Forrester" and Frank "TV's Frank" Conniff will be riffing at the American Atheists' Convention in Memphis this April will be God's Not Dead. Frank, an outspoken liberal, has said "I'm not an atheist, but I am a devout blasphemer." Trace remains coy on his own beliefs. Thanos6 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Could the RW (funspace) equivalent of [1] be developed? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Upside down Whac-a-Mole with only one hole? Seems pretty meh-worthy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Up pops 'a stupid theory' which gets whacked with a withering retort. What's not to like? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a stupid theory, or even any kind of theory. It's a party game. BicyclewheelModerator 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett has passed away[edit]

I don't know about you guys, but I'll be raising a glass of Klatchian coffee to him this evening. It seems like an appropriate time to get knurd. - Grant (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I confess I am greatly surprised as to how distressing I've found the news. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Day: ruined. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This has really upset me. I'm going outside to listen to the susurration of the leaves and pretend I'm on the Chalk. Waily waily waily. PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
My town just put cobblestones into the downtown core, and I have a pair of shoes old enough to have their soles mostly worn through. I'm tempted to go for a walk myself. - Grant (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
And he died because Alzheimer's complications, like García Márquez. Why do these things happen to good people? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Nani wo surunda? Yuruzan! 15:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they? Is the universe supposed to reward people for being nice? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Lovecraft was right. --Castaigne (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an explicative that would express my sadness at this. Knowing Alzheimer's though...it can be a blessing it happened earlier. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I learned about Pratchett and the Disc here at RW. It made my world a better place.
But before I start blubbering, I'll quote what I said when Tom Magliozzi of Car Talk fame passed from Alzheimer's. Fuck Alzheimer's. With a ten foot, wrought iron, red hot, curare-tipped poll. And no lubricant! MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 16:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Fuck it with the bladed dildo from Se7en. Or a cactus. CorruptUser (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett in quotes: 15 of the best
DON'T THINK OF IT AS DYING, said Death. JUST THINK OF IT AS LEAVING EARLY TO AVOID THE RUSH ProblemChimp (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WIGO[edit]

Can somebody with wiki-fu please sort out the small-caps span thingy, so we can at least have Death talking properly. PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dammit, I made the mistake of reading the Telegraph article the WIGO links to. This is where I lost it: "A statement from his publishers disclosed his beloved cat had been sleeping on his bed alongside him." MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?"

Death thought about it.

CATS, he said eventually. CATS ARE NICE."
PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The motto on his coat of arms (in English) is: "Don't fear the reaper." I believe Terry Pratchett very likely lived his life in the way he wrote. - Grant (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
He had said two years back after a talk about his Alzheimer's,
"I can't be bothered about death. I have made him so popular that he owes me one... I'm bothered about dying badly, but everybody is."
It sounds like he died peacefully, so he did get that wish. Noir LeSable (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the few recent deaths of famous people that's actually resulted in tears for me. (writing this on more than 24 hours of awake time, grammar may be scrambled.) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 09:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Petition[edit]

To Death for the return of Terry P. Scream!! (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma bill preventing non-clergy from providing marriage licenses[edit]

Does that include Muslim/Jewish/Bhuddist/<You name it> ministers of faith or is this challenging first amendment again? K61824I am STILL single 02:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding it, the latter. AFAICT, the law basically says "only Christians and Jews can perform marriages". To quote the relevant bit (section 7A, starting at the bottom of page 8) "Except as provided in subsection E of this section marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age." The subsection E mentioned covers filing an affidavit of common law marriage with the court clerk as an alternative. Compro01 (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I will be waiting for the lulz when the courts are forcing them to include all faiths including muslims and watching Fox news explode. ThiehWhat is NOT going on? 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I might consider marriage if it means making them watch me get married by a satanist priest. Trick (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Only marriages touched by the noodly appendages are truly blessed. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm English, and so live in a country with an established religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall once reading somewhere that something or other in the U.S. Constitution prohibits this sort of thing. BTW, the Bill excludes Quakers from performing marriages. What's up next, a Test ActWikipedia's W.svg? ProblemChimp (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
We actually have an entirely separate clause in our constitution specifically banning things like the test act. "No state church" was an amendment on top of having no religious test for office. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Only the de jure tests are not allowed. De facto religious tests for office are still rampant in the US. K61824"6+18=24" 01:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@@ikanreed - you're disqualified for cheating, you've actually read the U.S. Constitution, which gives you an unfair advantage over state legislators. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So the intent of this law is to bar the government from performing marriages and recognise it solely as religious function; in my state, a baptismal certificate is a valid form of identification in lieu of a birth certificate when applying for a State issued ID or Driver License. This is either a special privilege for Catholics or dicriminitory against Protestants, atheists and others. I doubt the law can be changed now cause it would discriminate against Mexican immigrants who apply for a Driver License. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 12:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but until recently (1961), that clause only applied to federal office. States were free to require religious tests until then and 8 states (I'm sure you can guess where most these states are located) stuck them right in their constitutions.

RWF "Some People are both crackpots and litigious" Fund[edit]

In light of recent events, I think the RWF should make a legal defense cookie jar--through Patreon or something. A wad of money separate from site maintenance, to be saved against the day that some nutcase actually tries to bully RW with a lawsuit, because they don't like their article linking to something stupid they said, or a lawsuit they lost, or a professional group's opinion of them. Anyone see any problems with this? Or am I wrong and the RWF fundraiser is for both maintenance and in case someone sues? --Maxus (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. The day that some nutcase actually tries to bully RW with a lawsuit has come multiple times. Have you not even bothered to click the link in the fundraiser banner? It mentions three lawsuits & contains the phrase "legal defense nest egg". ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Alain de Benoist?[edit]

I recently learned of this philosopher when conversing with a friend. So, has anyone heard of him? Any thoughts? I think we should have an article on him if someone has any reliable sources 74.14.20.118 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Alain de BenoistWikipedia's W.svg A neo-fascist. <pyle> Su-prize, su-prize, su-prize!</pyle> I mean, Julius Evola was kind of interesting, and a fellow weirdo. This dude seems duller. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 03:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What To Do...[edit]

I have absolutely no idea what to do on here. Is there anything that needs lots of research? Thanks. http://imgur.com/9tEaW12 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about ethics in gaming journalism? I bet there's something to be written about that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That's just naughty! Scream!! (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"jet fuel can't melt ethics in gaming journalism, debra" - David Gerard (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Our article on Sufism is pathetically short and non-skeptical. We also don't have an article on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which would be a good topic.--Zipperback (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you type the vertical line that is used for putting words on links? — Unsigned, by: KOMF / talk / contribs 00:23, 13 March 2015‎ (UTC)

On my keyboard it's [Shift][\] - dunno about yours. You can use {{!}} instead if you can't find it. Scream!! (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)