RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive255

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 May 2016. 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>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <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>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>
, (new)(back)

More techs[edit]

We're a bit low on techs.

Current list of techs:

  1. Armondikov‏‎ (inactive)
  2. Bertran‏‎ (inactive)
  3. David Gerard‏‎ [active]
  4. FuzzyCatPotato‏‎ [active]
  5. Gooniepunk‏‎ (inactive)
  6. Ikanreed‏‎ (inactive)
  7. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt‏‎ (inactive)
  8. NoiseBot‏‎ (inactive)
  9. Nutty Roux‏‎ (inactive)
  10. Tmtoulouse‏‎ (inactive)
  11. Tyrannis‏‎ (inactive)
  12. ZooGuard‏‎ (inactive)
  13. Π‏‎ (inactive)

People who could make themselves techs but haven't:

  1. 142․124․55․236‏‎ [active]
  2. Human‏‎ (inactive)
  3. ScepticWombat‏‎ [active]
  4. Weaseloid‏‎ [active]

Techs can edit the Special:AbuseFilters, MediaWiki-space, and other pages that help make RW run.

The abuse filter is especially relevant. RW has been being hit with an IP-hopping vandal who posts personal information but has few consistent patterns of vandalism. This makes it difficult to filter out every edit they might make, but a regularly-updated abuse filter makes it increasingly more annoying for them to vandalize. However, I'm basically the only one running the filter at the moment, and the vandal has gotten maybe 100 vandalized edits in. Thus:

I would like to add about 4 new techs.

1: Are people OK with this? 2: How should these techs be selected? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't CarpetSmoker ever a tech? Huh. Well, he would be listed as inactive if he were, anyhow (cause LANCB). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Past tense indeed ;-) Apparently RationalWiki thought it was a good idea do nothing when the last who actually did anything was bullied away. Ah well... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Violin.gif WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey buddy! Glad to see you posting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, for the record, I think this is a great idea. How about Owlman and/or JorisEnter? They're good guys (just to name two). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it may be a good idea. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I dunno really how the abuse filters work, though, so I wouldn't be much use as a tech. Are there any techy individuals that want to volunteer for the position? (talk) 21:12, 22 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
So... Will all moderators be techs then? Or can you be a tech without being a mod?
Also I nominate weasel! StickySock (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Nah, as Fuzzy's first list illustrates, there's plenty of non-mod techs. They're just not very active. :/ (talk) 22:03, 22 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
I feel honoured by RBP's recommendation, but I really don't know much about the technical stuff at all. I can do some Python, but my skills are limited to what a first year astronomy undergrad needs to survive.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you've earned it buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Difficulty: It's extremely simple. The already-existing filters can mostly just be copy-pasted or expanded. It's not even a programming language proper. For example, the "blanking articles" filter is an entire 6 lines of text long. If you're worried, MediaWiki has a very helpful guide for the rules formats. And there's me to help! 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm only inactive in terms of like edits. Anyone who needs anything can drop a message on my account. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Potential techs[edit]

People seem OK with more techs. Here are some I had in mind: FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. Carpetsmoker (if he ever comes back)
  2. JorisEnter
  3. Owlman
Throw me in. I've already made the mediawiki upgrade package for when Dave gets to it. Zero (talk - contributions) 01:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Meh, I do basic coding at work all day anyway. Would nice to get rid of those damn "WINDOWS CUSTOMER SUPPORT" bullshit popups. CorruptUser (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
So what kind of rights do techs have?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The chief thing is the ability to modify site-wide CSS and JS. What this means is that basically any tech can steal your account if they so desired. That's probably the best reason not to make everyone a tech ;-) There are also some things like modifying the AbuseFilter and seeing deleted revs that are invisible to sysops... It's not that exciting, and basically it's just a "super janitor" status ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind poking at filters and stuff. I spend time at work messing with regexes, so it's soup and nuts, really. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I could always try to keep the edit filter updated, I suppose. We'll see how it goes.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Final list[edit]

As Carpetsmoker noted, techs have the ability to affect things site-wide. Does anyone have any final objections to anyone on this list?

  1. JorisEnter
  2. Owlman
  3. Zero
  4. CorruptUser
  5. Queex

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No objections from me - on the contrary, I would easily go as far as to endorse everyone on that list. Looking forward to us having more tech staff on hand! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I could see you on that list as well. You've done a good job reverting and blocking the recent vandalism.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, buddy! I'm just doing what I can to help the community. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine by me. Are they all interested in the job, though? (talk) 16:00, 23 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
Queex has expressed his willingness to take the job, as have I. Owlman has not explicitly stated that he'll take it, but I have not seen him refuse it either. I believe that Zero and CU have not responded yet.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: O wait, CU and Zero have said they'd take the job.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

These persons have been tech'd. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


I think we should start a project on criminology. There is a whole host of pseudoscience, racial prejudice, and authoritarian misuse within the field.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 02:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hell yes! ClickerClock (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Well there is a criminology wiki, but it doesn't appear to have a lot of regular, contributing users.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Which is why we should do it. There's not much information on that wikia. ClickerClock (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A criminology woo article would be good, yes. It could link up with racial profiling or psychic detection. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Wait a minute - why do we not have a psychic detection article? People have been put in jail because of that crap. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Cool idea! ClickerClock (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What is this fallacy?[edit]

Recently, I read a debate with an apologist, after the apologist's last argument (an argument from ignorance) was refuted, they wrote the following:

The problem is when the ignorance is intentional when wahy is rejected. Wahy, or divine communication, is Allah's communication with mankind. What is derived from wahy can explain many things that are gaps and nonGaps. Just because we use tools to understand natural processes and materials better does not automagically exclude the Creator's hand in the existence of those processes and materials. This is where the God of the Gaps category of fallacies is biased against wahy whereas Muslims are convinced in what wahy has brought.

When is was pointed out that all religions say this, the apologist basically repeated their stance in a more direct fashion:

Allah guides through the heart of a human being and does not guide those who are puffed up with pride in their own logic and reasoning. The test of this life is listening to the heart (spiritual heart) through which Allah guides, and to confirm it through knowledge transferred through wahy which is given only to Prophets. After combining these two channels of knowledge, the open-minded and unbiased person should be on guidance. Its the job of wahy to also explain who is also not on guidance.

This type of "open your heart" argument is always employed by the religious, but I'm wondering exactly what fallacies are at play here. It seems to be a combination of an argument from assertion and circular reasoning. Any thoughts? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious appeal to emotion tucked into "open your heart", to me, the constant reference to this non-existant "wahy" that everyone should listen for but not everyone gets to hear sounds exactly like an example of other ways of knowing. Which is, bullshit. It also appears to quite literally be a form of revelation - again, bullshit. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Possibly related articles: Self projection as god and Authenticity of divine revelation. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The fallacy is ultimately one of special pleading or circular logic. He says that Allah reveals truth only to the Prophets -- but how can we know that Muslim prophets are the true ones, and the Hindu prophets weren't the ones getting the truth? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
You both have good responses, but let me just clarify a bit - wahy is an Arabic word that means "revelation." It can mean two things - the "revelation" of Allah to Prophets, such as the Qur'an, and the personal revelation, i.e. "open your heart." The apologist is refering to the first kind in the first paragraph, and the second kind in the second. He had made a god of the gaps fallacy, and was basically trying to say the Qur'an was what gave Islam support; hence why he said "The problem is when the ignorance is intentional when wahy is rejected." So, an argument from assertion in my book. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Given what you say, might fall under equivocation. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
No, they were referring to the Qur'an (wahy #1) in the first response as evidence for Islam, when this was refuted they made the "open your heart" argument (wahy #2). Wahy can refer to both, but the context for each was clear. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I always respond to these arguments by asking about how they know that they aren't getting their info from Satan? Specifically things like "can Satan's followers write books? Can they copy a bible and change words around; this would explain why there are so many different versions of the bible. So how do you know your version isn't yet another adultered one?" You'll get lots of screaming and little productive, of course, but it's a good way to get them to leave you alone. CorruptUser (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Is there any opposition to making the Donald Trump page at least a Bronze? Perhaps it should also be given a priority rating since he is the likely GOP nominee? Bongolian (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we create a special orange level just for Trump? Maybe add some gold plating too, really class up the joint. --Ymir (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hell, just call the level Trump. That'd really help build his brand - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 10:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there like a home shopping level of gold? Where it looks expense till it turns out to just be cheap crap that contaminates everything it touches till all you are left with is a rash that doesn't go away. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
If we "help him build his brand" as Kitsunelaine said, he'll probably make us pay for it.'Legionwhat do you want from me 17:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose a PyriteWikipedia level for Trump. Petey Plane (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose a guacamole level, because it would annoy him. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Boy I sure do hate me some Trump. Maybe if I spend all my time talking about him and giving him more coverage and thus feeding his ego, that'll make him go away. CorruptUser (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, let's delete the page. Maybe Trump will go away. ;-) Bongolian (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well on account that he seems to be gaffe proof I don't think his media coverage would matter; maybe there should have been more media coverage of other candidates but that is already too late.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 07:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
polished turd. It has so many uses AMassiveGay (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I've started referring to his supporters as 'Tanshirts' --Araucaria (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Playing around with Rationalwiki's CSS[edit]


You need to click to expend the screenshots. ClickerClock (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Does it look better? ClickerClock (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd say no. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 05:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
K. Does it look just as good? ClickerClock (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
It makes the topquote bigger at the expense of visible text, and since this site basically lives on what it says rather than what it looks like, I think it's slightly worse.— Unsigned, by: username / talk / contribs
Remember to sign your name. ClickerClock (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried,now I have marker pen on my screen. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Help TYT host the next Democratic debate[edit]

I usually don't push for petitions, but I think it would be awesome to see the last Dem debate being hosted by a progressive news network. I think that this is an exciting prospect for not just TYT, but also both the candidates. If you are interested sign here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 06:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The TYT has too many problems for me to support. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Like what?---Mona- (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Cenk seems pretty avoidant about the Armenian genocide issue and their channel happens to share its name with the Turkish political movement that was behind said genocide. Some of their criticisms of conservative pundits are also not particularly well-considered and I've seen them engage in slutshaming among other things. (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah if you refuse to watch because their name is based on the Young Turk movement then I understand, but I don't blame the channel for whatever Cenk's views are on the Armenian genocide. I know they have had highly sexually comments, but I don't remember them slut-shaming though it wouldn't surprise me; I could guess the names of the hosts that would have slut-shamed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 17:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
When I google "The Young Turks slut shaming," all I get are youtube vids and stories about TYT hosting pieces against it. In light of that, and absent counter-evidence, I reject the claim that TYT engages in this practice. As for them making "ill-considered" comments about conservative pundits, I don't care. Finally, I'm aware that the Armenian genocide is a controversial, hot button topic, one about which I am pretty ignorant. So, I can't express an opinion. Tho, I've read that last year Cenk dealt with this topic on TYT. ---Mona- (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I know Ana did, but I don't remember Cenk talking about it on the 100th anniversary and I watch them fairly regularly.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 18:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
For all of TYT's faults, I still highly support this potential debate because I believe the staff would be ambitious to press Clinton on issues which all of the mainstream news outlets wouldn't. But that's also the reason I think the DNC wouldn't consider it because they might believe a TYT debate could make Hillary look bad and it's no mystery the TYT crew are totally enamored with Bernie. But if the DNC declines it would still be a loss for Hillary anyway as they would have to go into verbal gymnastics to explain why they are afraid to let Hillary the supposed progressive candidate attend a debate hosted by a relatively progressive news show. NameThatNobodyTakes () 22:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
TYT isn't my fav, but hey an online debate sounds awesome! Sorry but I ain't american so I cant exactly do anything.ClickerClock (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I find their pro-Bernie fanboyism extremely annoying. They always criticize Hillary, but they never say anything negative about Bernie. When they do their "best line/worst line" videos covering Democratic debates, the best line is always Bernie's, and the worst line is always Hillary's (or at least by not Bernie), even when they say it was Hillary who won. So, I think you're right.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Well they have generally been supportive of Clinton during the manufactroversy like Benghazi, but Clinton was never really a social liberal and was always a warhawk.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the way Cenk emphasizes points with his voice. It gets extremely tiresome if you watch a couple of those videos in a row. A similar thing can be said of Kyle Kullinsky. Also, they are oversimplifying a lot of things (again, the same goes for secular talk) among other things with their talk of "corporatism" as somehow distinct from capitalism (which they seem to vaguely support) Pizzameister (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

They are basically social democrats; I think that oversimplification and science illiteracy is rampant throughout the media so I wouldn't hold it as unique among TYT's correspondents.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC) 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We've Been Debunked![edit]

... by a bunch of reposts some dude found.

Not sure where else to put this. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"It is a wiki run by autists, perverts and genuinely bat-shit insane atheists". ROTFLMAO.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, i'm not autistic!Petey Plane (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow, a creationist declares reality has been debunked. Like that hasn't happened before to shit's and giggles of everyone involved. :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Their "definition" for us is from an Urban Dictionary user called "Atheism is bullshit." lol, we must be dealing with masterdebators here. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hilariously dumb find, FCP! More like this, plox. The guy in question would, based on that one blog post, appear to be;

  • Not only a practicing Christian, but a staunch believer in the Gospels as relaying history
  • A creationist
  • A 9/11 truther
  • A MGTOW supporter (or, atleast embeds one of their videos)

...and that's really just the beginning. Here's a list of the blogs operated by "JM Talboo", including Undebunking UFOs, Undebunking Bigfoot, Debunking Death and Time Travel Babble. If all of these blogs operated by this account were to represent the views of a single individual? Then holy shit, David Icke may just have met his match. I mean, if two RW articles mated and had this guy as their demented offspring, they'd be Crank magnetism and Fractal wrongness (possibly formed in a threesome with Conspiracy_theory#Unified_Conspiracy_Theory). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this guy is great...he seems to believe in every steaming pile of bullshit and wrote a verbal diarrhea that's as close to logic as I am a turnip. My mistake is to keep thinking that this is so utterly laugh out loud silly that he's got to be a Poe. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I mean, he is a Poe. Poe's Law does not mean that the person is in fact a parody; Poe's Law means that the person is so over the top extreme that he cannot be told apart from a hypothetical parody of himself. I've actually seen a lot of people mistakenly use Poe here, thinking that if somebody is a Poe, they're a fake (as in, if somebody is extreme enough they must be a parody). Which is incorrect. Glad to have helped! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hummm, I agree there in the use of the law. It might be confusion on my part but I thought "A Poe" as the noun was to differentiate good parodies likely to be a joke and those who are actually nuttier than squirrel shit. From the article that concisely describes it: "In most cases, this is specifically in the sense of posts and people who are taken as legitimate, but are probably parody." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, therein lies the problem to me. I argue that Poe's means "Any sufficiently extreme person or view will be indistinguishable from a parody of the same". Adding the part you quote from the article about likelyhood of examples being parody or not and such is not only wrong (as the vast majority of Poe's law examples are real people and opinions, not comedians and parody), but it also appears to be logically inconsistent with the law itself. Since the point of Poe's is that we cannot easily tell actual extremism from a parody of extremism, having a sentence in the article that says that "in most cases" and "are probably parody" is clearly logically inconsistent. We should amend the article so that the descriptive text actually follows the law it intends to describe. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

...Is this real life? ...Is this just fantasy?[edit]

How the hell don't we have an article on this guy yet? Even TOW finds him noteworthyWikipedia! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no way of describing that. He appears to be a new age-y Christian, but he also performs faith healings and exorcisms. I can't understand why he is wearing that wig, but his Southern accent only makes his wig that much more ridiculous.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 00:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Caught in a landslide... Petey Plane (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
No escape from reality... Pizzameister (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Except for the dear Mr. Spivey, who appears to already have left it way behind... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"RationalWiki vs Wikipedia"[edit]

Apparently we've got a Swedish fan. Google-translated. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Forget that silly translate link - I'll do the honors of translating once I'm no longer editing from my phone. That guy seems nice and he really liked the site, anyways. I ought to ask him to sign up. Good find, FCP! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No longer on my phone! Here we go;
Swedish English
Skillnaden mellan den korrekta, om något torra, Encyclopedia Galactica och den lika korrekta men, låt oss säga, lite mer avslappnade Liftarens Guide påminner inte så lite om skillnaden mellan Wikipedia och RationalWiki.

Jämför till exempel vad de två uppslagsverkssajterna inledningsvis har att säga om ämnet kreationism.

The difference between the correct, if somewhat dry, Encyclopedia Galactica and the equally correct but, let's call it, a bit more relaxed Hitchhiker's Guide is to no small degree reminiscent of the difference between Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Compare for example what the two encyclopedic sites initially have to say about the topic of creationism.

(Then there's a few examples that are already in english.)
RationalWiki har tagit som sin uppgift att upplysa om pseudovetenskap och anti-vetenskaplighet av alla de slag. Så långt är det inte mer än en delmängd av Wikipedia. Men man gör det med ett muntert no-nonsense anslag som stundtals får den generella encyklopedin att framstå lika underhållande som en formelsamling. RationalWiki är tillräckligt korrekt och uppdaterad, men kan dessutom läsas för nöjes skull; jag höll på att skriva "enbart för nöjes skull", om det inte var så att man omöjligt kan läsa informativa texter (som det verkligen är frågan om) utan att få i sig ett och annat spår av lärdom.

