There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
User talk:Bob M

You have been smitten by a bunny in accordance with the community standards for... no real reason. Feel free to revert this odd edit.
This is where I keep some stuff and play about.
Hello and welcome to my talk page. Not being a smart chap I'll reply on this page to any comments on this page.--Bob_M (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Ryulong and Exiled Encyclopedist[edit]
Go here. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Religion vs Evolution[edit]
Feel free to delete this message once you get it. I just wanted to let you know that I added a section on the talk page for the evolution article, to address the "disclaimer" that I noticed you tried to improve and then decided to just get rid of. Do we need it? I don;t know.... probably not, but there may be some value to be found in the overall concept. Here's a link straight to the talk page... Talk:Evolution ...just to make it easier. :) DonaldKronos (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, good of you to let me know. (Incidentally, you may not be aware but deleting talk material is not permitted on this wiki.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Nomination to Board of trustees[edit]
It's occured. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 05:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Reminder: You only have until 26 January to accept your nomination. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 05:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
email[edit]
Cheers, Bob. Not sure I want it, actually. Scream!! (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Then you are like the speaker in the house of commons. :-)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Now that's just plain nasty! :-) Scream!! (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- ¨Ho ho". No problems.
--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- ¨Ho ho". No problems.
- Now that's just plain nasty! :-) Scream!! (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Obvious error is obvious (post facto...) - The James Ossuary thing[edit]
Hi Bob,
Sorry about not using the talk page, but I actually thought the BoN's reference to the Open Journal article on the James Ossuary was posted on the talk page - hence the nature of my response. I've copy/pasted both the BoN's post and my response to it at the talk page for future reference (if I'm allowed a wee bit of bitching, undoing rather than moving it seemed a bit harsh/lazy, but of course not out of bounds). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Errrr - What? When? Who? .... Checks history.... Thinks ... When the hell did I do this? Response - after quite a few drinks. Conclusion - It would have been much better to cut and paste to the talk page. Further conclusion - I must have strong words with my less sober editing personality and suggest that he should be a bit less of a jerk. Thanks for bringing it up. :-) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- No worries - and cheers! ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
For some reason...[edit]
My signature isn't working properly. It's supposed to transclude my signature template but it either substitutes or just displays plain text. Some help please? LlamaPastor31 I don't prefer balsamic vinegar. 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- worked here Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- No it didn't, that's another template. Not my signature template. LlamaPastor31 I don't prefer balsamic vinegar. 23:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I have no idea. You might try the Saloon Bar or here. Good luck.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 05:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- No it didn't, that's another template. Not my signature template. LlamaPastor31 I don't prefer balsamic vinegar. 23:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for RationalMedia board election[edit]
You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.
Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for thinking of me but - I'm really not around here that much now and I also don't like a lot of what happens these days or the direction the site seems to be taking. I guess I should be be active and, if I want something different, fight for that. But, frankly, I lack the energy. :-( Thanks again though.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- NP. If I might ask, why do you dislike the site direction? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 10:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, we could just step up the Percy if that's what you need to regain your vigor? :3 All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, I would prefer to keep my own council on that as I have no great desire to get involved in a debate about it. Sorry.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, we could just step up the Percy if that's what you need to regain your vigor? :3 All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- NP. If I might ask, why do you dislike the site direction? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 10:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Jeez its been ahwile[edit]
Remember that summer holiday we all took on your education wiki when RW went down in '08/09? Ah memories. Acei9 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ace. Yes, time passes. But, like you, I'm not around here very much these days. I still open the door a few times a month though to see what is going on.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd hate to bother you here, but I have no other way (TEFLpedia is broken)[edit]
See this topic here. I was going to "e-mail this user" over there, but apparently there's no button to do so on your talkpage (and your userpage is broken). Again, sorry to bother you here, but I had no other ideas. Blurb (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- . Ok. thanks.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- So the problem is that the site is 303 for you when you try to edit?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Amusing editor eh?[edit]
You recently mentioned on my page that you consider me amusing... If so, please, join me on my newest essay talk page... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay_talk:Asking_for_it --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's not your funniest work.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Rollback edit[edit]
I'm sorry for that rollback, I like clicking on things and I accidentally hit the "rollback" button and I attempted to stop the page from loading but it was too late. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 21:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's OK. Happy New Year. :-) --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You're still around[edit]
It is good to see you still stop by on occasion. I barely recognise a username around here anymore. - π 14:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, there are very few of us from the old days. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well I am hoping to do a little lurking here again. I see TEFLpedia is still keeping on, that brings back memories. - π 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I've Withdrawn My Candidacy[edit]
I also posted a request for users who would have voted for me in a first or second slot to vote for you or LeftyGreenMario instead. Best of luck, RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for keeping me posted.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts in New Atheism and Secularism[edit]
Hi, so this may seem out of the blue or really upfront, and you do not have to answer if you do not want to. I have seen you a lot on the talk pages, so I was wondering what you thought on certain things. Basically I am just trying to get a feel for this website. The articles on the New Atheists have A LOT of criticisms in it. Especially for people like Sam Harris. What is the general view among authors and editors. I know from your user page that you are against all religions. Another controversial question I see is the role of Islam in terrorism. Do you think that Islam as a religion has (at the very least partial) responsibility for terrorism along with many political factors? Would you know the general attitude of of this question on this site?