Några exempel till:

RationalWiki has made it their mission to shed light on pseudoscience and anti-science of every kind. So far that amounts to a portion of Wikipedia. But it is being done with a merry no-nonsense attitude which at times makes the general encyclopedia look as entertaining as a collection of mathematical formulas. RationalWiki is sufficiently correct and up to date, but it can also be read for recreational purposes; I almost wrote "only for recreational purposes", if it wasn't impossible to read informative texts (which is what these really are) without picking up some bits and pieces of education. A few more examples:

(Then there's a few examples that are already in english.)
Den enda risken med att tipsa om RationalWiki är att man lätt fastnar. Det gällde t.ex. underteckand när han skulle leta reda på exemplen ovan. Lärdomen är att man inte ska vara rädd för en humoristisk touch även när allvarliga ämnen avhandlas, så länge man inte gör det mycket vanliga felet att ta humor för brist på allvar. The only risk involved in tipping people off about RationalWiki is that it's easy to get stuck reading it. For example, that happened to yours truly as he was browsing for the examples above. The lesson is that one shouldn't be afraid of a humoristic touch even when serious matters are being discussed, as long as you don't commit the very common error of mistaking humor for lack of seriousness.

Something like that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone recently argued Finnish was a dying language because (almost) all Finns know English... Notice how this text was written in Swedish, a similarly obscure language as Finnish? Pizzameister (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Though, Swedish is easily not as obscure as Finnish is when we compare the two to English. Swedish is a germanic language (like English), but Finnish is a uralic language. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems that I can actually understand a few words here and there - Swedish is a bit like Dutch.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, Dutch is also germanic. Now, try reading some finnish... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's start with the fact that they call their own country "Suomi".--JorisEnter (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Another public service announcement[edit]

To move a page, don't copy-and-paste it. Use MediaWiki's page move feature. For information, see our help page, and the MediaWiki manual. I'm posting this because I just saw yet another person do a copy-and-paste. --Ymir (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about people working on a draft article in their userspace & then copy-pasting it to article space, I don't see how that is a problem. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a problem if other people have edited the draft. Also it's faster and easier to do a page move the "correct" way. I'm pretty sure people are copy-and-pasting because they don't know how to use MediaWiki. --Ymir (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

MSitB cover story nom[edit]

The nomination for Modern Science in the Bible has been out there for more than a month, with a grand total of two replies (one by FCP about a minor wording fix, one by RBP saying that he couldn't find any problems). Anyone else got comments? (see the talk page).--JorisEnter (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

As it's a single-author piece on an obscure topic, I don't think it would make a particularly good showcase or entry point to be featured on the site homepage. Those quotes at the top of page are also an awful way to start an article on an obscure topic. Start by explaining what it is; not with what people we've never heard of say about. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
At any rate, surely we ought to consider upgrading it from Silver to Gold? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I must say that two quotes by theologians at the start of an article does not impress me. Two quotes by theologians I have never heard of impresses me even less. Two quotes by theologians I have never heard of giving me their opinions about a book I have never heard of doesn't really motivate me to read the article.
I guess that some people might think that theologians opinions on this subject might carry weight - but it's rather like homeopaths criticizing chiropractors for me.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I had never heard of either of them until I started writing this article (and in doing some Google searches happened to stumble upon Smedes's blog post in which he points out Hobrink's plagiarism), but Smedes appears to be kind of well known in Dutch theology circles (though I suppose none of us are really into that). I thought these were some nice quotes about the book, but if anyone can find a better one than please replace it. As regards the single-author bit: that's why I would like other people to work on this article as well (though that's kind of hard given that it's about a book most of us probably don't have, but there's a link to a Google Books version at the bottom).--JorisEnter (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't replace the topqotes; take them out or incorporate them somewhere more appropriate in the text. "Modern Science in the Bible is a book by Dutch Young Earth creationist Ben Hobrink" should be the first thing readers see on this page, as most will be unfamiliar with the topic & reading a load of quotecruft first without knowing what it's talking about is just confusing. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Still support covering. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Me too; the article text is actually pretty great, for those of you who manage to get past the two quotes and actually read on at length before giving your verdict (not pointing any fingers). Weaseloid is right about the placement of the quotes, for the record - they belong baked into the article text or indeed as part of one of the final segments of the article, not in the intro. My two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The quotes could be moved to the bottom, under "Accusations of plagiarism" or "Other criticism", but I rather like the idea of having some sort of introductory quote describing the book or its subject (the problem is that I can't find too much that fits).--JorisEnter (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: The longer of the two quotes has been moved to the relevant section, the shorter one can probably stay at the top.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I would still consider moving the shorter quote to another section of the article (especially if it will give your article frontpage status), e.g. just a small step down to the "General overview" segment or the "Dissecting the book" segment. The quote would also fit there, perhaps even better than at the top in my opinion. Just my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that two quotes may have been a bit much (especially since the one that got moved was pretty long) but quite some other cover story articles have quotes at the top as well, including Atheism, Ray Comfort, Evolution, Genetically modified food and a bunch of others.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course - and a good article is often topped off with a great opening quote. I've easily added more than 50 opening quotes since I first joined last spring. However, Weaseloid literally said ""Modern Science in the Bible is a book by Dutch Young Earth creationist Ben Hobrink" should be the first thing readers see on this page", and BoB M seems to share that view. That's all. I'm just coming at this from the angle that getting the article rated Gold is in line with my own views of it. *shrugs* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I've relocated the other quote as well. It's currently under "Accusations of plagiarism", but it might be better in another location. Noch jemand was zu meckern?--JorisEnter (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering the quotes have now been moved by JorisEnter, will Weaseloid et al further consider Gold status? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid and Bob M mainly objected to the quotes, as far as I can see; FCP "supports covering".--JorisEnter (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
We'll have to await updated comments from them before we can count them as either pro or con (considering the changes made in the article); however, I am to be counted among the pro votes since this discussion began. Thus, so far, we've got FCP, you and me supporting Gold status (that is, front page). Great job on the article buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!--JorisEnter (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have also started some sort of cover abstract thingy at User:JorisEnter/Modern Science in the Bible. At the moment it's not much more than the first paragraph of the article, so if anyone's got something to add to it, feel free to do so.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Any other comments? The voting appears to be 3 ayes (FCP, RBP and me), one nay-at-least-until-you-remove-those-quotes (Weaseloid; quotes have been relocated), and one voter whose position is not entirely clear (Bob M).--JorisEnter (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Just do it. If nobody got their knickers twisted enough to oppose, it's fine. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Ze cover abstract is done. As far as I can see, everything is ready for this page to be elevated to Cover Story level.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You're putting words in people's mouths. My comment about the quotes was pointing out a problem with the article I noticed at first glance. My comment about the cover nomination was "As it's a single-author piece on an obscure topic, I don't think it would make a particularly good showcase or entry point to be featured on the site homepage". WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's three ayes, one nay, and one unclear one.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
All I can add here is a renewal of my "yes" vote. Also, since the quotes were moved, I think we ought to be extra lenient towards the addition from Joris. It's not like this article is being voted to be the exclusive frontpage; it'll simply be added to the batch of front page articles that exist already and a select portion of new visitors will have it shown as such. We need not discard work as diligent as this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Also note that the article is not exclusively about this book: Hobrink uses many arguments that are regularly used by creationists (evolution can't add new information, micro but not macroevolution, etc) and in debunking his points, the article simultaneously takes on many standard creationist points as well. Our current articles on creationism and young Earth creationism are also kinda crap, so having an article on the front page that takes down a healthy amount of creationist crap won't hurt.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else? It's currently still 3:1 in favour of golding.--JorisEnter (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As there was no response in the last 485 hours, I have upgraded the page to Cover story status (including editnotice and cover abstract).--JorisEnter (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April Fools[edit]

What are some of your favorite April Fools pranks/jokes? http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/april-fools/ Some of Blizzard's have been pretty good over the years. Lightning Dust (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Google Noose is the most notable April Fools joke for me.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 04:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
this AMassiveGay (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Bronze Articles?[edit]

Would anyone object if a couple of my personal pets articles were upgraded to Bronze status?

  1. Horizontal gene transfer: Relatively missional, but not a core mission. Moderately fleshed out.
  2. Castration: A bit more missional, moderately sourced, but nowhere near gold level.
  3. Jeb Bush: At this point it's so fleshed out and missional I'd actually say the article is worthy of being silver.
  4. Glyphosate: Relatively missional since it's brought up constantly by the chemophobes, but not a core mission, fairly fleshed out.

CorruptUser (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The one on horizontal gene transfer is a bit short. The other three are worthy of bronze, I think.--JorisEnter (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
These all appear worthy of bronze to me, especially Castration and Jeb Bush. Nice work, CorruptUser. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Heh, community did quite a bit of work too. Most of the work actually :P CorruptUser (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, credit where credit is due! But you helped! So you get yours too :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown and MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown[edit]

Weaseloid and I disagree what should be listed in the "block reason" and "deletion reason" dropdown menus. The difference:

Weaseloid (current): FCP:
  • Malicious:
    • Doxing (posting/soliciting personal information)
    • Legal threats (please see RationalWiki:Legal FAQ)
    • Harassment (attacking other users)
    • Spam (vandalizing or posting something over and over)
  • Any preference? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

    i'm not sure self explanatory terms need any explanatory text, unless to provide fuel for inevitable wikilawyering AMassiveGay (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    I actually prefer the FCP version, for example, as a new editor, I wouldn't have such an easy process of understanding the ban reasons without those. Though on the other hand, isn't it correct that if you type text into the "extra" field when you have one of those options set, it'll show in that way anyhow? E.g. if we were to use Weaseloid's list to the left, and I'd pick one of them - say, "Spam" - and then type extra text, if I'd type "vandalizing or posting something over and over" in that field, wouldn't the final block log entry look about the same as FCP's "Spam" but with an empty extra text field? Because if the answer to that is "yes", then I'd actually stand to be convinced that Weaseloid's list might be better. I hope this question and example made sense, for the record. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    the thing is, if we are going downto the road of defining the self explanatory, then the explainations should not be even vaguer? than the term being explained. For example, vandalizing is arguably more vague than spam. Also, what does 'attacking other users' entail? Does it include all forms of harrasment? I would argue that the terms wealoid uses on their own are well known enough to stand on their own, and broad enough to include all that they may encompass. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Mostly I wanted to define doxing; the others are more commonplace. Admittedly the definitions could be better; if you've suggestions, please provide. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    [ec] Weaseloid quite properly put it back to status quo ante in my opinion. FCP's change smacks too much of "belt and suspenders" ("belt and braces" in the Queen's English) taking up space every time to explain things that only need it one time. Most web-savvy readers will not need any explanation at all. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

    Anyone with some understanding of the English language will understand what harassment and spam are, though doxing may not be known to everybody - in that case I'd say just look it up.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

    I'll go along with that. I'd never heard of "doxing" before I came to RationalWiki. But I'm pretty sure that anybody who got blocked for it would know only to well what it was. Spud (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be too sure about harassment or doxing, people have many, many conflicting views on what it is. Spam is probably less ambiguous, though.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, there are other meanings too.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    getting too specific is also a problem. Imagine the coop cases of '...but the definition says this, while i'm doing that thing you forgot to include.' I say imagine, you could prob just look in the archives. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    besides which, any detailed explaination would be in the community standards and is entirely redundant in a dropdown reason. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    I've had that problem, too. Somebody creating a page with some sort of telephone number, for example, is not "posting something over and over" (because they usually get banhammered after the first attempt) and probably also not "vandalizing" (because that would be done to something that's already there). Despite this, it's pretty damn obvious that the telephone thingy is spam.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Short versions - the long versions only constructs a set of playground equipment for trolls and wikilawyers. The trouble with malice is not a failure to understand what they're doing, and the trouble with stupidity is not that nobody has ever explained that stupidity is bad - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

    Everyone talking about "wikilawyering" is talking shit. When's the last time anyone has appealed their ban? Much less appealed their ban on a technicality? The only benefit or harm of this is to the ban-er, not the ban-ee. FuzzyCatPotato of the Nigerian Riddles (talk/stalk) 16:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

    Yesterday I deleted a page and blocked the account which created it. The page was something about a Lexmark printer helpline number (presumably fraudulent). This is surely, by any normal standards, spam. Yet according to the definition appearing in the dropdown menus (vandalizing or posting something over and over) it isn't, since I only saw it posted the once. I would like to be able to use the dropdown options in these situations for convenience, because that's what they're there for, without having to choose an inaccurate description. I reiterate that these arbitrary parenthetical definitions aren't necessary or helpful. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    I could be persuaded that a link to Doxing would be helpful. Hyperlinks are our friends. In my estimation, verbose descriptions belong on a page devoted to a relevant subject, not in a drop-down menu.
    Being a dedicated follower of fashion, I think it is time to poll the quorum here assembled. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)



    1. Status quo, as restored by Weaseloid, perhaps with a link to doxing. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    2. Same for me.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    3. Works as-is for me - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    4. I'm currently under the impression that, as long as we link to an explanation for Doxing, Weaseloid's more spartan delete reasons might actually serve to confuse less in the long run. So thus far in the discussion, I'm pro-terse. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    5. Since my experience would suggest that "doxing" is the only one of those words that might be unfamiliar to an English-speaker of average intelligence alive in 2016, I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Spud (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    6. Keep it short, but add links to doxing and the legal FAQ. It's what links are for. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    7. Precise, wordy definitions lead to wikilawyering. The fact that nobody has done so recently doesn't mean nobody ever has (they certainly have) or ever will. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


    I like the verbose, just make the descriptions a bit shorter more vague. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


    I probably wont ever use them either way AMassiveGay (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


    Thanks for voting, everyone. Seems like most people want the terse version, with a link to doxing. I've changed it to:

    Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

    This seems like a good idea. Links to Doxing and the Legal FAQ are good, because many people (including me until I encountered it somewhere on RW) do not know what doxing is.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    That's fair. I've had to explain it elsewhere too. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

    The consensus on privacy and the encryption debate[edit]

    I believe it is very important that we establish the mobs stance on privacy and the encryption debate as soon as possible, this has been forced into the public spotlight, and it would be nice to establish at least some precedent on the mobs views on encryption and privacy in general. I also believe it will be good to create a privacy nav, and multiple pages on privacy and encryption. Privacy has become a major public issue, and i believe it will be in our best interest to debunk bullshit claims about encryption and privacy in general. I personally believe that privacy is very important, and that it is in everyone's best interest to keep privacy strong. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

    people dont give a shit about privacy. Its been given up cheaply for facebook and iphones. Google reads your emails and Apple's only been noisy bout the feds because they want to be the only ones spying on their customers. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    Do we need a stance? Can't we just present the evidence and refute the bullshit? Certainly coverage of issues is good, and nav bars in moderation. But do you need a stance to do that? (Personally I like privacy but I also like posting nonsense on the internet. And should governments, politicians, corporations, etc, have a right to privacy?) Annquin (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

    From the makers of God's Not Dead and God's Not Dead 2[edit]

    I'm Not Ashamed "based" on the story and journal entries of Rachel Joy Scott who was killed in the Columbine high school shooting in 1999. — Unsigned, by: Cms13ca / talk / contribs

    I actually remember reading a book when I was much younger called "She Said Yes" which (I think) was about the same girl, written by her mother. Despite the premise I don't remember it being super preachy but my memory may fail me on that front as well, in any case it did stick out in my mind. Telling the story of a teenager's religious questioning/discovery might actually be interesting ground for a movie, but undoubtedly it will be morphed into ridiculous nonsense, and it's rather sickening (though not surprising in the slightest) that her life will be exploited in such a matter. It's one thing to just make up ridiculous nonsense propaganda. I'm also sure they won't say a word about the gun violence that actually murdered her. Hentropy (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    Different student. At least according to Goodreads[4], She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martyrdom of Cassie Bernall by Misty Bernall is actually pretty good, even if you know the central premise is bullshit and question her mother's super-quick rush to publication (which some reviewers do). It's interesting that they've now found another Christian martyr after Bernall's death was debunked. No idea about the truth of I'm Not Ashamed, but most sources say Rachel Scott was Christian (which isn't too surprising). Annquin (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ahh. I guess the moral of the story is that Google is my friend. Hentropy (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

    What are some good shows to watch?[edit]

    I havent watched television in a long ass time, so I'm wondering if there are any good shows (like the West-wing, a show that I'm interested in seeing) or cartoons that are worth watching. So, do any of you have any recommendations? Sierra Nav (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

    I like Empire, Being Mary Jane, Star Trek DS9 (and sometimes Enterprise) re-runs, The Office, and some Korean dramas. I used to hate South Park, but it's grown on me since I like they way they deal with current issues. Your mileage may vary XD Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    Comic book shows are hitting a good stride. Supergirl is simply the best thing on network television right now. The streamed shows Daredevil, now on 2d season, and Jessica Jones, are both pretty good. Agents of SHIELD is slow starting, but has hit its stride. As for cartoons, Archer is going to start its sixth season tomorrow. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 12:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    House of Cards and Empire are really good. Hemlock Grove was decent once you get into it. AyzmoCheers 12:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

    Better Call Saul. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

    Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Orange is the New Black ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    venture bros. Is awesome AMassiveGay (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    Hannibal, if you have Amazon Prime, as it's off the air now. Really well written and produced, but be warned, pushes the boundaries on network television gore. The 1st season actually fills in a lot of backstory referenced in Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs, if you liked those (and haven't read the books). For funny, Always Sunny in Philadelphia is good, but the earlier seasons are definitely superior to the new ones. Petey Plane (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    is he a panto villian like he is in the films? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    Ha, yeah, Hopkins definitely hams it up in the films following Silence of the Lambs (but those mostly suck anyway). No, not campy in the show, closer to Brian Cox's portrayal in Manhunter (my favorite Lector movie). He's played by this guy: Mads MikkelsenWikipedia.Petey Plane (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

    Newsroom, House of Cards. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

    I'm going to go balls to the wall and say: BoJack Horseman. It's on NetFlix, and it's brilliant to the bone. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    Futurama. CorruptUser (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

    Only shows I watch are Star Trek (TNG, and TOS) It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and some anime that my brother watches. 'Legionwhat do you want from me 06:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC) The CW's Flash and Arrow TV shows are good, though Arrow isn't for everyone, and is mostly good for background noise. House of Cards, Daredevil, they're both okay suggestions too. I don't watch too many TV shows, there's not a lot on that interests me these days (I miss Fringe and Stargate :()- Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 09:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

    >:() There is always The Wire (lives up to the hype, maybe greatest TV drama of all time) and Deadwood, but i assume people have seen those by now. Petey Plane (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

    What about Tatort, though? Pizzameister (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

    http://animu-mango.wikia.com/wiki/Anime_Recommendations --Ymir (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

    I loathe american tv shows. I dont care how well made, how acclaimed, how fucking amazing they are, i flat out refuse to commit years of my life to a fucking tv show. And not just a few weeks each year either, those fuckers go on for ever. Marriages do not last as long. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

    @AMG: But marriages also don't (usually) take 1 hour per week... FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 12:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Or 2 afternoons of binge watching on a streaming service. I get what you are saying, and i do like the BBC method of shows having a definite 3 or 4 season ending written in from the start, but there are plenty of American shows that are like that as well, and some BBC shows that aren't (cough... Dr. Who... cough)Petey Plane (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Unlike that one British show about some Doctor, can't remember who. That show has been on so long I think the original cast are all dead by now.
    But seriously, you are free to stop watching after a couple of seasons if you like. As long as the seasons aren't all filler, that is. You might want to avoid Japanese cartoons if you hate things going on forever. I mean, Dragonball has like 500 episodes, mostly filled with screaming and dear God has Freeza been powering up for three entire episodes?! And now they are making new episodes, about Super Sayian God Super Sayian God Super Whatever. Oh and over two dozen movies that mostly take a dump on the franchise. StickySock (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Anime producers very often don't have the decency to just stop a series when they're out of intelligent ideas for it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    As much as i liked watching DB with my little brother as a kid, once i realized that power levels were absolutely meaningless, and therefor so to the 10 episodes of two characters screaming at each other before the 5 minute fight, it lost some of it's appeal. I can't imagine anyone over the age of 15 actually liking that show.Petey Plane (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    dr who can go fuck himself, nust on the grounds of being awful. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    (giant nerd alert) That's not really true. Only the big shonen and merchandise-seller series (Dragonball, One Piece, Pokémon, Pretty Cure) targeted at kids go on forever. Most anime series go 12 or 24 episodes, and if it was particularly popular they might release some OVAs later. This is largely due to how Japanese TV works. Production companies can buy a time slot on a station a season at a time and air whatever they want, in contrast to the U.S. model where the network decides what to air and has the power of life and death over each show. --Ymir (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    i want to like anime, and ive really tried to. But the characterisation in those fhings - its just physically painful to watch. I'd say its a cultural thing, but i have no problem with japanese cinema, just the anime. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with the excessively large homosexual above. I like a lot of Japanese cinema, but i can't get into the over-the-top melodrama of most anime. I also don't find japanese humor very funny. That being said, Akira is in my top 5 fav movies of all time. Petey Plane (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    I like everything by Studio Ghibli, but outside of that only a few anime. E.g. Tokyo Godfathers is my all time favourite Christmas movie. I don't mind Akira but can't get excited about it, & Ghost in the Shell didn't interest me at all. I used to like pulpy stuff like Cowboy Bebop & Hellsing but can't really get into that any more either. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Guys we have to be honest here, we all know Barney the Dinosaur is the best show out there, be honest guys, that dinosaur knows what he is talking about. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 01:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    Barney the Dinosaur proves evolution is false. Petey Plane (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    It also recruits kids into being gay just like Teletubbies, Spongebob and Batman & Robin do.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Barney? That show was half decent, but lets be honest, The BooBahs (yes that seriously exists) is CLEARLY superior to that purple plebian! Sierra Nav (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Ali Sina[edit]

    Some BON made the page with:

    Ali Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International. An Ex-Muslim, his website claims to help Ex-Muslims leave Islam and criticises the religion. However in reality, he is a Far-Right Anti-Muslim bigot, homophobe[1], Birther [2] and He Who Must Not Be Named supporter[3] who is far more of a hindrance than help to the cause of Muslim critics and Ex-Muslims, the latter being a highly oppressed people. He has repeatedly argued for Islam to be banned and Muslims to be deported[4] and has engaged in victim blaming with regards to Syrian Refugees [5]. However, in spite of this, noted Atheists Richard Dawkins and Ibn Warraq have praised his organisation. Please, if you are an Ex-Muslim and/or critic of Islam check out Maryam Namazie or Maajid Nawaz. Completely ignore this asshole.

    How close/far from the truth does this hit? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

    The sources appear to check out at a glance, and it certainly appears missional if true... maybe place it in essay a space for now and try to research it and grow it (or discard it) before moving to mainspace? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    Oh my god, not another one of these retarded Voldemort-jokes about Teh Donald.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC) 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

    Well, I'm confused already. Maryam Namazie? I thought she was the biggest Islamophobe of all according to some circles. Also, I've heard good things from other sources regarding FFI, though I don't know enough to comment here. I'd suggest someone do some more research on the subject and make the page more accurate if needed. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

    We already kind of had a discussion about Namazie. IMO, she's not Islamophobic, although more conservative or fundamentalist Muslims (like the Goldsmiths Univ. ISOC president, who shut down one of her talks) may see her as one (like how conservative Christians may see criticism of the Bible as "oppression"). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

    By The Numbers - The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics[edit]


    Thoughts? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

    Well besides there not actually giving any numbers on its "Islamic sphere" graph, this video cites Sam Harris fro Bill Maher's interview with him; in that interview, Sam Harris makes a wild claim that 20% of Muslims supported radical Islam, but gives no evidence to his claim. The problem with those the poll she cites about Muslim support for the execution of apostates is that Muslims in Kosovo, Albania, Turkey, and Indonesia don't hold those views. These are cultural views mixed with religion. Raheel Raza has called for a ban on individuals coming from "high risk" countries and was against Park51. The CAIR has not been associated with Hamas for some time now and the UAE's designation is frivolous.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 01:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    Haven't watched the video, though there are opinion studies, too. For example, this one. “Islamic fundamentalism is widely spread. WZB study shows significantly high numbers amongst Europe’s Muslims” ~ Aneris 01:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    There is a lot of fundamentalists within Islam, but the video doesn't explain the cultures that these Muslims come from. A good example would be stating how many Hindus, who mostly come from India, are misogynistic, but the culture of India is very misogynistic so blaming just the religion ignores other factors.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 01:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Aneris: Usually the problems with these polls is that the cultural libertarian side (so to speak) only cites the bits where Muslims are bigoted nutters and the SJW side (so to speak) only cites the bits where they are reasonably progressive.
    @Owlman: The source of the bigotry is really irrelevant. So what if someone's from the misogynist South, and we can't blame their woman-hate on Christianity? They're still bigoted, and ought to stop -- possibly, to be made to stop. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    That wasn't what I was trying to say. I was that there are other factors besides religion that makes someone bigoted, but, obviously, religion helps to legitimize those views.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 01:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    African arrival to London[edit]

    Has anyone seen the Arrival of black immigrants in LondonWikipedia WP page before? It mentions African descendants in London before the Romans and during Catherine of Aragon's visit to London w/o a lot of references. Is this all BS or are there any academic articles on these arrivals?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

    I don't know if you're reading a different version of the article to me, but the one I read mentioned only depictions in London in Roman times. And it's hardly controversial that Catherine of Aragon (a Spanish noblewoman) had African servants in the early 16th century. Some refs here. There were Africans in southern Europe from the 15th century. I suggest you get a good biography of Catherine. Annquin (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well how did the depiction of Africans get there because there is no ref (it leads to the Museum of London, but I can't find the page mentioning it). I also I looked up the Catherine of Aragon claim and found it, but nothing on Cornelius, the first African man in London; I mentioned Catherine because there weren't a lot of refs on that section.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 01:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's been tagged as needing additional references for more than eight years now. It's not a great article but I think it just contains statements that need to be verified, rather than actual bullshit. I'm a bit surprised that the article isn't semi-protected and they let BoNs edit it. But then the title would put off the real crazies who insist that everyone in Britain was black until some white devils arrived in the 17th century or something. Spud (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    or, more pertinently, that there were no blacks until the post-war immigration wave. Flannan Isle (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    That's more of a common misconception than a loony idea. I can't imagine that many BONs would blank the page and replace its content with, "There were no blacks in Britain before 1950." Spud (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    The Roman depiction could have been an image of Septimus SeverusWikipedia who spent a significant amount of time in Britain, and with his African ancestry is often reckoned to be of mixed race.[5] A lot of images show him in idealised (white Roman) form but not all.[6] All this can easily be Googled or raised on Wikipedia talk pages. Annquin (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well I am aware of Emperor Severus being mixed race, but I wasn't aware of the connection.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 12:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Monthly stats[edit]

    May 2016, RW had 46 (4.80%) more users with 1+ edits than Feb 2016, -9 (-2.70%) with 3+, -11 (-1.41%) with 30+, and -1 (-11.11%) with 300+. RW had -566 (-3.88%) more edits than Feb 2016.

    RW had -24 (-2.33) more users with 1+ edits than May 2015, -52 (-13.83%) with 3+, 9 (15.52%) with 30+, and -1 (-11.11%) with 300+. RW had -449 (-0.17%) more edits than May 2015.

    Overall, RW had more users and less edits than the previous month, and less users and less edits than the previous year.

    Excel file link: http://www.filedropper.com/rationalwikiusers

    FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    That's kinda depressing. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Meh. As the chart shows, there's huge variation between most months. It's genuinely unfortunate that, as RW's userbase has risen, its edits have not also rise. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Every time I see the edit numbers falling, I think. "Hmm, maybe people have learnt to use the preview button, rather than make 10 changes in close succession." Occasionally that might even be true. Annquin (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm considering putting up some "advertisments" for the site around campuses of Uppsala UniversityWikipedia - that might atleast give us a longterm user or two. *shrugs* Also FCP, I think it's really nice that you take the time to make these graphs so we can all be a part of keeping track how things are going. Appreciated buddy. For the record, is it possible to see some kind of graph or number on a single user's contributions? I've been working my ass off lately, would be fun to see what the numbers say. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    You can see your total number of edits under 'Preferences'. I don't think we have any good analysis tools à la WP, though.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks buddy! Hey, 4100 and still going strong! I wish they'd show the total amount of symbols, though. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    It is possible to view individual user contributions. Visit User edit counts and click on the username. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Quick and dirty pull of stats - apart from disappearing in Jan/Feb, you're on an upwards trend (included are overall edits plus breakdown of three of the biggest namespaces used) Worm (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    RW 1.0?[edit]

    Is there any stuff from it still in existence? KOMF 01:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Probably not. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


    Recently departed user Sorte Slyngel has asked that their username be removed from the site. It's extremely easy to do this. I previously replaced all instances of the signature "[[User:Sorte Slyngel|Sorte Slyngel]] ([[User talk:Sorte Slyngel|talk]])" with "[[User:Uppivindinn|Uppivindinn]] ([[User talk:Uppivindinn|talk]])." This scrubs most mentions of the username from most pages but still links people to a page from which Uppivindinn's contributions can be accessed.

    I could also more generally replace all instances of "Sorte Slyngel" with "Uppivindinn". This might break something, but probably not.

    However, Weaseloid reverted the topmost scrubbing and asked that I get community consensus. So: αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Don't allow username scrubbing[edit]

    1. FCP is pandering to one ex member's wishes and ought to stop now. Pippa (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    2. seems like you're doing a pile of work (and setting a precedent) for one person who was an irritant. Why? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just change their username by the usual method. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    3. Don't. A user can change a name going forward, but no need to do it retroactively. Besides, it screws with the conversation when a person refers to a prior comment. If FuckPants posts something and I respond "Hey FuckPants, stop it", I'll retroactively look like an ass when FuckPants becomes Pretty Doll Head. Don't do that to me. MarmotHead (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    4. As said above. This would fuck up every archive that contains Sorte's name. Besides, why would we need to erase his name from the records? It's not as if it's his property that he can force us to remove at his bidding. (I know it was FCP who did this, but just in case anyone was going to make this point)--JorisEnter (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    5. No.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    6. Its only purpose is to confuse and obfuscate. I can understand if someone registered using their real name and wished to change it, but that's not relevant here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    7. No. With possible exceptions as Carpetsmoker described below. But generally, no, and not in the instant case.---Mona- (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    Allow signature scrubbing[edit]

    Allow general scrubbing[edit]

    1. It's a shame MediaWiki doesn't incorporate this. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    2. I don't know why we even need a vote on this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 15:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    3. As long as this doesn't break any continuity of now-archived discussions held with and/or about the user, as long as it is technically simple to both do and reverse (in case of error), as long as it's only done on request and as long as the procedure is standardized, e.g. always performed by The Fuzz and not done in a haphazard way in future cases... as long as all this is met, I don't see why not, especially in cases where it might help a LANCB'd user to more fully separate from the site and/or maybe not hold extra grudge towards the site that may or may not ferment into accosting the site at some future time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    4. Allow Petey Plane (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    Only if there is a good reason[edit]

    1. Ragequiting is not a good reason, but there are some. For example in cases where people are scoring high in Google ranking with some embarrassing stuff, we should remove it when requested. This can have real effects on their lives (e.g. getting a job). So in this particular case: no. But in some future cases: perhaps. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


    This requires considerably more discussion. As in, why are we disrupting the wiki for a dramatist? And what exactly is changing the username to another known username going to do to hide their trail of drama as they wish? I mean there's LANCB and there's "ok, you're gone, we'll remove your name a bit", then there's whatever this is. And you just know the guy's gonna be back repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Meh, a bunch of people who've left have asked for stuff like this (as I recall). And LTR kept getting pissy that their name was mentioned; would've been easy to scrub and avoid any vandalism.
    Some people might want to unlink their activities at RW from whatever their username was, I suppose.
    Also, again, this is pretty damn easy. (ofc doesn't mean it's a good idea.) Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    "I previously replaced all instances of the signature Sorte Slyngel (talk) with Uppivindinn (talk). This scrubs most mentions of the username from most pages but still links people to a page from which Uppivindinn's contributions can be accessed." No you didn't & no it doesn't. Your bot changed some pages & missed others; besides which there were plenty of mentions of the username Sorte Slyngel by other editors talking to or about him. Your bot edits make nonsense of these conversations (including coop cases which we may need to refer to again) by creating a dialogue where users appear to be talking to or about a non-existent user while Sorte's own comments appear under a different name.

    "A bunch of people who've left have asked for stuff like this (as I recall)." Yeah, and we've always said no, with good reason. It's kindof shitty that you would undermine this by just volunteering to revise a lot of old talk page posts when it wasn't even asked for.