Again, I get that this is very upfront so you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. SupremeBeing (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Welcome to the wiki! I can only speak for myself. I cannot speak for the site and I certainly cannot speak for all atheists. If you want to know what "the site" thinks about something you would be better off at the saloon Bar.
- To be more specific though. While I have an interest in atheism in general I have never (I think) edited the Sam Harris page and I have never read any of his books. So I'm probably not the best person to ask about him. If you want the site view on atheism in general then you would be better off reading our article.
- I (currently) tend to think that atheism is a bit overrated. It's intellectually no more complicated than not believing in homeopathy, witchcraft or ear candling. We have no specific word for not believing in these things - yet not believing in the various gods which humanity has created over the centuries needs a special word. I understand the historically reasons why - but logically it just seems a bit weird to give a special status to this particular non-belief.
- I don't know if Islam per se is necessarily more likely to cause people to carry out violent acts than Christianity is. Historically people with a fundamentalist understanding of Christianity had no problem with killing different kinds of Christians, Muslims, witches or whatever.
- However, in the present day, it seems that the people most likely to be involved in carrying out terrorist actions in the name of religion are muslim groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram. (The only Christian one that comes to mind is the Lord's Resistance Army.)
- The question then becomes: are these groups terrorists because the Muslim (or Christian) religion teaches this; or do they simply use the religion as a excuse for their activities?
- The answer will probably be different for each individual. For some it may be a simple political vehicule - for others they will be carrying out the will of their god.
- But if you really want to know the opinion of "the wiki" then you would be better off reading the articles I have linked to (which will really be the collective expression of the wiki) and then asking on the talk page or the Saloon Bar.
- I hope that helps. Could you tell me why you ask?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the quick response. I was asking because some articles express views in defense of New Atheism. Like the article on New Atheism says the term is a conservative snarl word, yet at the same time, the page on Sam Harris is very critical of him. So it’s hard for me to say what the views of this page are.
- As for Islam being a cause, I ask because this page doesn’t seem to be so clear on their views in this, so I felt like I needed to ask someone directly. I hope that makes sense. SupremeBeing (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually I see that I didn't really respond to your New Atheism question. I have no problem with it it at all. Its proponents express their views clearly, directly and have no problems talking about the obvious shortcomings of religion. I suspect that Sam Harris himself may be less popular with some people than the concept of New Atheism. If you feel there are factual errors on the Sam Harris page you might want to take them up on the article talk page. (But as you are new, you might want to start on something uncontroversial on some other article rather than getting straight into a battle!)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
You won the Board[edit]
Congratulations to you and the other two new members, David Gerard and LeftyGreenMario. —Kazitor 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hooray! Bob M! I don't know who you are, but I'll be looking forward to having some fun discussions about the money and stuff. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 21:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome back to the Board! I hope that my UTC+8 time zone won't mean that our meetings will require you to get up too early or go to bed too late.Spud (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent. And, sorry - I've been off the grid for a while. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome back to the Board! I hope that my UTC+8 time zone won't mean that our meetings will require you to get up too early or go to bed too late.Spud (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Contacting you[edit]
Hi, I'd like to add you to the RationalMedia Foundation Board Google Group. Could you provide a personal email? (My email link is on my userpage.) Thanks! Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Bob, pinging you again with the same request. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 05:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry. I've replied via the RW email function.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hoppity hop[edit]
You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.