    "Also, again, this is pretty damn easy. (ofc doesn't mean it's a good idea.)" No shit Sherlock. It may be pretty damn easy for the minority of editors who run bots, but you're creating a precedent & an expectation which is going to be a massive pain in the ass dealing with every time somebody throws a tantrum. If a user wants to stop editing here, & if they want to make a petulant gesture out of doing so, that's their prerogative but not something we should be using admin tools to facilitate. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    ↑ Wot 'e sed. Pippa (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Besides a tone that I find a little uncalled for, these arguments from the Weasel are compelling. I'll be awaiting a rebuttal to them, and if none can be produced, I may change my current vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Just as a heads up, if you plan to replace every instance of "Sorte" with "Uppi" or some abbreviated form of Sorte's name, remember to exclude all pages in French. "Sorte" means "type" or "way/manner", e.g.: C'est une sorte de connerie pseudo-scientifique. = "It's a kind of pseudoscientific bullshit." (Please pardon my French, it's been years.) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    "Sorte" is also Danish for black, in case we have any Danish articles lying around. Also, "Sorte Slyngel" is just a foreign-language online alias, so why bother changing any instance of it at all? It's different from that Brazilian antisemite guy, who actually used his real name for his account. (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sorte Slyngel, literally black rapscallion, is the Danish translation for Phantom BlotWikipedia, apparently a character from the Mickey Mouse comics. I hadn't heard of the character in English. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Alright, sounds fine. Won't scrub. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

    Block appeal[edit]

    Isn't time User:Fat Aardvark gets unblocked? I mean it wasn't like the block was justified and the dictator Paravant has finally gone and didn't God say in the bible that "thou shall love thy aardvarks"?.--Lord High Worm (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    Troll FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    I like the idea of writing a bot that will unblock him, then revert his next post and block him again for the obvious non-improvement in behavior. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    "JusticeBot", roll out! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    There is nothing to stop this Fat Aardvark person from returning under a different name. Perhaps even now he has decided to return, named after an aristocratic annelid. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    Whereas us more lowly working class invertebrates just toil away in the dirt mines. Worm (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm glad you know your place, User:Worm. As for the rest of you I am very disappointed. The way I've been treated is appalling. Why do you all insist on keeping the "rules" of Paravant the dictator even though he finally left? It wouldn't surprise me if he left to take over another wiki if I'm honest.--Noble Lord Worm (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

    Introducing myself[edit]

    Hi, I would like to introduce myself. I lurk here a little bit and because of this site lurk at Conservapedia. Quite honestly, I'm probably TOO conservative for Conservapedia, which is now a dead site anyways and has been for some years now. My broader point is that I'm unapologetically very right wing, at least to y'all, but I'm not socially conservative. Anyways, thought I'd join this community because even if I don't agree with your politics, I think y'all are smart. TooConservative (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Interesting. Based on your statement I'd assume you are right wing on economics and foreign policy, correct? Does your lack of conservatism on social issues have anything to do with your religious views? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm an agnostic. I don't pray and don't believe at all in arbitrary morality rules, where others aren't hurt (homosexuality/drugs/etc.). I'm not pro-war at all, but I do see merit in anti immigration arguments and do see merit in people who supported deposing Saddam Hussein because he was a sadistic fuck. I'm not a libertarian though. TooConservative (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Funny. My uncle is an economic moonbat but a social wingnut. Ok that's an exaggeration; he is ok with higher taxes if we get socialized healthcare and he wants wallstreet to be more tightly regulated than a nuclear power plant, but he despises everything about the current social justice movement, which is to be expected since my great grandpa once beat up Father Coughlin. Linear political spectrums are too limited. CorruptUser (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


    I'm an agnostic. I don't pray and don't believe at all in arbitrary morality rules, where others aren't hurt (homosexuality/drugs/etc.). I'm not pro-war at all, but I do see merit in anti immigration arguments and do see merit in people who supported deposing Saddam Hussein because he was a sadistic fuck. I'm not a libertarian though. TooConservative (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    TooConservative, you see merit in anti immigration arguments. OK. The reason why you oppose arbitrary rules is because they prohibit behavior (homosexuality/drugs/etc.) that doesn't hurt anyone else. Would you oppose building a wall or pursuing similar anti-illegal immigration measures if I could show you there is a net benefit from letting people come across the border illegaly? Because illegal immigrants do more to help our economy than hurt it. For example, they pay more in taxes than they receive in social services. Also, most of our farmers are illegals. If illegal immigration is helping people more than it is hurting, why would you lean towards opposing it? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Opposing immigrants is doing it the hard way. You're dealing with people, who have posable thumbs and stuff, and are often clever enough to figure out a way around any barriers you put in their way. It's far, far easier to close your borders to foreign manufactured goods. At any rate, welcome to the site. I'm another of the somewhat right-leaning users here, I'd call myself a socially liberal Old Rightist and America Firster. And not a libertarian either, just a libertine. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY DEGENERACY NOW - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Welcome. People might better understand your viewpoint if you explained what "economic" versus "social" means for you. Migration of peoples, for example. Some people consider it an economic issue; others a social one. You? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 05:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Welcome buddy, that was a nice and civil introduction. While I don't share your views on certain topics already based on your introduction, I would defend to the death your right to say them, etc... Again, welcome, and remember to do the duty of every upstanding intellectual (since Socrates) and make sure to not get married to your opinions. Our pages on logical fallacies and cognitive biases are great examples of pages that educate regardless of political spectrum, and also help to break the reader free from the rigidity of their own opinion. Everybody wins the more people read and understand those pages. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    If you support the scientific method and evidence-based beliefs you are welcome to edit articles. If you don't, then you might be better off on talk pages. But welcome in any case. :-)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Those who are protectionist and anti immigrant (Trump voters and maybe some Sanders and Cruz voters) are voting on economic insecurity. Immigration, both legal and illegal, can be argued as depressing working wages. Faith in free trade is overrated, and Obama, Clinton, Bush, and Kasich are notoriously married to the free trade religion. Immigration is an economic issue, not a social one. Who you bang is social issue, notwithstanding the minor issue of gay marriage tax treatment (actually I don't know why gay people knowingly are signing up for a marriage tax penalty if they are equal earners.)

    Sadly, I don't have time to edit articles, because I would want to make a good effort (call that scientific method/good research/etc). For example, one belief y'all may disagree with me on, not to engage in vanity here, is global warming. Global warming is science. No question . But there's a big leap between accepting global warming science and questioning the cost vs benefit of proposed solutions against global warming, especially if big polluters like China are not held to the same standards of a compact as the US. TooConservative (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    I take it you would support global climate rules, such as the guidelines introduced last year in Paris, that apply to all UN countries? These apply to China and India just as well as the US, which is why many people were supporting them. I wouldn't shy away from doing a cost-benefitanalysis of anything important, especially when it could improve the lives of so many people affected by climate change. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    It has no binding enforcement mechanism and contains just promises, which makes it glorified toilet paper.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 15:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


    In case any of you Goats haven't seen it before, I thought this might appeal to some of you in need of a little humor.


    Enjoy! B4Xiphos (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    See the article image on our Koran article, for one. Sweet tip though, thanks for taking the time giving it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Whoops! I don't always look at pictures... sorry. Feel free to delete this thread. B4Xiphos (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    No, it's fine, you just gave your recommendation in case any of us Goats hadn't seen it before. Nothing wrong with that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Help debating against a pro-flat taxxer[edit]

    Hello, RationalWiki. I was having a debate with an internet acquaintance on Skype. He wants to replace income tax with a flat tax because "paying for more if you have more is theft." Despite my best efforts (including linking him to RationalWiki), I could not convince him to give up his views. Here is an archive of my debate (I'm gutza1, my acquaintance is Rick):

    — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 18:54, 7 April 2016‎ (UTC)

    Self edit: as the OP clearly understands why the flat-tax doesn't work. This is really an argument of opposing world-views, and not the practical merits of progressive taxation. Petey Plane (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    If you do read the chat log, you'll find (after nodding off a couple of times) that your opponents facts are wrong. However, his use of "theft" suggests that you'll never persuade him. When you start with highly divergent assumptions, it's extremely unlikely that any amount of argumentation can get you to the same conclusion. MarmotHead (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    It appears that you have to point out that you are taking more from the poor than you are from the rich which is theft in his view. You will also need to point out that since the rich store more of their money a flat tax will harm income velocity (also called the velocity of moneyWikipedia) since the poorest in society spend most of their money or more (e.g. loans) which increases economic growth. You could also point out how an income tax helps to fight inflation.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 19:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    OK, skimmed the chatlong. I don't think the other person believes is a "Social Contract". Without some appreciation for that concept, i'm not sure if you'll ever be able to ague with them that regressive taxation is bad. Their solution seems to be that all we need to do is shift 10% of defense spending to those areas funded by income tax. That's a really naive understanding of the vast complexity of how money is appropriated in the federal government, and really beside the point.Petey Plane (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    You've made me realize that I need to lead more arguments with "Hey this seems like a non-sequitur, but could you please derive the need for a government from first principles?" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    I guess how you want to approach this scenario depends on how much you value the friendship you have with this guy. The easiest solution? Let it go. If this is a good friend of yours (and I hope that's not his real name you posted), then eh. People will have different opinions, and if it's something that's not causing active or impending harm to them or people around them (like homeopathy, faith healing, or anti-vaxx views), then there really isn't as much of an impetus to convince him. On top of that, please check out the backfire effect. No seriously, read it.
    As for his points, the first that comes to mind is that I have no idea where he's getting the 54% figure from. Federal Defense spending only accounts for 16% of the budget, not 54%. Granted, yes, that's still $600B dollars, but it isn't the mass of spending your friend makes it out to be. Even more goes into Medicare and other health services (25%) and social security (24%). So when it comes time for Congress to decide where to start putting things on the chopping block to accommodate that flat tax, guess who'll more likely be affected? Yep, the poor.
    Oh, and please don't forget to add a space and four tildes (" ~~~~") to the end of your post. It allows us to keep track of who said what on discussion pages. Cheers! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Please don't use your friend's real name! Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Here's an obvious but often overlooked point in these discussions where so much energy is expended: the only it would work is by Constitutional Amendment becasuse nothing would stop a future Congress in 2 years from reinstituting the brackets again. And what is the likelihood 38 states would take it upon themselves to do that anytime soon? It's more likely they'd call Constitutional Convention first, of which this would only one issue among dozens aimed at reform. nobsLewinsky 2020 22:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    I actually agree with a lot of what your friend says, although I favor a 2-3 bracket system which I suppose is still technically progressive. For example, Bracket 1: 0%, Bracket 2: income - (reasonable living wage), Bracket 3: 30%. People who make less or equal to than a reasonably livable wage pay no tax. Once you are making more than a livable wage, you pay the remainder, until you surpass (living wage)/(1-30%) at which point you pay 30% regardless of how much you earn. I consider (reasonable living wage) to be enough for your family to have a home appropriately sized for the family/individual, healthy food, necessary services (electricity, internet, phone, healthcare, etc), plus a moderate amount for savings or recreation. That amount would need to be based on many factors including location, family size, etc and so would vary among individuals and families, but I think it could be determined by people smarter than myself. Basically enough to live a happy healthy life. Beyond that value is a life where you can afford unnecessary comforts like a bigger house. -- (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    There's a lot of things that sound really good in general but work very badly practically. It seems strangely full of faith to have a set ending point for taxes, and a vague general idea of basic living support, and then believe "people smarter than me" will find a way to make it work somehow and be indifferent as to the how otherwise. The devil is always in the details. I find being in favor of vague generalities without caring about details is a great way to get royally screwed. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    No faith required. The 30% rate is not set in stone and can be raised or lowered as necessary or possible by congress or parliament, it would just only apply to bracket 3. As for the liveable wage, the feds have already done a large portion of that research in the US (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2016/general-schedule/). Beyond that it's not particularly difficult to aggregate all necessary services and their prices. The IRS is already sizeable enough to make those bracket calculations, especially since under this plan there will be far fewer audits. No loopholes, no breaks, no deductions. Deddryk (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll wait for those you want to help to come up with the detailed solution in order to review. -21:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    Is there any way to get out of the bin?[edit]

    This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive45. This is just a continuation of the (closed) coop case & doesn't belong in the Saloon Bar. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    I have been here before...[edit]

    ...but i have spent more days high this week than sober and things a spiralling downward, so i am asking for the advice of the mob, specificly those who have had mental health issues. I am not asking where to go, as i am sure my gp will refer me fo someone, but what to expect. I have a horror for discussing intimate details of my life which has prevented me in the past from seeming help which i have often been told i need. I figure if i had some idea of whats in store i might this time actually get it. Sorry if this all a bit vague, i will try to clarify in the morning when the effects of, jesus, i dont even know the name of the ketamine like stuff i'm currently on. Thanking you all for your patience. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    You need to make sure you don't take different things at the same time, or within 12 hours of each other. Don't mix alcohol with ANYTHING. If you can find a space where you're not too tired or high, go out to some park or place without too many people and walk around a bit. Listen to some music or just listen to the noises of the street/nature, whichever you prefer. If you do these things, and stop taking the drugs, you can expect to have it clear up in 48 hours or so depending on what you've put in you. I'd really like to know what you've taken, as that would help me predict effects, both short and long-term. Best of luck. Onward. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    thanks for hour response, but i think you misunderstand. Not surprising as i was off my face when i wrote the above. I was not having a bad trip. I am only too awwre of the effects of the stuff i was on - i have been a habitual drug user for a long time. This is the problem. My drug use is fast becoming something out of my control and exasperating my very many pre existing mental heAlth issues. What i need to know is what to expect from the possible treatments if i have the strength to get help for these. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    I could tell you a lot about mental health issues and some of the problems with how our society handles them, but from your description the main problem seems to be your exacerbating drug use. So let's start with that, why is your drug use spiraling out of control? The force of habit combined with a recent lack of social interactions to draw your priorities away from drugs? Or maybe the opposite; group pressure? Or is it just the need to get that rush and your usual dose not doing the trick anymore? (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    Is this why AMassiveGay's talk page edits have had a lot of typos recently? I'll sleep well tonight knowing that mystery is finally solved. Bye, and good luck! (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    Hey how are you doing now, AMassiveGay? Better? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    sober and reflecting on poor life decisions. Fortunately my financial situation will keep me sober for while in which time i will exercise, eat right and generally look after myself until i climb back on the horse and try to stick to rules next time. Thus the cycle continues. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    It's good that you're sober now. Exercise is a good substitute: it causes an endorphin rush that's very similar chemically to the opium and amphetamine high. It'll also improve your self-image, helping your mindset when dealing with future problems. I'm a proponent of running, as it's the oldest human activity (we ran from predators and to kill prey on the savannah). Get out and run! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    My Faith in Science[edit]

    Hello guys. I come here because of a problem with my views on the world. My acceptance of the scientific consensus is not because I have studied the facts, but because I blindly believe almost any scientific consensus. In an argument with a creationist, I could not prove my point, and my position would be based on faith just like his. I have tried rectifying this problem by buying a few books, but "The Greatest Show on Earth" is long and I couldn't get through it. What are some resources which could help me understand the basics of the evidence for evolution? --TeslaK20 (talk)

    On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
    Regarding your question, if you just want to "bone up a little" on it, you could always try a well-made, scientific video. It can be easier to go through than text if you're looking to polish your basics. I'd recommend starting with "How Evolution Works" by In A Nutshell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
    For a more in-depth view, I'd watch this entire playlist of CrashCourse Biology: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF
    There's tons and tons and tons more of videos on the topic, these were just off the top of my head. Also, remember that educating yourself on the science of evolution and having to present the same proven findings to a creationist are two very different things. For one, the creationist will derail the discussion pretty quickly, using various fallacies and rhetorical strategies on you. Debating a Creationist is a science in itself. Regardless, it's always a good idea to consume more science, even in video form. Hope the links helped! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    PS: I haven't watched the following videos myself (as I've largely read my way to my understanding of Evolution), but they seem alright and are highly voted. Check them out - the playlist "Genetics and Evolution" from Clearly Stated: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLInNVsmlBUlQT_peuWctrmGMiLngK-6fb Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'd recommend Berkeley's Intro to Evolution Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

    There are indeed many good videos, some well illustrated, but if you want to be slightly more serious, check out Jerry Coyne's talk here. If you have a specific question, then ask it, and we may give you more specific resources. ~ Aneris 00:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    OK, thanks everyone. --TeslaK20 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    Nobody has the time to independently verify every (purported) fact they encounter. We generally trust facts (or not) based on the source & our preconceptions about what sources we trust, and only tend to check up on things we're uncertain about. Believing what the scientific consensus says is a reasonable position, & pretty much what most people do, although of course science was wrong before and there are always areas where the consensus should be challenged (ideally by people who know what they're talking about). The counterposition — distrusting the scientific establishment while believing any old crap you read on the internet which conforms to your worldview — is much less reasonable. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    1+. That being said, even though it is rational to simply redirect to science when the discussion comes up, it's also a lot nicer personally to actually have scrubbed up a bit on the facts and the science. So, it's still a worthwhile project to dive in and check out some of the technicalities for yourself. E.g. via the links above. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, and by the way, don't let that guy get away with trying to use the on the spot fallacy on you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    SpaceX Conspiracy Theories?[edit]

    After SpaceX's landing on their barge, are any conspiracy theorists acting up about it? KOMF 22:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

    i'm sure Alex Jones will call it fake in the first 30 seconds of his next show. Petey Plane (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh boy. I just googled space x fake: the flat earth and the "space travel is impossible" people are onto it. The miracles of CGI. Got to keep the money rolling in to NASA.[7][8] Nothing particularly unique to SpaceX that I can see. But yeah it's all done with powerful CG workstations that aren't over the horizon. Annquin (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    Not really a conspiracy theory, but i believe the drone ship the rocket landed on, "Of Course I Still Love You", gets its name from The Culture series of novels bu Ian M. Banks. Drones play a large roles in those books. Made me smile when i saw that. Petey Plane (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

    Potential coup of Phyllis Schlafly from the Eagle Forum[edit]

    Members of the Eagle Forum, including Shlafly's own daughter, Ana Cori, are attempting to kick the old bag out of her own club, after she endorsed Drumpf. Have Andy or Rog weighed in on this yet? http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/phyllis-schlafly-faces-ouster-attempt-following-trump-endorsement Petey Plane (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    I believe that teh Assfly also supports Fuckface von Clownstick, so I don't think he'll agree with this. Not sure about Roger boy.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    The coup plotters were referred to as the "Gang of 6". Hopefully, they will be forced to perform lengthy public self-criticisms. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    I thought that Teh Dolan The Donald wouldn't have enough fundie cred for an endorsement from Andy.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    A hypocritical Christian fundamentalist you say? Also, waiting to see how this all plays out before updating her page. Petey Plane (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    What page are you talking about?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 19:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    I meant Phyllis' page, but i see that it's already been updated. That's fine, i just figured more would come out of this over the next week or so. Petey Plane (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    Remember when there were debates over whether Andy is a racist or not? Vulpius (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well, is he or isn't he? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    From the crone's FB page, "...the attendees purported to pass several motions to wrest control of the organization from me. They are attempting to seize access to our bank accounts, to terminate employees, and to install members of their own Gang of 6 to control the bank accounts and all of Eagle Forum... This kind of conduct will not stand and I will fight for Eagle Forum and I ask all men and women of good will to join me in this fight."