— Dysk (contribs) 17:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Good to see you[edit]
Another old face, been awhile. Acei9 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Ace. Thanks. I had to take a bit of a break for a while. Not so many old names about now.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
"Allah" vs "God"[edit]
You wrote that the debate between whether the god character in the bible and the god character in the Quran is a matter for believers. I'm curious though, whether it would be a matter for linguists, anthropologists, historians and sociologists in your view. If not, why not? Asking out of personal curiosity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Whether the "god character in the Bible and the god character in the Quran" are what, exactly? — Oxyaena Harass 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- The same character. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would be a matter for some kind of scientific debate. Given that neither entity actually exists (as far as can be demonstrated) how would one go about demonstrating that one was the "the same" as another or not? One could certainly find the historical origins of the beliefs - but that's not the same question.
A question that could be investigated would be whether (and to what extent) believers in either cult believed that the mythical entities were the same entity. But in any event, at the end of any proposed linguistic, anthropological, historical and sociological investigation, the "sameness" of the gods would still be a question for - in this case - the Christians and the Muslims.
Could the investigators really tell the believers that they needed to believe in a somewhat different god?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Saloon Bar[edit]
Why did you revert my topic in the saloon bar St.~Emi (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)St.~Emi
- Don't think I did. Looking at it, you reverted it yourself to the last version - which happened to be an edit by me. :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah shit... didn't evemn realize I did that I have gotta get better at the editing schematics of a wiki, thanks. St.~Emi (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)St.~Emi
- It's OK. I`ve made far bigger mistakes. Have fun editing! :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah shit... didn't evemn realize I did that I have gotta get better at the editing schematics of a wiki, thanks. St.~Emi (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)St.~Emi
Grdjniflop[edit]
Thanks Bob. Off to bed; nighty night!Scream!! (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers mate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
email[edit]
. AceModerator 12:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry. Email not up to date. Want to try again?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination[edit]
You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.
—cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. But I have intermittent health issues which make this impossible.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
May I have links from Wikiislam?[edit]
Bob, if you have time, can you please go to the article called "Scientific Mistakes in the Quran" and give me the references from where their brought? Also, can you give me a link where I can have debate on specific chat forums which they mentioned? And can you please give the me references to their article called Islamic Golden Age and the references from where they brought it? Because I want to verify them and I cannot go there as I find it hateful and it makes me angry when I get into that fake Islamic wiki which doesn't represent us at all. And can you please present me their arguments brought against Islam on these articles I mentioned? So I can respond back to their criticism. Because on Islam Wikipedia I want to refute Wikipedia of Islam I would be extremely grateful if you could do this for me. I would even give you millions of euros as a form of thanx. Also can you give me the references from their article called misinterpretated peaceful verses and their arguments?
I mean, what I want is as following: arguments and references.
Thank you— Unsigned, by: Nitro Zeus / talk / contribs
- Hi.
- Firstly - On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. This is the second time I have told you this, and I been obliged to sign various of your comments for you.