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer person. http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/phyllis-schlaflys-eagle-forum-board-plots Petey Plane (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

    Authoritarian nut on Authoritarian nut, seems pretty normal for many of these groups. If the world is lucky the group will fall apart from internal strife and people no longer being able to work together. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Say what you want about Drumpf, it's been a lot of fun watching his candidacy cause massive rifts within wingnut groups. First Breitbart.com, then Fox News, and now Eagle Forum. Petey Plane (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Someone upsetting the party establishment is always fun to watch (that's much harder to accomplish with the Democrats, as they have Hillary and the superdelegates (holey fuck, "Hillary and the Superdelegates" sounds like the name of a band!!), but not impossible, Sanders is rocking the boat and Hillary is busy fighting back, ratfucking included).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, you've gotta love when the established powers of a political machine that is so obviously corrupt are challenged by a person they can't control. Forget Nader; Trump's candidacy should be a case study in how to sway an election vote. BurgerDominar (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    GMail is randomly accepting rationalwiki.org email, or not[edit]

    GMail is being flaky as hell about accepting or not accepting email from the RW server - sometimes works, sometimes hits spam, sometimes gets 550 refused. Google doesn't do customer service, so it's difficult to get them doing anything about this or not.

    We aren't in the email blackhole lists (I see our IP gets 6 DNSBL hits in [9], but I go to the sites in question and they say it's not listed), so the only other hypothesis that springs to mind is that they don't like email coming from J. Random Linode VM (and at least one DNSBL does consider that a reason). SPF records might help, though this will involve (a) working them out (b) getting Trent to do it 'cos I don't have access to the DNS config. In the meantime, if you aren't getting emails and have an alternate email provider, try that. Are any other large email providers being flaky in accepting our email?

    I've also asked on mediawiki-l for general advice on this sort of problem - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

    At a minimum, adding an SPF record for rationalwiki.org would make it more trustworthy. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    yeah, we just did this precise thing at work, I guess I'll need to work this out (and then catch Trent's beleaguered attention) - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    You might as well ask if it's possible to set a sensible reverse DNS entry while you're at it. Then you could use DKIM as well, which should give all your mail a healthy not-spam score. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    Is that the reason why I just can't receive the e-mail with the confirmation link?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    From the last email I got:
    Received-SPF: none (rationalwiki.org: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=mx3.messagingengine.com; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from="www-data@rationalwiki.org"; helo=li243-133.members.linode.com; client-ip=
    1. Reverse DNS for is li243-133.members.linode.com − why not mail.rationalwiki.org? Notice the helo.
    2. Setting up SPF for the rationalwiki.org domain should help and takes about a minute; e.g. v=spf1 mx -all should work (assuming only mail.rationalwiki.org is sending out mails).
    3. DKIM can also help, but is a bit more work to set up as you need to configure the MTA to sign mails.
    4. If it's in the spam, maybe try checking if there's a X-Spam header with a list of reasons?
    As I mentioned a few months ago over email, I've had random disappearing RW emails sometimes (e.g. someone left a talk page message, which *should* of sent an email but didn't) ... So perhaps this is related... Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    "of" is not an auxiliary verb. :( (talk) 13:49, 6 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Can't be perfect all the time ;-) I also see now that most had been mentioned already. Ah well... Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

    I was about to ask why I wasn't getting the confirmation email after I changed to Gmail, but then I saw this. So I guess I'll just wait it out. 107Ag47 03:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Mission survey[edit]

    If you've got time, please fill out the 2016 RationalWiki Mission Survey!

    I'll be leaving it open until 12 May 2016.

    Any suggestions are welcome! The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

    Mm. First suggestion for the survey: "This is a good idea; but you are going to get a very biased sample of the contributors."
    Aside from a reddit post, am not sure how to get non-contributors to answer. :/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Probably best not to attract the anti-SJW obsessives. They'll just spam it and make the results next to useless. (talk) 23:54, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    What happens to this survey? who wrote it? Who decided what the questions were? Flannan Isle (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    I still hope that this survey is just a way to see if we even can get some kind of statistics on the popularity of the mission statement or not. I hope it's not related to any plans to change the mission statement (!?). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Given Fuzzy has a history of trying to pull major policy changes by vote with little discussion and changing premises, my confidence is also low - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Flannan: I wrote it. If there's a next one, other people can help rewrite it.
    @RBP: It's just to survey whether people like the current mission. Presumably if people really dislike the current mission, then that'd be a reason to change it -- but that's not what the results currently show.
    @David: That's literally wrong. I wrote an essay that argued that RationalWiki should change its policy on politics -- and that's the same as "trying to pull major policy changes"? Right. (And doing things "by vote" is suddenly taboo on RW?) FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    This should have been discussed prior to launch. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Anybody can create a survey on anything they like, but if it's promoted on every RW page then it looks like it's official. If nothing else, it's not a short survey and it seems like it's wasting everybody's time who does it in good faith thinking it's actually going to feed into RW policy. Annquin (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    Next time I'm thinking of asking RW users a question, I'll make sure to ask RW users whether they want to be asked the question. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    [EC] I've marked the intercom as read. It no longer appears at the top. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    this wasn't just "a question" though. Flannan Isle (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Pluralize it, same point. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Do you seriously not see a difference between "asking a question" and "broadcasting it on the intercom as if it's an official announcement"? - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    I see the difference. Hence why I undid it. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    FCP is a wanker. Anyone coming round to that yet? Pippa (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Still shows on every page for me as "from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 23:29, 12 April 2016" - the reason "Site wide" has "urgent" after it is that it's for things of site wide urgency - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Pippa: Thanks, that's really useful.
    @DG: It's been marked as read for anonymous users. As a logged in user, you must mark it as read for it to disappear. Moreover, Site Wide is the only category that actually goes to everyone -- the mod elections were also apparently urgent. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Mark as read applies only for the person marking as such. FCP is also incompetent. (as well as being a wanker) Pippa (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Pippa: read the intercom log: Special:Log/intercom. It's marked as read for all anonymous users. 20:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, that was an (ec). Just don't do it. OK? Pippa (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    I don't think you're a wanker[edit]

    But I do think you have some very bureaucratic urges that might best be excised with a sporting attempt at law school or similar. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    You're probably right. Polling seems as unbureaucratic as it's gonna get, though, for trying to get people's opinions. FuzzyCatPotato of the Sizable Playstation 4s (talk/stalk) 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    For crying out loud. Before polling try to see if there's something to poll about first. King Log rather than King Stork. (= often the right thing to do is NOTHING) Pippa (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    It may not be needed, but does it hurt? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yes it does! These unsolicited solicitations of my opinion hurt my back. :( (talk) 00:16, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    When they're flagged in an 'urgent' message across the top of every page then yes, it hurts. Looks official rather than the work of a lone bureaucratic mod. Pippa (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Plans for the results[edit]

    Just as an interested participant, and considering this ball is already rolling and so forth - will you be producing the results to us here? Will you try to emulate the methodology section of a scientific study, by yourself taking the first tone to point out the limits of the conclusions that can be drawn? (E.g. how many answered it compared to how many active editors we have, how many people outside of the survey and on the actual site were critical of it, what type of selection bias do you think exists among those who did answer it, and so on...). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Sure, I or another certainly can. Whoever does, I'm sure they wouldn't pass up assistance. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Speaking of surveys[edit]

    Anyone wanna check out this forum thingy I created a while back? In case of paranoia, make note of the Another note:. (talk) 00:31, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

    I opened the link, saw a wall of text... Interesting. I'll look at it and give a comment. Thanks for the tip! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


    Several responses have included personal information, and it is impossible with Google Forms to remove individual responses from the "Responses" page. As such, I've made that page private. I can provide the Google Spreadsheet of responses for anyone interested.

    Relatedly, the amount of responses has gone 69-119-20-2. (The first two days were when the form was on the Intercom.) Is it worth it to wait a month? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    Strike that. Apparently Google forms updated this February, I've removed the problematic individual responses. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    Hilarious Atheist Breakdown[edit]

    One of the less glorious moments of New Atheism.

    TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Hilarious, but how is this a "moment of New Atheism"? More like a "moment of nutpicking". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Damn, I guess atheists really are just angry at God. Islam proven Subhanallah. Wait, wrong religion...Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Is it just me or does his behavior seem scripted as hell? His pauses inbetween make it seem like he struggles to remember his memorized lines... NameThatNobodyTakes () 08:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    all that shows is that he is not a good public speaker. And why isnt he wearing shoes? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    Poll on hatnotes for the GG trio of articles[edit]

    This vote is currently underway, and I would humbly invite the eyes, minds and keyboard mashing hands of the community to participate in the ensuing discussion. Thank you in advance. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    Anyone want a giggle ...[edit]

    ... then try here. Its the New York School of Homeopathy's report on the 'proving' of Sanguis Didelphis Virginiana derived from the N American opossum. "Inspiration for this proving came from a client in the NYSH student clinic who had told us of a vivid and unusual vision; a drunken opossum (who had eaten compost from wine-making refuse) was dancing on the roof of her garage." Nuff Sed! Pippa (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    A pseudoscience based on an anecdote based on a supernatural vision. Success guaranteed! Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Community Standards change[edit]


    I'd like to change the CS. The most important bit is just to limit Coop cases to 3 days, to prevent really drawn-out dramafests like what's currently going on. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    What if a consensus hasn't been reached? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    That sort of thing doesn't bother FCP. I just spotted the words "Community Standards change" in recent changes & didn't have to think long about whose thread it would be. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    @LA: If consensus isn't reached, then status quo wins. (e.g., the Kugelschreiber vote failed, so Kugelschreiber remains in the same position -- unbanned.) For an individual case where the vote balance is actively changing after 3 days (which is unlikely), then, just like now, people ask for a longer time limit.
    @Weaseloid: Thanks for the love. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    The Kalaam Argument Against God[edit]

    Greetings all, recently I discovered the following variation of the kalaam cosmological argument against God. The purpose of the argument is not to prove the non-existence of God, but rather to show the flaws in the original Kalaam by working with the same premises. Here it is:

    1. Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.

    2. Given (1), anything which begins to exist was not caused to do so by something which exists.

    3. The universe began to exist

    4. Given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists

    5. God caused the universe to exist

    C. Given (4) and (5), God does not exist

    So, do you guys think we could add this to the relevant articles? Namely, the article on the argument from first cause and perhaps the William Lane Craig article? I would add it myself but I'd like to double check with everyone here to make sure the argument is actually valid, it seems so to me but I could be wrong. Remember, by "valid" I don't mean an actual disproof of God, but rather that this argument faithfully follows the premises and assumptions of the original kalaam, so as to expose its problems. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

    If you mean 'does it similarly beg the question?' then yes. Some of your assumptions seem to be the opposite of the regular deal, though. (talk) 09:29, 9 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Your premises don't make a whole lot of sense. (1) is only meaningful when talking about matter & energy, and I don't think many people believe that God is composed of atoms. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    I don't really understand what you are getting at. 1, and 5 are simply stated. I see no obvious raeson to accept any of them as axiomatic.
    If your objective is to show an example of another bad argument then you have succeeded - but I think the example is more likely to confuse people than clarify things.
    Furthermore if your objective were to prove that god cannot exist then you run the danger of accepting the burden of proof. It seems this is not your objective but again there is considerable scope for confusion. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    Weaseloid came pretty close to what I would have said about #1. Kindly do not consider it casuistry if I claim it matters what the definition of "exists" is. What is the word's scope of application? I feel comfortable saying matter exists. Do patterns exist? In what ways does behavior "exist"? (Yes, I am getting at emergence here.)
    If we reify patterns or perceptions as "things" then it will take some wriggling to credibly assert that they "existed" before they came into being. Words, words, words... someone, who existed, was the first one to use "cromulent" in a human utterance. With Bob, as #1 was simply stated above, I see no obvious reason to accept it as axiomatic, for starters. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    (EC) Also, combining (4) and (5) results in a contradiction, so one of the two must be false. Your proposed conclusion does not logically follow. Unless with (4) you just mean "not caused to exist by anything which exists within the universe", in which case you've only 'proven' that God is transcendental. (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    (5) is not really part of the argument proper, it is the assertion of the Abrahamic religions. I suppose you could break this into two arguments; look at (1)-(4), and then use (4) as a separate conclusion to disprove (5). In other words, they don't contradict because (4) and (5) are not true at the same time, we assume (4) to disprove (5). Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

    Alright, but let's look at the original kalaam:

    1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

    2.The universe began to exist.

    C.Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

    Many of you are saying "X isn't defined," "why should we accept Y," and so on, but the point is to show why the kalaam fails. The problems people have brought up are the very problems which plague the kalaam, which is the whole point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

    It might be easier to just say what's wrong with the kalaam argument in prose rather than think up a different thing arguing for the opposite and saying 'hey, you might think this thing I came up with is bogus but it's the same with the kalaam!' But if you wanna point out the flaws of the kalaam in argument form, try this:
    P1: Big stuff doesn't just appear out of nowhere and I'm betting (read: asserting) the same goes for small stuff too!
    P2: The universe is (currently!) made up out of a bunch of big stuff and smaller stuff!
    C: The universe didn't just appear out of nowhere! A magical girl named Sally poofed it into existence! Yup! (Sure!)
    PS: There's been an extensive discussion about similar arguments on the argument from first cause talkpage; might be worth checking out. (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you, I will look at the talk page. I usually just link apologist to RW or IronChariots if they use the argument, the reason I brought this up is because some theists will come at it from a "reasonable faith" standpoint, whereby even if the kalaam is not sound they still think it is "enough" when combined with faith. I think a kalaam against God is much more effective than, say, the example you gave, if only on an emotional level. After all, few are convinced by reason alone. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well, if you're going for an exact opposite of the kalaam argument, keep it simple, like:
    P1: Nothing that begins to exist has a cause.
    P2: The universe began to exist.
    C: Therefore, the universe wasn't created by God: it has no cause.
    Not sure if it'll have the effect you're aiming for though. (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with you on the keep in simple part, so I got it down to this:
    P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.
    P2: The universe began to exist
    C: Therefore, the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists
    The rest of the premises seemed to be making things clear, rather than actually adding to the argument. I wouldn't use your example though, you have to be careful with the wording in order to stay faithful to the original kalaam. I can already see the immediate theist response - disputing the first premise with special pleading for God - which would cleanly lead to me pointing out the same problem with the first premise of the original kalaam. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    If you're arguing with people that don't need their arguments to be necessarily logically valid, but only sufficiently plausible(-sounding), they'll just jump onto some other concept to equate God with though. The order in the universe, objective truth, logic itself etc. (talk)
    True, but that's a pantheistic idea of "God" and incompatible with the Abrahamic God, which the Kalaam is usually used to support. If they tried to use such concepts to support the Abrahamic God, they would have to use some sort of presuppositional apologetics and fall prey to the associated problems. I would also note that our page on the presuppositional transcendental argument has a section for a version against God, which is the same thing I'm proposing here for the kalaam. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    It pretty much debunks itself in the first point. If nothing is created without cause and in the same paragraph they argue god is created without cause then what really needs to be said? It just says "I'm scared and I want something, anything, to believe in even if it makes no sense coming out of my mouth." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

    Alright, from I'm seeing here this argument is a valid reversal of the kalaam, i.e. failing for the same reasons. I'm going to to add it to the cosmological argument in a similar fashion as the reverse transcendental argument is presented on that page. I've simplified it as follows:

    P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.