- Secondly, I am certainly not going to do all that work for you. I would suggest that you use use the well-known search engine called Google. If you have a concern with a particular article of ours then you should raise that concern on the article talk page.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Mod nomination[edit]
I nominated you for moderator. Bongolian (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it would be best if I declined.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
What[edit]
What did you mean with Marco sincerio wiki?--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
This was pretty racist[edit]
[1] I'm not agreeing with Ken, and I apologize in advance for sounding like a concern troll, but I am of Asian heritage and take offense to this statement I interpret as every country outside of secular white people land (North America and Western Europe) being uncivilized. This being a wiki that stands for social justice, I think you should retract that statement. 71.208.x.x (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you think it's racist?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I guess you mean this: "In another twenty years Christianity in the US will join the rest of the civilized world." When do I mention race? When do I mention Asia? It's a criticism of the state of fundamentalist Christianity in the US.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I hate to be blunt, but the reason you don't understand is because you are a spoiled European living in England who is probably white. There are many nations outside of secular white people land that are more religious than the United States, some of them Christian (my home country is predominantly Catholic and my father is Catholic, for example), some of them Muslim, some of them other religions. Catholicism and Islam are still very prevalent throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The statement that "the US will join the rest of the civilized world" insinuates all of these countries where secularism is not the majority are uncivilized, even if unintentionally. I'm not trying to jump down your throat, I just hope this bit of constructive criticism opens your eyes to how many people a statement like that can offend (including people who are secular but hail from places that are not secular). 71.208.x.x (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- still havent explained where the racism is. you forgot the constructive part of your dog shit criticism. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Claiming racism while simultaneously bleating about "spoiled white Europeans", great. Bob's phrasing probably could be better, but this isn't a great way to make your case, BoNUser. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- nothing wrong with bob's phrasing. its clear what was meant. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- pretty sure bob doesnt live in the uk either. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm nominating this for the inaugural RW GORB* Award for Most Spurious Accusation of Wrongthink. *(Good Ol' Racist Bob) I may yet devise additional categories for the GORBies, depending on how silly this thread gets. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Claiming racism while simultaneously bleating about "spoiled white Europeans", great. Bob's phrasing probably could be better, but this isn't a great way to make your case, BoNUser. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- still havent explained where the racism is. you forgot the constructive part of your dog shit criticism. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I hate to be blunt, but the reason you don't understand is because you are a spoiled European living in England who is probably white. There are many nations outside of secular white people land that are more religious than the United States, some of them Christian (my home country is predominantly Catholic and my father is Catholic, for example), some of them Muslim, some of them other religions. Catholicism and Islam are still very prevalent throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The statement that "the US will join the rest of the civilized world" insinuates all of these countries where secularism is not the majority are uncivilized, even if unintentionally. I'm not trying to jump down your throat, I just hope this bit of constructive criticism opens your eyes to how many people a statement like that can offend (including people who are secular but hail from places that are not secular). 71.208.x.x (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
First off I don't even believe that that "human races" exist. Religions and cultures do and some of them can be criticized. I see in the first dictionary I check that "accomplished, couth, cultivated, cultured, genteel, polished, refined" are synonyms for "civilized". I'm pretty sure that nobody would be rushing to use these words to describe the kind of fundamentalist Christianity espoused by Ken and his ilk.
It also seems likely, given the trends in the Gallup poll we were talking about, that there was some hope of things improving, perhaps within 20 years. If our IP user wants to be offend by some imagined slur to his Asian heritage - well good luck to him. But it exists in his head and not in my words.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm of Chinese/Taiwanese descent. I don't know what bonbon is talking about. Fundamentalism is backward and should play civilization catch up to everyone else that isn't a fundamentalist. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 19:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe bonbon is one of those hard green folks who think the concept of civilisation itself is racist and Eurocentric and [insert other mean buzzword here]? Gangster Computer God (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
As a black man, I do not find this statement racist.Imagine for a moment, if you will, the sheer absurdity of taking a single person's opinion on what is or is not racist and treating it as gospel. Racism is not merely an opinion, it is a set of social norms, stereotypes, and shared shorthand. Also Bob wasn't being racist, because in the context of the conversation it's pretty clear who he was referring to (American fundies). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination[edit]
You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.
Monet Ye 06:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- And again. Monet Ye 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
You deserved it[edit]
![]() |
Tireless Worker Award | |
For all your efforts in getting the Critical race theory page added when it was needed the most |
Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Special Request[edit]
Would you please explain to GrammarCommie that Im not a troll? GrammarCommie reverts everything I do and its getting annoying. Thank you for your time.12.23.183.186 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- And perhaps Rockford the Roe too please? This is absolutely insane! How is anyone supposed to contribute if everything is reverted and silenced while incorrectly being labeled troll?12.23.183.186 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea who you are or how I would be expected to know your motivation. Furthermore, I am not a mod and I am not involved in dispute resolution.