    P2: The universe began to exist

    C: Therefore, the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    For the record - to those who still care about that[edit]

    I saw that "Burger Dominar" was blocked as a supposed sock of mine. Let me tell you that this user is definitely not a sock of me. I don't know how to prove it to you. You could of course unblock Burger Dominar, because given that we are not the same person, you will soon find whatever evidence you need to be convinced. Anyway, I should probably stop defending him, because that might end up actually hurting me. Which might have been the plan all along. I don't know whose plan, though. Pizzameister (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    It is possible that the user in question is not the same person as you. It is clear, though, that they were someone's sockpuppet and that they were intentionally imitating you (and Arisboch too a bit). And with impersonating other people being an actionable offence, it turns out it doesn't actually matter whether they're you or not. How about that, eh? ;) (talk) 23:49, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    From what I read though, this user doesn't seem like a sockpuppet. And sockpuppeting is not in and of itself a bannable offense. The impersonation might have been in jest. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not taking sides in this, but "dominar" is italian for "master" (in the same way as "meister" is german for "master"). Some argue pizzas and burgers are somehow related. And Joris said the same joke was used on the user page. But I'm not drawing any conclusions based on that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    That's why I said the impersonation was probably in jest. Perhaps we should ask this user if they are really impersonating Pizzameister or if they were just joking? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Protect the Saloon Bar from the internet![edit]

    " 20:28, 18 April 2016 142․124․55․236 (Talk | contribs | block) protected "RationalWiki:Saloon bar"‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Hmm...) "

    Hmm indeed. Was there a spamist invasion or something? (IE, could be legit, after all.) ħumanUser talk:Human 04:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Yup. Of the doxing kind, even. But it seems they buggered off for now, so I'll lift the protection. (talk) 04:58, 19 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

    So... how to do suggestions?[edit]

    I want to suggest an article, and, excuse my noobishness, but is there some kind of protocol or do I just add it to the list? TheMyon (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    We have had people suggest them here, but there is no guarentee that they will be created. Normally, people add suggestions to the to do list; you can also create an article yourself. I would suggest experimenting with your sandbox.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 12:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Category bans[edit]

    As some people keep edit-warring over some articles but not over others, it might be a good idea to be able to ban people from editing certain categories while letting them edit others. This could stop people from edit-warring while still letting them edit. KOMF 17:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Topic bands do exist on, say, Wikipedia. I have zero knowledge about Wikipedia administrativa, do they work? Do they help to lower the amount of drama or do theyy just shift drama and/or create new problems?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 17:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    They usually result in the bozo being kicked off Wikipedia altogether - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    I proposed this in the coop, the response was "a topic ban will effectively block these editors from RationalWiki." Being a zealot is a pretty sad way to live. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    It doesn't block anyone. If someone is a single-issue editor and won't edit if they can't work on their preferred topic that isn't our problem. The goal isn't to make everyone happy, but to have an effective, informative, somewhat civil wiki. If we're having constant battles on particular topics I'm not sure we're any of those things. AyzmoCheers 19:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    This seemed to work pretty well with Sorte Slyngel. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Sorte Slyngel is a good case in point. His edits and reverts were absurd, seriously citing to a known wingnut crank that our own wiki trashes at his own article page. He spewed some of the nastiest crap at me, all the time. Then there is Arisboch, who has been banned and binned often, and supposedly, finally, permanently - he enthusiastically participated with sociopaths who were orgnaizing to contact my son, and his neighbors -- having provided contact information -- and orders to tell them I was a "pedophile supporter." And Avenger, who pissed off almost everyone. It is not an accident that these three miscreants are Zionists who detest my POV on their issue.
    What really annoys me is when *I* get accused of also edit-warring when the people I'm having trouble with are those three! I have sometimes asked for help -- in the Sorte Slyngel case, I asked two mods, and one simply stated he didn't "care about the topic." The other wouldn't do anything until the situation had overtaken the place with drama.
    People here need to grasp this: Second only to the Gamergaters, Zionists are the most vicious and unreasonable politicos online. If anyone doubts this, I stand ready and able to write an entire article documenting it. That I have knowledge and interest in a topic in which the other side has a well-established tendency to behave atrociously should not be held against me.---Mona- (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Second only to the Gamergaters, Zionists are the most vicious and unreasonable politicos online. My my, what an objective position! Some political theists of the Abrahamic persuasion would beg to differ. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    You rant against the "Zionists" are quite amusing. Just keep it coming, I got chips and cola ready.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 12:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Aeonian: as I wrote, I'm in a position to write an article on the vicious online behavior of many Zionists -- a fully documented one. All decent people would be fucking aghast at the emails and tweets guys like Glenn Greenwald or Max Blumenthal receive from Zionists, including threats. I'm privy to a lot of this material, and also have my own to draw from. Not to mention publicly available vileness all over the Internet. So, if you want it, I can do it. Do you? (Let me finish up with the page I'm currently active on, as well as the Targeted Individual piece, and I can make this next.)---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    By the way Aeonian, have you seen all the activity at my user page, and the accounts being created? Like one just created wiht the name "I Want to Rape Mona." All the accounts that various editors are busy deleting and hiding these cretains' unacceptable personally insulting rants? These are all Arisboch's good friends, the ones he encouraged in their hatred of me in a thread elsewhere about my supposed antisemtism. These sickos are both Gators and Zionists. Separately they can be depraved; combined, they are vicious and vile beyond description.---Mona- (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    These are all Arisboch's good friends [..] These sickos are both Gators and Zionists. [...]- {{{2}}} Proof or GTFO.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 19:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    You, Arisboch, are not the boss of me. Every sentient being knows this invasion of vermin originates at that site you've been so happily romping at. Four moderatros knew it, whihc is why the "perma-banned" you.---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Argument by assertion, Jonanism and persecution complex. Cute. This is getting more and more unhinged. I also don't know and not care who of these fabled 4 moderators thought they "knew".--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 19:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Arisboch, no one who matters is going to believe you. The whole site saw what happened here, and especially (but not only) to me, that caused four mods to perma-ban you. What's been going on in Recent Changes in the last 48 hours does not represent some "persecution complex" on my part. No, it's the same vileness you promoted and helped bring here last December. Enough people are informed on all that such that your hand-waving cannot detract from the reality of the matter.---Mona- (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    So now we're at argumentum ad populum? Keep it coming, Mona, keep it coming. You provide these clowns with the drama they love.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 21:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────An argument for a majority is not fallacious, Arisboch, when the issue is credibility, of which you have almost none. But you are true to form: hurling various fallacies where they don't apply is among your favorite things to spew.---Mona- (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    So I'm not popular here? Big deal.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 23:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Why don't you search through this subreddit to see the usual trolls and death threats...in addition to people getting assaulted, their properties vandalized, disowned by family, etc. Not to mention innocents being classified as terrorists by certain places. I hadn't heard of the incidents involving your son, and those are horrible if true, but to say that Zionists and god damn Gamergators are the nastiest people around? What a joke. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Aeonian, you have repeatedly not answered my question. I am more than capable of documenting the grossly abusive online behavior of Zionists -- and not remotely confined to some sub-reddit -- nearly as bad as that of the Gators. You just let me know, and when I'm done with two articles I currently am trying to get finished, I'll get right to it.---Mona- (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm sure you can, and it doesn't matter, because the point is that Zionists are GGers are nowhere near the worst of your grab bag of adjectives. Also, the incidents I described are obviously not "confined to some subreddit," some are just documented there. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    "because the point is that Zionists are GGers are nowhere near the worst" I assure you, they are. And I can show it. Tho why it should have to be at this site, of all sites, is pretty silly. The Gators have been vile, and we've had big trouble from 3 Zionists who have had to be seriously disciplined. One of these joined with Gators and the results were obvious, as they still are, especially as directed at me. ---Mona- (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    You assure me, they are? Really? Have you been physically assaulted by groups of Zionists - in a Western country - for your views? Has your property been vandalized and attacked? Have Zionists taken legal action against you for your views? Is there a death penalty for the thought crime of supporting Palestine in multiple countries, with a high risk of vigilante "justice?" Really, I think you should look through that sub and see what former Muslims have to endure before you come here with delusions of grandeur because of pathetic basement dwellers like the GGers. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm talking about Westerners. The harassment online from Westerners who write in English (for the most part). If you refer to some of the more theocratic Muslim nations, that's a horse of a whole different color.---Mona- (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC).
    Again, I really wish you would look through that. The things I'm talking about occur in places like Tower Hamlets. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I did look through it. I'm not sure what you want me to see?---Mona- (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Are you ex Muslim? There might be a good story there. Not sure if here or talk page. Worth a few unforgivable sins on the house. StickySock (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, here you go. I'm trying to recruit more editors to expand this site's coverage of Islamic theology and counter-apologetics, sadly RW's reputation proceeds it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Back in the mid-80s, I was racing away from Roman Catholicsm (an especially vicious version of it) and became good friends with an Iraqi-American who was also running fast from Islam; we both ended up atheists. She, however, remains opposed to Islamophobia and is supportive of Palestinian rights.---Mona- (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I actually support the Palestinian issue. What I don't support is users who are waging a damn jihad - complete with persecution complex - over it. And the whole Islamophobia BS is really just racism, the Western liberals and conservatives have turned "Islam" into a political football. If you think it has anything to do with Islam, ask yourself how many talking heads on either side have read Qur'an, tafseers, ahadith, etc. Now ask yourself why they think all Desis, Arabs, North Africans etc are "Muslims." Hell, these idiots think Sikhs wearing Turbans are Muslims. Is that Islamophobia? No, that's just racism and ignorance. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I get your argument, but the fact is, the term for bigotry against Muslims has come to be known as "Islamophobia." To argue over that is, to my mind, as worthless as arguing with an antisemite who claims he can't be an anitsemite because he doesn't hate Arabs, or is an Arab, and they're all semites etc. That's true in a pedantic sense, but not true in any reasonable manner. Everybody understands that Antisemtism is simply the most current term for "Jew-hatred."---Mona- (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well, welcome! Please stay, we could always use more help dissecting apologetics. As for our reputation, what are you referring to in specific? StickySock (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    FCP's essay pretty much sums it up. People who leave Islam aren't exactly fans of the Islamist sycophants in the regressive left. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    I proposed something like this back in January for Avenger. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    So are we talking about topic bans or ideological bans? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Aren't the former inevitably a subset of the latter? (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

    Mona, your observation of Zionists appears to very much be the spotlight fallacy. If you pissed off Cathy Brennan, you could get dozens, possibly a hundred or so TERF zealots sending you hateful messages. Yet they definitely do not represent feminism as a whole.Teurastaja (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


    So I noticed RationalWiki:Best of the crazy, which has a really small list.

    It seems like it could be easily refitted to become a WIGO Vandalism (or something like it). There's lots of great gems. Like this one BON's comment on Sargon of Akkad:

    Sargon is a God and can in no means be stopped.

    His intention is to weed out radical feminists such as Sarkeesian and throw them in the garbage like the trash they are.

    Whining radicals often cry buckets of tears over how their "campaign of rights" is getting slammed.

    To Feminism, Social Justice, and Those related to Third-Wave Feminism :

    You're all crackheaded fools.

    The First and Second Waves were enough,

    we don't need landwhales with hair dye parading for "Petuniakin Jihadi Transqueer" Rights.


    The CORRECT minds.

    The posts might be a bit large to have the voting bits next to them, but hey. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Ugh, no. There used to be vandalism archives in the early early days of RW but we got rid of them because they were shitty & pointless & we moved away from being a site that celebrated wiki-vandalism & we especially don't need to celebrate vandalism of our own site. Let's not go back there, OK. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sounds fair. In line with that, should RationalWiki:Best of the crazy go or stay? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    As much as I love the crazy for purposes of entertainment and education (trust me; I feverishly dared start this sandbox for that very reason), I don't think that the "Best of Crazy" page as it exists now is worth keeping. It's not sourced, it's not updated... It hardly even contains the best crazy we've had. And I don't see the editorial value of spending a lot of time keeping that page up to date, etc. So, I say screw it - I vote that we delete that page. We already cover the best of crazy in our actual articles, anyhow. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Ghosts (not!)[edit]


    Almost forgot to drag this here. Might be some good article meat in there somewhere if we - and by "we" I mean "you" - dig through the references/allusions to same. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    The level of clickbait-y-ness of that article's chosen headline ("Ghosts created by scientists in 'disturbing' lab experiment") is just majestic and immaculate. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I know, but they are all like that these days. People's attention spans must be crossed! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

    Are we ever going to be fixing gadgets?[edit]

    Are we ever going to fix the completely random on and off gadgets? sometimes i would really like to use them to add categories to articles or to assign priorities to a few of them, but they only work every once in awhile for a few hours before disappearing, are we ever going to fix them? Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 13:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Same for me. I had a look at the code for HotArticleRate (which I like to use) to add the priority to the main page, but I don't know shit about JavaScript. The gadgets and not working is also a big problem, especially when patrolling edits (gadgets enabled allows me to stay on the page after patrolling).--JorisEnter (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    One thing i always noticed is that WikiEd always works regardless of whether the rest of the gadgets work. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 13:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    You can fix it yourself by setting a different squid server. The problem is that one of them is misbehaving, and David doesn't want to fix it apparently (details here|) and Trent is nowhere to be seen. Not that two separate Squid servers are really needed, by the way (that's money for two servers that's being pissed away), but that's a different issue. There are also some other small things that don't work correctly, by the way, such as updating various special MediaWiki: pages not properly taking effect until weeks later...
    You can manually set the NB_SRVID cookie to srv9623 to choose squid1 (which is the working one). Or you can just remove all cookies for the rationalwiki.org domain and try a few times until you land on squid1 (you can see in the Via HTTP header or by the gadgets working). Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I checked and i am on 9623 and it still is not working, i think it might be an issue with chrome, not sure. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Nope, it's not a browser problem. But you're right in it not working − I tested it and it doesn't work for either squid server now (Special:Gadgets is always empty). It looks like the situation has devolved into even further ridiculousness than a few months ago... :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    This change has a cause, I've been fiddling with squid2 (since I had a moment). Its config now reflects that of squid1. I am as delighted as you. Will prod further - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Why not just rip out Squid and replace it with Varnish? I can't think of a single thing Squid does better, and setting up Varnish for Mediawiki is pretty easy; plus, there are plenty of Varnish configs for MediaWiki floating around (including the one that Wikipedia uses). It's certainly a lot easier than mucking about with Squid. I'm also pretty sure you can run one Varnish machine to serve both Apache servers since Varnish is several orders of magnitude faster than Apache (or just run the cache on the Apache server itself, which also works quite well in >95% of the cases). Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm inclined that way actually. I would have preferred Varnish, but Trent whacked Squid on. We run Varnish at work and it's stupidly simple and efficient. When I hop on the server these days (after long hard days in the Linux mines at work I'm not immediately inclined to do the same at home) I am increasingly clearing out old crap that nobody has touched in ages - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Can't say that I can blame for not wanting to do sysadmin stuff in your free time after doing it all day long. Been there, done that. But ... things have been broken a long while, many people complain, and I did offer to help out several times last year. Offers that were completely ignored. So well ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    A case for giving more people root access. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I saw that gadgets are back, i suppose this is David Gerard's doing? Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    Stormfront Knowledge[edit]

    While on Stormfront (as I usually am) I encountered a hilarious WN post claiming that birth control causes autism in white people for even 5 years after they've been taken and that white people destroy their bodies by taking any chemicals whatsoever. I wonder if the Jews are responsible lol. Oh and I forgot the most important part, it had several users AGREEING with it and daring to celebrate their intellect, More knowledge from the master race. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

    Everyone knows chemicals were invented by the Jews! --Ymir (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sounds like some anti-pharma, big-pharma woo is bleeding over Jrock1203 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Crank magnetism definitely applies to neo-nazis. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think there is a lot of overlap between the white nationalist movement and the quiverfull movement. Petey Plane (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    White nationalism is a black hole for cranks *rimshot* --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Of course it is. Not sure if anyone still cares since the news is a bit old, but users from Stormfront also believed that Anuj Bidve was not gunned down by a white British person trying to boost their reputation in a bad area, but instead was fabricated by the media and police. I would have to assume the prison system is in on this to, since Stapleton (the shooter/criminal/scum) brutalized a feared prisoner to gain respect. It's like they're living in their own fantasy world completely separate from reality. 21:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)TheAmazingSkeptic (talk)

    The Sanders article is reading like from some alternate reality[edit]

    This discussion was moved to Talk:Bernie Sanders. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    The 1960 Presidential election[edit]

    So there is a throwaway line in the Primary election article about Mayor Daley stealing the 1960 election from Nixon. Given that it seems to be a conservative talking point (at least on the wiki this wiki was founded to mock) we might a) wish to clarify said throwaway line b) wish to have an article going into details on those claims c) have a discussion where people call each other vile (as per our newfound tradition). What do you think? And if you wonder why I don't post on the talk page of the article in question... I thought this deserved a wider audience... Pizzameister (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

    Still trying to support the continued Zionist slaughter of Palestinian children, are we? Everyone knows that if Nixon won, the SJWs and postmodernists would never have taken over, and the vile Zionists wouldn't control RationalWiki at this very moment! Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    If we hadn't gone into 'Nam, it's likely the 70's wouldn't have happened until the 90's. CorruptUser (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    I've no idea what this has to do with antisemitic conspiracy theories. But a number of people have debunked claims of pro-Kennedy fraud.[10][11] Annquin (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    And FWIW, this had nothing to do with the primary election, either; the allegations that Daley stole Illinois were about the general election. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    I know, but the article while very informative and broad has a slant that seems to try and justify the old boss system and its stealthy continuation via "super" delegates... I would try to fix it myself, but.... Pizzameister (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

    USA saint's day[edit]

    Noticing the St George's day banner, it occurs to me that the US doesn't have a patron saint, or does it? Should it? - I mean we all know the blessings that flow from invoking a Saint in Heaven. Pippa (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    Donald Drumpf is our patron saint. Petey Plane (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    As an ex-Catholic: the Patron Saint of the US is the Virgin Mary. Yes, really. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well we do have a state named after her.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 15:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure Madonna is a state. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    What state are you talking about? Virginia and Maryland are both named after Queens of England. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Really? I was told Maryland was named after Mary from the Bible because they were a Catholic colony.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 18:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    It was named after Henrietta Maria of FranceWikipedia, wife of Charles I of England. She was a Catholic so English Catholics at the time probably idolised her. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well that is embarassing, but I thought that my version might have been an urban legend.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 18:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, the state named after the Virgin Mary is Idaho. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    You mean the blasphemy incurred from venerating any entity that is not the Supreme God? (talk) 15:45, 22 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    I like St Herman of AlaskaWikipedia. There's not enough saints called Herman. Annquin (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    What about Reagan? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Reagan is our father Dubya is the son, and Trump is the holy spirit.'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    What? It isn't St. Doubting ThomasWikipedia? Bongolian (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well what do you know? The Patron saint of the US really is The Virgin Mary - as Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    Good Yontif everybody.[edit]

    Happy Passover.Teurastaja (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    Chag Sameach! Spud (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Gut moed!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    Shalom Jews

    Bernie Sanders article[edit]

    This discussion was moved to Talk:Bernie Sanders.

    Again... Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

    Bob Beck Blood Electrification Woo[edit]

    Anyone have any data on this scam? My grandmother in law, who is a purveyor of all things woo (colloidal silver, alkaline water, plexus slim, etc etc) is suddenly throwing 110% of her resources into it. Apparently my google skills aren't up to snuff. OR - the good doctor Beck has enough folks pumping positive information that I'm struggling to find info explaining why it's BS. Obviously it is, but my word means nothing when trying to talk her out of spending stupid amounts of money on this garbage. — Unsigned, by: Jrock1203 / talk / contribs 14:36, 20 April 2016

    Well, the problem is that a lie makes its way around the world in the time it takes the truth to get its shoes on. Debunking usually takes awhile, but using the same methods help. Does it make impossible promises, does it work in ways that are never clearly stated (or make no sense), "data" is a few testimonials, vague conspiracies, etc... The big gap is that many pray on people who need hope or help where there is little to be found. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    (EC)Best I can do is a court case where they were held to be making false claims in ads. That's probably not good enough to convince your step-grandmother that it's not effective, but it's really all I can find. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ew ew ew. He says that he can cure AIDS, cancer, Epstein-Barr, all for the cost of a pack of gum. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, definitely ratwiki article worthy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    I asked the science-based medicine people. They pointed me to these articles: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/an-all-too-common-breast-cancer-testimonial-for-alternative-medicine/ and http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/03/09/when-burning-woo-produces-deceptive-test/ Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oooh, an update for you all! So after a solid 2 hours of me explaining that it's typical BS - if it sounds too good it likely is type tactics. She explained that she bought one of these "machines". She couldn't order it locally or even in the US - as the government and pharma industries shut it down. She had to order one from...Slovenia. She then went on to explain that Beck offers instructions on how to make one yourself and wants me to build one (which I politely refused). Get this, these "blood electrification" devices are powered by...wait for it....a standard 9v battery. yeesh. Jrock1203 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Good news, if you can track down the individual online retailer you got it from, the FDA has the authority to shut them the fuck down ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

    Is there an article yet? If so what's the title? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

    Not yet, perhaps I'll get on it! Jrock1203 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    so why is it called rational wiki[edit]

    when it's religious(non theist) driven?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

    "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
    But seriously, it's because "empirical wiki" wouldn't work. We are about observation and science rather than about dogma. As for "rational", epistemologically, we value empiricism over logic, because if your logic doesn't hold up to the evidence then most likely it's your logic that's wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    RW isn't "religious(non theist) driven", thus your very question is faulty. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    For me, it's just a name, nothing more. If you want, I could make a similar criticism of Conservapedia. People who squander the world through extracting unnecessary amounts of natural resources aren't conserving anything. So they can't call themselves conservative. What say you to that? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Feel like Anon is trolling from another wiki...conservapedia perhaps? Jrock1203 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    @RBP if you want to get into semantics, the further east you go, the more the definition of religion becomes blurred. To the point where in East Asia, the words for religion and philosophy are the same. So if you hold to a philosophy, you are "religious". Even if that philosophy is logically derived rather than blindly held with faith. Because when you think about it, your philosophy also has some blindly held beliefs such as the assumption that all people have the right to life and so forth. Religions don't necessarily need the mythology component. CorruptUser (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    But the question was, "why is it called rational wiki when it's religious(non theist) driven?". In this question, it's obvious that the word "rational" is the word that is supposed to represent the general philosophical inquiry you describe, and in contrast "religion(non theist)" is supposed to represent Atheism as a religion or Atheism as a similarly arbitrary position of faith as theism is. While it's true that religions don't necessarily need the mythology component, the question being asked was in a sense "Why do you call yourselves rational when you are driven by a religion without the mythology component?". My reply to that is - we're not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Also, I don't pretend I'm being rational unless I'm specifically dealing in observational science, formal logic, or other tools developed to frame things rationally. Outside of those frameworks, I'm both aware and happy to note that I'm not always rational. I sincerely believe that noting that limitation helps me be more rational when it actually matters. (I have no proof of this, and do not consider it a logical deduction) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    Is this the same IP who claimed if you call yourself something you can't be that thing? Now it seems that if you are not religious then you are religious. I rather think that this IP is trying to justify something to itself rather than to us, as its arguments are less than convincing.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Or it might be a troll.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sure. I suppose it might be anything.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's amazing how many fundy loons think that atheism is a religion of Satan though. Like not believing in the Norse mythology and Odin being lord means you believe in Loki. It's not how anything works. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    That's not true, Atheists worship Athe. StickySock (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Men's rights portal[edit]

    This discussion was moved to Template talk:mrm.

    FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Dragon Age series[edit]

    I have been playing Dragon Age: Inquisiton, recently, and seeing as we have articles on bioshock; and deus ex is a highly wanted article, i have to suggest we do an article on the Dragon Age series. The game has serious religious themes that i think would be fairly interesting to explore, as most of the characters in the game are religious, and the religion (the Chantry) goes basically unquestioned, despite physical evidence that their god (The Maker) has abandoned them. Im not talking about prophetic stuff here, you can literally go into a magical dimension and go and look at The Maker's empty throne (not in game however), and the throne itself is a central plot point. Not even to mention that the throne is in a city that has such an evil presence, that not even demons talk about it. I think it would be quite interesting to explore the religious themes of this game series. Though it is just a thought. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 02:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    I can't quite see a full article on this; perhaps a funspace article or an essay? :) That said, it would certainly be interesting to have an article about portrayals of religion in popular culture. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Might i also mention the in game politics are quite interesting, in the fact that they are so chaotic and messy you might think that they were the 2016 US presidential race mixed with cold war politics. Reagan era Foreign Policy Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 03:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    One of my several obsessions is the way neopagan pseudohistory (witchcraft as being a surviving pagan religion, the replacement of goddesses by gods, Arthurian legend as pagan myth, an 'old religion' at odds with an official new one) has ensquonked itself as a series of highly recognizable tropes in fantasy fictions. The Dragon Age games are slightly unusual in that regard, in that the Chantry is not protrayed completely unsympathetically, although clerics vs. mages is one of the foundations of the game world. It's even in romance series like Outlander, where an underground coven's ceremony transports the heroine into eighteenth century Scotland. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    I wouldn't call the chantry fully neopagan, there are very obvious parallels to the chatholic church (only it is run by women, instead of men), they even (used to) have Templars, the parallels are there, though there are definetly neopagan beliefs in characters like Morrigan, and the Witch of the Wilds, who do draw major parallels to the coven witches. I also find it concerning how unquestioned the chantry is, I find one scene in inquisition fairly telling. One of the chantry preists starts singing a religious song, and literally everyone in the camp (basically the entire inquisiton) bar two people (you and an eleven Mage) starts singing along, it is a frighteningly large majority, and nobody seems to qustion any religious figures about the religion, they migh question stuff the chantry does, but never the religion itself, i probably should write an essay on this tomorrow, it could serve as a basis for the religion in pop culture article section on dragon age, because I could seriously go on for a very long time about this, so I'll save the lecture for now. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 06:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    One thing fantasy worlds tend not to lack is obvious evidence of the supernatural. It makes sense that an institution like the Chantry would be supported by vast majorities there. Yes, the Chantry is largely modelled on Roman Catholicism, except with a female savior. They lock up anyone with magical talents, and many mages accept that. It isn't the best example of neopagan lore in fantasy fictions, but I would still say that it partially subverts tropes that have become pretty much ubiquitous. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ive started up a sandbox on portrayals of religion in pop culture here feel free to edit Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


    Y'know the saddest thing about those who have been tortured by the US and those who are still stuck in Gitmo is that we refuse to even move them into a supermax prison. Everyone knows they were innocent, that they were kidnapped, that their confessions were forced, that they were never tried for a crime, that they never had a "fair or speedy trial", or that they will ever have a chance to punish anyone (I know the ACLU could still change, but no officer was punished for Abu Gharib). I know people keep praising Obama for "freeing" them but these people will only end up in countries that they know nothing about and they are most likely going to be watched and deprived of resources until they die. Anyone who justifies this behaviour states that they are now dangerous because we tortured them and they will want revenge which feels like a dark parody of an overly paranoid dictatorship.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 05:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    I think in the future al-Baghdadi could be cited as another reason for not releasing any suspected terrorists because any Muslim "street thug" could become the next self-proclaimed caliph if set free from any of the United States' torture chambers. NameThatNobodyTakes () 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Looking at al-Baghdadi, that's probably being properly paranoid.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 10:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Even if that is so the reality of indefinitely detaining them because we screwed up is insane.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 12:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    What'd be the alternative? Disappearing them?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 13:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    The alternative is not found in fighting the symptoms but the causes of terrorism.NameThatNobodyTakes () 13:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    The alternative would be trying them and the result would be their release since everything that happened to them was unconstitutional and violated international law. Somtetimes we have to live with the consequences of our actions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 13:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Roughly a fifth of the freed inmates have returned to terrorism, which is roughly a sum around 110-120 fighters depending on the sources, which seems like a drop in a bucket compared to the tens of thousands fighting for ISIS. In conclusion you can say that the prison camp hasn't brought the desired results at all, quite the contrary, the faulty intelligence gathered from torture (a word which is too kind in my opinion because the maiming and killing seems more like extrajudicial execution, its cruelty only comparable to ISIS) hasn't made a dent in fundamentalist terrorism which is more widespread than it has ever been and a sizeable fraction of the released prisoners as well as Islamist terrorists have since become probably more radicalized than if the camp wouldn't have existed in the first place. NameThatNobodyTakes () 15:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    For most penal institutions, a rate of 1/5 recidivism would be considered a banner waving success. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    ...besides the fact they now reside in other countries that don't send crime data, recidivism counts crimes in general not just the crime of terrorism, and they were innocent people imprisoned and tortured for over a decade. So yeah, wave your banner on that one single point and ignore the rest. *WOOO* /sarcasm -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    And what are, in your opinion, the causes of terrorism? I have a feeling you will say economic hardship and colonial outshocks, but how you defeat the wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar who finance these groups? Or the amount of "normal" Saudis, still relatively comfortable compared to those in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. who join terrorist groups?

    Why doesn't Bangladesh have such a problem with religious terrorism, despite arguably more impoverished conditions than the Middle Eastern hotspots? I'm interesting in hearing how you'd fight terrorism without simply making the terrorists more wealthy. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    To start, don't refer to terrorists as mujahideen (holy warriors) but as mufsidun (evil doers). Or better yet, replace all media instances of the word jihad (struggle) with crusade (struggle).
    Words have power.StickySock (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Except these groups are already condemned as kuffar by mainstream ulama...who, of course, agree with pretty much all of their ideals anyway. Just calling them mufsidun won't do anything to defuse the strong theological position held by the Athar'i and Hanbali schools, which are heavily supported by the most stable state in the region - Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    They watch the news and see people calling them jihadis and so forth.
    Second thing to do is what the British did to stop Jack the Ripper. He (she?) was never caught, but was stopped by ignoring him. These guys, they see the faces of their brethren on TV and they fill with pride. Stop putting them on tv. Yes report the news but if the person has been caught that person should never become famous. Focus on the victims and the heroes. StickySock (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Of course there are more factors contributing to terrorism than poverty and colonialism - the hotbeds of terrorist sources have often all these things combined: poverty due to colonialism which has stolen valuable resources for decades, tyranny from compatriots (potentially secular or maybe viewed as such, which makes the mostly devoutly religious population suspicious of it) which keep most of the remaining wealth for themselves, outside forces which either support the tyranny or want to put another one in its place with so-called "Western values" so they can control the resources (which in turn gives the domestic populace another bad taste to our more progressive societies), constant violence over power to control the remaining resources, lacking education because next to no money is spent in building an educational infrastructure and at last fundamentalism around a dogmatic text which has numerous passages proposing violence as a solution when things are not going your way.
    When all of this is added together you have a recipe for disaster. And I do think that only one of these factors can be enough to turn someone into a "holy warrior," (not everyone reacts the same) we also have religious murderous nutcases over here but as our countries (plus some others) do not have all these factors maxed out to the extreme or are not existant at all, these people are luckily few and far between.
    How to defeat the people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia who spread their toxic ideology around the world? Maybe by cutting all economic ties (these places aren't the only ones which sell fossil fuels) and stopping all arm shipments which they immediately ship to Wahabi terrorists anyway.
    I know that getting rid of all these problems require enormous structural changes which could take decades. Do I think by tackling and finding solutions to all of the things I mentioned it will be an antidote to the problem? No, but only delusional people will disagree that how the war on terror has been conducted was an abject failure and has only exacerbated the problem. NameThatNobodyTakes () 22:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Terrorism is mainly caused by poverty and dissatisfaction with one's social and political circumstances. Take the Sunnis in Syria for example: poor, disenfranchised, and fed up with minority rule. Political and religious reasons often catalyze this disillusionment, leading to violence. Muslim terrorism originally started due to anger over Western involvement in Muslim affairs. The British establishment of Israel, American installment of the Shah in Iran, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Gulf War drove al-Qaeda to form, Iran to become terroristic, and laid the groundwork for Palestinian and Islamic State terror. Resolution of these circumstances would halt, if not eliminate terrorism. Poverty is one element: if the Levant were transformed into a Germany or a Japan, terrorism would end there. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are cases in point. If I were President, I'd also get Israel to withdraw from Palestine, remove American troops from the Middle-East, and end funding to all Middle-East governments (in the long-term). This would help significantly. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Did you see my comment above?
    "And what are, in your opinion, the causes of terrorism? I have a feeling you will say economic hardship and colonial outshocks, but how you defeat the wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar who finance these groups? Or the amount of "normal" Saudis, still relatively comfortable compared to those in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. who join terrorist groups?"
    "Why doesn't Bangladesh have such a problem with religious terrorism, despite arguably more impoverished conditions than the Middle Eastern hotspots? I'm interesting in hearing how you'd fight terrorism without simply making the terrorists more wealthy."Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    They live in a world that glorifies the Heroic Sacrifice. The Blaze of Glory. Martyrdom. All the different tropes for giving your life to die.
    It's central to Islam, so short of committing forced conversions and mass murders on a scale that would make Osama look like Mandela, well, all we can do is stop supporting it on our end by not showing terror porn on the news all the time. StickySock (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

    Philosophy of science icon[edit]

    Currently, the icon for {{philosophyscience}} is a .png square image of a compound microscope. I made some .svg circle pictures:

    Icon philosophy of science test1.svg Icon philosophy of science test2.svg Icon philosophy of science test3.svg

    Any seem fine? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Once I can see them I'll let you know. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    I like the thinking man (the one on the right) the best.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 00:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    I prefer the one on the left. The one on the right I rate second. My main issue with the one on the right is that it is hard to tell what it is. It's the thinking man statue, I know, but it should be more visible. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Pbfreespace: Thought about doing one without the little bubble, bigger statue.