- The place for such complaints would be here. However, it occurs to me that if you were to create an account and contribute meaningfully to the site that would make your previous contributions (whatever they were) "invisible" and would also demonstrate your commitment to improving the site in general.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Email[edit]
Hey dude, I have sent you an email. Acei9 18:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, atheist goat smurf-porn is hard to find, but what I sent should work. Wait, that was the bit you said NOT to mention!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Mod nomination[edit]
You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello there[edit]
Thanks for letting me know about indenting and signing. I got it wrong the first time because I'm used to wikipedia's style of messaging. In fact, most of my editing style and finicky choice of titles is because I'm more accustomed to wikipedia. But anyways, thank you for helping me.Rational Dude (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Fine. It's really not a problem. As I said before - we were all newbies once. I hope you find a home here. :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! And of course! I already feel at home here. :)Rational Dude (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Cool - and great indenting and signing!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Once I made a statue out of cat food and chicken wire, put it in a small fridge I found in the overgrown backyard (which I hauled out) and left it outside a neighbour’s house with a large question mark painted on the front. It was a fun prank. Particularly when I went to the shop early in the morning to buy cigarettes to discover said neighbour staring in incomprehensible confusion at my offering. So yeah. Glad you figured out indenting. Acei9 17:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I see. But again, thank you! Rational Dude (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Once I made a statue out of cat food and chicken wire, put it in a small fridge I found in the overgrown backyard (which I hauled out) and left it outside a neighbour’s house with a large question mark painted on the front. It was a fun prank. Particularly when I went to the shop early in the morning to buy cigarettes to discover said neighbour staring in incomprehensible confusion at my offering. So yeah. Glad you figured out indenting. Acei9 17:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Cool - and great indenting and signing!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! And of course! I already feel at home here. :)Rational Dude (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello[edit]
I've been back for a while. I wanted to clarify my statements about christianity and the holocaust. I was asking about adding more nuance since many outsiders might paint us as blaming all christians for the holocaust, and even though germany is a majority christian country that overwhemingly supported the nazis, there were some christians who fought against the regime and were killed in death camps, like jehovah's witnesses and polish catholics. Rational Dude (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK. If I remember the conversation you wanted to add information to the Positive Christianity article rather then the Holocaust one. I agree that Nazism is a largely political movement rather than a religions one and I'm pretty sure that none of our articles suggest otherwise. I thought that we were in agreement at the end of our conversation months ago, but thanks for the further clarification.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. I just wanted to clarify the nuance that I felt I didn't say before, and I didn't want you to think I was saying that all christians were blameless and innocent in the holocaust. Rational Dude (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Mod notice[edit]
You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.
--RWRW (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I just found out[edit]
Your account was the 20th RationalWiki account ever- making you the oldest still-active user. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularRasoningSee what I'm planning 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect that I'm the "oldest" in more ways than one. :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Epic flag showdown!!! Who will win?![edit]


Place your bets! Two dragons enter; only one leaves! Place your bets, place your bets! (No, for real though. ALL countries should have flags with badass shit on them. Most of them are so bland!) - Rairyu75 (Talk) 05:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both our flags are pretty cool. I was researching the Welsh Dragon a while back and I was surprised to find out how far back it goes. It's seems to go back to at least to early British Roman times and perhaps before. I was surprised because a lot of what goes for "ancient British tradition" was actually invented by the Victorians - the Scottish kilt being a case in point. What about your dragon? what's the story?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I myself am not from the Kingdom of Bhutan (though it would be rad if I was) but I remember reading that their dragon is white to symbolize purity and the jewels it holds are symbols of their national wealth. The king of Bhutan is officially referred to as "the Dragon King" - which is also, incidentally, what the ladies call me (not really).
- I hail from
Soviet EuropeEastern Europe; Hungary to be precise. A country with a flag that's about as exciting as a week old cream cracker. Dreadful stuff. I suppose I could claim the flag of my current residence, which is Ireland, but even after all these years I still mix it up with the flag of the Ivory Coast. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 04:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)- I honestly feel that the flag is one of the bet things that Wales has to offer!