    Icon philosophy of science test4.svg

    Thoughts? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'd prefer it with the bubble. It needs to be thinner. Is there any way to just decrease the thickness of the svg component? It is more discernible that way. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    I prefer the one with extra thought bubble too.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well, not the one in the middle. That seems to say, "Science in the men's toilet". Or maybe, "Laboratory or lavatory?". I'm a bit torn. The image of the Thinker is used in the philosophy template. And it was months before I realized that was what it was supposed to be. So, I'm thinking the one on the left for clarity and the one on the right for consistency. Spud (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    The one on the right is essentially a combination of the science and philosophy icons, it seems. I think it is the most logical icon to use.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    The 2nd looks as if it is referring to a guy on the loo thinking about chemistry. The 3rd one is the best IMNSHO, as it contain both references to science and philosophy.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 13:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

    Just the cloud, no bloke under it? - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

    Nah, that would make it hard to distinguish from the science icon. Besides, this one also has the "philosophy" bit.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    I like this one (Icon_philosophy_of_science_test4.svg) the most. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

    I put in Icon philosophy of science.svg; most people seemed to want the icon to include The Thinker, and it lets both icons be bigger. It's easy enough to change later if people want it. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 14:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    i feel the thinker image is too indistinct. It took a couple of minutes with my dodgy eyesight to work out what the fuck that blob was supposed to be. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Hastert - biggest political scandal in the history of the Republic?[edit]

    Aside from Burr killing Hamilton (which arguably is not as bad as what Hastert did since Hamilton was a voluntary dueler), and undetected cases of masters raping slaves, this is the worst political scandal I can think of in the history of our Republic (:re Hastert). I overcome my opposition to the selective use of federal structuring laws due to the details of this case, and specifically because Speaker designate Livingston had to resign, President Clinton was impeached, and Chairman Hyde and Speaker Gingrich were impugned for consensual affairs back in the 1990s. Even what Senator Vitter or Governor Spitzer did (getting prostitutes) pales in comparison. Objective (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Maybe it is a bias, but I'm not sure anything will ever surpass Watergate. AyzmoCheers 12:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe. It's not a scandal in the same sense of Clinton or Watergate -- in both instances, it was an elected official committing the actions. That said, it's a huge fucking deal -- on at least par with the accusations that British officials, up to Thatcher, helped promote pedophilia. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    My vote is for Iran/Contra. While not to diminish what Hastert did, the molestations did occur before he held national public office. Petey Plane (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    all scandals are the worst scandal since the last one. Beyond that, you are comparing Apples and oranges. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    "But no one who posts RationalWiki as a source should be taken seriously"[edit]

    Found this on Facebook. Qscgy (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Look, every source that fact checks idiots gets the same treatment. I've seen multiple people say the same thing about all of the following
    • Snopes
    • Politifact
    • All media
    • Climatology journals
    The simple truth is that people will start saying that the moment they get undercut by a source. We highlight bullshit, and bullshitters hate that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's a classic symptom of confirmation bias.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    To be fair, wikis (regardless of their purpose) aren't good sources for anything other than finding better sources. But yeah, i think the key is that if the sources doesn't reinforce their presuppositions, then the source is wrong. That's pretty basic psychology. Petey Plane (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'd say 1 in 25 criticisms of RW as a source include "... and it's a wiki." The other 24, though, tend to imply "it's wrong, so I didn't read it". Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's an easy criticism of Wiki's that very assertively ignores the primary sources that often support statements in Wiki's that often either cannot be debunked or it takes more effort to contend for the lazy nut. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Animal Rights[edit]

    Should we have an animal rights portal? We can include the articles on Pit bulls, Kopi luwak, and animal testing. We can also include the various animal rights groups like PETA, ALF, and ARM.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 16:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Sounds fun. How can I help? B4Xiphos (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Why not?--Harkinian | Oah! (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry for the slow response, but I think the best thing we can do is to start creating more articles about animal rights topics. I will add some to the to do list.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 13:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Just make sure you guys stay nuanced and remember to focus on debunking. Animal rights look different in different parts of the world, and there is a lot of extremism and propaganda on all sides. Especially among ALF-type nuts. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Where do we want to start? I am not a fan of the radical "fur/meat is "murder"" crowd. However, I do not support cruelty to animals, nonsensical whaling, sport/trophy hunting/fishing (keep in mind I do hunt and fish, but I use as much of the animal as possible, I don't kill more than I will use, and I don't "catch and release" [i.e. torture small animals for sport]). B4Xiphos (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    A good start would be to focus on animal rights figures who all mostly invoke appeal to nature, naturalistic fallacies, in addition to extreme primitivist and unscientific views. Candidates I propose are Gary Yourofsky who is notorious for being an over-the-top misanthrope and recently has spouted vile racist sentiments towards BLM activists and Palestinians because apparently it is morally reprehensible to focus on your own survival over that of other animals. Then there's "Freelee the banana girl" who has a popular YouTube channel. She once advocated an extreme unhealthy version of raw foodism where you are supposed to only eat dozens of bananas a day only to back out of it and now advocating the equally unhealthy "raw till four" diet. She has also somewhat celebrated last year's earthquake in Nepal because it is justice for the totally unrelated event in India where people sacrifice thousands of animals, going so far as calling it a form of "karma". There's probably way more but these are some of the better examples. NameThatNobodyTakes () 09:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    ZOMG! I had no idea who "Banana Girl" was, but I stumbled upon a post on Instructables where she was giving "instructions" on how to be a "fruitarian". It was of course DAF, but I read it out of morbid curiosity. Needless to say, the comment section went from talking about eating delicious fruit, to breatharianism pretty quickly. I am going to see what I can look up and start sandboxing an article. B4Xiphos (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    I started sandboxing and suffered some brainbreak... Researching this is going to be torturous because I can only take so much stupid in one day. Also, I have never Wiki before, so it is a learning process. B4Xiphos (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    If you want to cut some of the workload I can assist you in your work (if you so desire that is) as I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about veganism and I have been planning to write articles about the topic anyway. NameThatNobodyTakes () 17:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    I started (barely) working on an article about banana girl. I am putting it in the food/diet portal. Sadly, my filter here blocks the banana girl debunked website which I have a feeling would be a like a cliff notes saving me lots of time watching her vapid YouTube channel. I am having a devil of a time finding that Instructables post I first ran across her on. It had some relevant information (in text!, I can't stand videos) because she explained her diet woo and then crossed into some weirdness talking about how people evolved to eat fruit (we should introduce her to ray comfort, she thinks we evolved to eat fruit [and bananas are her fruit of choice], and he thinks fruit [bananas] were created to be eaten by people [never mind that pesky fact of #Horticulture] I think it would be an interesting meeting of the "minds". Who knows? Maybe sparks would fly between Banana Man and Banana Girl, and they would run away together to a remote part of the planet with no internet access. A guy can dream right?). When I find her fruity (yes, pun) comments about animals and those deaths in Nepal I will figure out a way to link that in with the animal rights portion we are supposed to be working on >.> You may help as much or as little as you want. I didn't get much done yesterday because other things came up to distract me. B4Xiphos (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    There's no way she would ever run off to an island to lead a primitivist life, which means voluntarily giving up the glorious internet because she's an absolute narcissist who thrives off the poor souls who adulate her. Could you provide the link which you can't access? Maybe I can access it (as long as the site is not filtered because of scamming). I also did some little research this morning, but I'll start posting them at your sandbox's talk page from now on.NameThatNobodyTakes () 20:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    Feel free to edit the sandbox. you don't have to put it on the talk page unless it is something you are unsure of. This is my first stab at a wiki entry, so I know it isn't going to be perfect. freeleeexposed.co.uk/tag/freelee-the-banana-girl/ blocked by my enterprise filter as "uncategorized" B4Xiphos (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    Can I make an article on al-Farabi?[edit]

    Al-Farabi was a Muslim philosopher who wrote extensively on political theory, he was the first to work from Plato's political ideas and create a variant for an Islamic state and society. He wasn't really an apologist so it doesn't seem missional, but I noticed we have a page on Immanuel Kant and other philosophers which do not debunk anything. I'm also planning to write a page on al-Ghazali, who was an apologist and originated the kalaam argument, along with contributing to the end of the Golden Age of Islam, which would be more missional. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    Al-Farabi is more missional than 75% of current RW articles. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    I didn't know you were into Schlafly statistics, Fuzzy. ;) That said, I think the wiki could do with a bunch more articles on Islamic scholars, both the 'good' ones as the 'bad' ones. (talk) 00:55, 22 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

    Ok, it's settled. Time to create another sandbox which will languish off and on as motivation comes. I still have to update the Dawah Man page with more funny stuff he's done, recently he said that Universities are designed to make people "doubt their faith in Islam." How he doesn't hear himself is beyond me. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    What motivates you? Do insults motivate you? If so, I'll try.
    • ahem*
    Dear Sir,
    I wish to inform you in the most ungentlemanly of language that it has come to my attention that your hygiene is rather lacking, due to your apparent allergies to something known as "soap". Your mother was a woman of loose morals and looser clothing, and remains quite popular with the lads for reasons I do not wish to sully this letter going into. Your father always had the distinct aroma of what can only be described as wine of less than commendable quality. Your grade school teachers should be severely punished for having made the misfortune of meeting you. Your more private parts are of an embarrassing shape and/or size for your gender, and your sexual orientation if revealed to your parents, would be quite shameful.
    If your parents were even capable of shame.
    Which is most unlikely, given their utter lack of dignity.
    Speaking of which, please tell them I send my regards, and ask your father if he had ever read the works of Gibson. I did enjoy my most recent discussion of that series with him, and would like to pursue it further. Also he's a real cad and you should be ashamed to have been sired by him.
    Please take these uncouth words to heart.
    With everlasting regards,
    CorruptUser (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Now please make a good article, that sounds like someone I might be interested in :P.
    I have to make this article, update the Dawah Man article, add the inverse Kalaam to the cosmological article, finish my Surah Like It sandbox...Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    Alright, it's finished, everyone can read it here.Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Trump is a much better advocate for poor citizens compared to Obama[edit]

    And I'd lump the Clintons, but not Sanders, with Obama. Obama is a shill for open immigration and permissive work visa policy including H1-B and offshoring. This hurts the poor who don't have significant stock holdings in American corporations (which is the working and non working citizen population under the 50th or or maybe more percentile of wealth). It's no wonder why these people want to vote for Trump over Clinton. They're voting their interests. Obama and the Clintons have decimated the notion that the Democratic Party is of the working class. Sanders' support for illegal immigration, but not offshoring and H1 B visas, shows he is half right on wanting to restrict cheap foreign labor from being used to make American products.

    I honestly believe most people who oppose illegal immigration and offshoring/work visas are really worried about economic harm as opposed to increase in crime (e.g. Mexico is sending over their rapists.). Cheap foreign labor benefits American corporations, not American citizens. Thus, only shareholders, who may not even be Americans, benefit from cheap foreign labor. Objective (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Why does immigration hurt poor people? Why does free trade hurt poor people? Just for reference, keep in mind that the global number of persons in poverty is decreasing, that the average and median incomes are increasing, and that the world as a whole has its highest levels of immigration and free trade, ever. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    [EC] And here's the charts to prove it:
    Free trade: exports are up and trade agreements are up
    Migration: foreign-born residents are up
    Average income: income is up
    Povery: is down, by multiple measures
    Inequality: guess what? also down
    And, in case you need final proof: free trade demonstrably helps the poor the most
    Ffffs. Damn closed-marketeers. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Is really Mexico, as a nation, organizing and literally sending over "their rapists"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    Global income inequality may have gone down, but not US income inequality. (Without minimising the harm of illegal immigrants perpetrating sex crimes, Trump was engaging in rhetorical hyperbole). Objective (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    Yeah, and how the hell do you blame that on immigration? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think he's trying to point out that when the labor market swells, wages go down...or, in reality instead of theory, wages just never go up. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    This and also when offshoring or plants are moved overseas. Objective (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Aeonian: Pft. It's still increasing [12][13], just not fast enough to keep pace with increased expenses. If there's a reason for that, blame the facts that the minimum wage hasn't increased ennough, that education budgets haven't kept pace with GDP, and that healthcare in the US is clusterfuck. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but it's a meaningless endeavor. There won't be a human driven economy in thirty years, provided the markets embrace the most efficient solutions (they will), and neither Trump nor Bernie can stop the violence that will characterize the transition period. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Pft again. Don't call it 30 years, that's unrealistic. Maybe 50 at soonest. And even then: Who's gonna design the robots? Who's gonna run the buildings that the robots work in? Who's gonna do the research that goes into DoctorBot's heuristics? Humans. Highly educated humans. Hence why we need a fucking hell of a lot more college-educated humans. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Repeating the same crap. There are coding algos now that write and bug test themselves and their software, self-driving cars soon, etc. Most forms of work can be broken down into a repetitive or semi-repetitive task that a deep learning computer, linked to the internet, could do much better than a human. Those tasks which couldn't be automated are in highly variable jobs, like that of a buisness CEO. Do you think everyone will become their own CEO? Doubtful. Thirty years. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yea, and how common are those algorithms? Who writes those algorithms? And, are you willing to put up with, say, airplanes and cars "debugging", while the descendants of 150 people are suing you? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are people who aren't mechanically inclined or good at programming. There are people who aren't cut out for college. They still need to have a place to live and work and get by and raise their families too. The problem with all of these trade deals is that they make Western workers compete with workers in Bangladesh and Malaysia. That must stop. And we need to start thinking in terms of why we even endure the economy as it is now constituted. Why do we tolerate markets? Why do we tolerate finance? Why trade? Muster enough political will and they can be abolished. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    These are quite interesting questions Smerdis which I have been thinking about for a while. Resolving them implies the complete restructuring of the way the world economy works, but I sorta feel that we are approaching the point when resolving these issues may be forced upon us.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    To be replaced with what? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    I have absolutely no idea. What fun.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    They can work as security or police.
    Also, good news about Bangladesh; they already hit rock bottom wages years ago, and their wages are starting to rise. Really we just need to get people to stop breeding like rabbits and we should be fine. CorruptUser (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    Robert Maydole's Ontological argument[edit]

    Many theists are claiming that Maydole's version of the ontological argument from the The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, which is summarized here, has never been responded to. I was wondering if someone skilled in logic and philosophy could look over it and document this specific variant on the ontological argument page.

    Maydole's full 40 page document can be viewed here. Maydole spends a substantial amount of time critiquing the other ontological variants before presenting his own towards the end, which he calls "The Temporal-Contingency Argument."

    It would be a great asset to the wiki of anyone skilled in formal logic could put a refutation of this specific variant on our page, as I said. Also, is it the same argument we recently saw in this forum post, by chance? It seems quite similar, but with some words changed around. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

    Sure, I would support this endeavour. This particular argument looks atleast as weak as the argument that appeared in our forums. Already at T2, Maydole's proof appears to bluescreen. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maydole's full work in an interested read, at the least. Perhaps someone could do a sandbox where you and some others cooperatively take it apart? This may even deserve its own page, as the fine tuning argument does. I know more than a few people who think the Blackwell Companion, and this argument in particular, are the be all and end all of rational argument. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    His premise T5 "If everything exists for only a finite period of time, and there have been only finitely many beings to date, then there was a time when nothing existed". Suppose time is circular, so that the distant past comes after the far future, and vice versa. If that were true, then everything that has ever or will ever exist will only exist for a finite time, since the total duration of time itself would be finite; furthermore, that would be compatible with there having been "only finitely many beings to date", since if there are finitely many beings back to the next instant (fully around the circle of time), that would be all the beings there has ever been or will ever be. But that does not require that at any particular time nothing exist; there could have been something (whether matter, or energy, or a deity, or whatnot) existing at every moment of time. Hence, T5 is false. (((Zack Martin))) 21:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Wouldn't that just mean the argument requires an A theory of time, like the kalaam? Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think we need to keep two issues distinct (1) Is the future "open"/"undetermined"? (2) Is the "flow" of time one of its fundamental features, or just something apparent or illusory or confused? The distinction between A and B theories fundamentally speaks to issue (2). But, my suggestion of "circular time" (see e.g. Nietzsche's eternal recurrence), it presumes a negative answer to (1), but it doesn't presume any particular answer to (2). If time is circular, then maybe its apparent "flow" is merely an illusion or confusion (B theory), or maybe its apparent flow is a real and irreducible feature of it, a further feature beyond its circularity (A theory). I agree by adding more premises about time the argument can be at least somewhat saved, but the more premises you add, the more opportunities to challenge those premises. (((Zack Martin))) 07:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    The essence of Maydole's argument, is that if there is some possible world in which T1 through T14 are all true, then then a supreme being exists in this world. Now, he classifies some of T1...T14 as merely possible (they are true in some possible world, whether or not they are true in this world, and even though there may be possible worlds in which they are false), and others as necessary (Maydole believes they are true in every possible world). Now T5 he classifies as one of those "self-evident analytic truths which are true in every possible world". Now, I agree that T5 is necessary, in the sense that it is true either in all possible worlds or in none; however, unlike Maydole, rather than necessarily true, I say it is necessarily false. In order to conclude that T5 is necessarily false, we don't need to be convinced that my hypothesis of circular time is true in the actual world, simply that it is true in some possible world. If circular time is true in some possible world, then T5 is necessarily false, hence Maydole's entire argument fails. (((Zack Martin))) 08:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ah ok, thank you for explaining. Do you think RW should try to make an article on this, since the more educated theists swear by it? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

    We need you![edit]


    Hello obsessive fanboys! We need you to help us analyze religion in pop culture in this new article on how religion is portrayed in pop culture, if you are an obsessive fanboy of a certain series, or are willing to analyze various forms of media, WE WANT YOU! Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 20:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    Is anything allowed in these articles even ultra obscure Japanese video games? Because this seems like the attempt of making very generalized TVTropes articles, not that I would be against it though.NameThatNobodyTakes () 20:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    It'd be best to limit it to only media where an interesting aspect of religion is portrayed. EG: Warhammer includes a purge of all human religion by an atheistic emperor who ironically becomes a worshipped god himself. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Also, those articles definitely need better names. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Nice picture! Though, I very highly recommend that these articles be merged into one single article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    @revThat is what it was originally, but then everyone was like "This is quite a big undertaking, you should probably put it in seperate articles" so i did, and now i am being told it should be back at one article. we should probably vote on this, but right now i am too lazy to make one, so i will do it later. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 22:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    @fuzzy yeah i couldn't think of a better name at the time, so for now their names are going to be extremely ugly. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 22:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    You thought right before people told you what to do. I can't fathom a good reason to keep these as separate articles, honestly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    For now, they are merged to: Portrayals of religion in pop culture. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    I'm still trying to see exactly what the mission angle is on this.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    Very on mission. It is a documentation of popular media's interpretation and portrayal of the supernatural. It covers 1, 2, and 4 (especially) of our purpose. Petey Plane (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    The missions are: 1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. 2 Documenting the full range of crank ideas. 3 Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. 4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
    The article is just a list which does nothing to further any of them. You might just as well create "Portrayals of homeopathy in science fiction" or "Portrayals of ALT MED in TV Series" or "Portrayals of cryptozoology in comic books".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    The problem I think isn't missionality, it's that it could easily turn into a pile of garbage. Though it hasn't yet - David Gerard (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    I can't see it as anything useful. The subject of religion within popular culture is potentially limitless, what with religion having been a feature of virtually every society & being heavily reflected in societies' cultural output. Meanwhile this listicle establishes its reference points in the opening paragraph as D&D + Star Wars, & the rest of it is minutiae from a few fantasy video games from recent years. I can't see this going anywhere other than as an arbitrary fancrufty trivia list, like a TVTropes page as someone pointed out above. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe RW could limit the cruft by requiring that each example must be a clear example of a page on religious apologetics and religious tactics that RW has -- eg, the piece shows why god of the gaps is flawed. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)