- Hungry! I'm going to visit Budapest in a couple of months. What should I eat?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is a dessert called "Somlói galuska" - I'd say it's a must try if you like cake, chocolate and whipped cream. Other than that I'd recommend just wandering into a "Cukrászda" (literal translation would be "Sugarery/Sweetery" like, a confectionary shop, equal parts bakery, ice cream parlour and café) and then following your nose. Fresh, crumbly pastries, slices of cake, ice cream in mad flavours (Kinder Bueno flavour springs to mind) - if you get lucky you can find one with umbrellas and chairs set up at the front, and you can just sit in the shade and watch the place go by.
- I hail from
- As for non-dessert foods, well... this will upset the natives, so don't tell 'em I said this, but it's irrelevant cause it will all taste like paprika
anyway. It's the staple of Hungarian cuisine. DO NO TELL THEM THAT OTHER SPICES EXIST. It will cause existential dread in them. Paprikás csirke, gulyásleves, halászlé... it's all salty and spicy and red from the paprika. You will be offered "savanyúság" (gherkins/sour cabbage) - the acidity will help cut through the fattiness of the broth. But once you have sampled one, you have sampled them all, imo. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 04:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's really great! Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond. I'll definitely be giving all those a shot. I quite like paprika (pimentón) actually - though eight different types in everything might be a bit over the top! :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- As for non-dessert foods, well... this will upset the natives, so don't tell 'em I said this, but it's irrelevant cause it will all taste like paprika
I'm sorry[edit]
I did insult you. I did it on purpose. I apologize. Torrent (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Why would.I think you are trying to kill everyone?[edit]
It's a weird question, and I must be wrong, but I would kinda be stupid if I didn't ask. Why, do you think, I would claim you want everyone dead? My posts have mixed it all up. Why do I think you want me dead? No wrong answers..I remember the flag shit and the apology as somebody else Torrent (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have previously said that your posts are too incomprehensible to respond to. As far as your question "Why, do you think, I would claim you want everyone dead?" is concerned, it is not much more bizarre than any of your more recent comments - though it is certainly more offensive. Please do not PM me again.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Mod[edit]
Nominated you. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- that is very kind of you, but I think I will give it a miss. :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Help, please[edit]
Hello. I see that you are a professional RationalWiki editor. Are you happy to help me edit? — Unsigned, by: Julian / talk / contribs
- I am not sure how "professional" I am but, sure. On the other hand, I see that you have the welcome template on your talk page which has links to all our online help resources which should answer the vast majority of questions you might have. But if there is anything not covered or unclear in those links then feel free to ask.
- But one very important things you need to remember is this.On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
About your "chicken coop" comment[edit]
Hello Bob M, apparently you guys have been making a list of articles some banned user created or contributed to. I just saw all this by chance and felt that my account's original raison d'etre could be related. I've been thinking about making a list of academics, especially right-leaning ones, and raising my concerns over reputationally damaging material in their articles. Politicans are invariably public figures, and so are heavily self-promoting diet wackos, but low-profile working academics should be treated more charitably if you ask me. Apparently, IQ research, everything genetics and areas of political science are especially contentious here.
I don't want to insert myself into that RationalWiki internal debate, but where could I best compile such an exhaustive list? Maybe you could create a category entitled "scholars" and I could then add it to the other categories at the bottom of relevant articles? This could be a good first step to comprehensively determine how bad things really are. MalAdeptus (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you wished to start such a project generally you might be better off proposing it the the Salon bar. If you wish do something in your own user-space then you should refer to the links on the welcome template on your talk-page.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I now understand how categories work. Correct my edits if there was any issue. Thank you. MalAdeptus (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
RW overtly political stance?[edit]
Well, you're the ancient guard here. And you can't simply wave that line in public without expecting requests for clarification! KarmaPolice (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have occasionally mentioned that I feel that the wiki has become more overtly political over the years. The original, very diverse, creators of the site were probably generally left of the center of American politics - but politics was not the initial focus. This is reflected in the existing mission statements in which politics is not mentioned. I accept, though, to an extent everything is political and if you speak about social issues then speaking about politics is inevitable.
- I also accept that every iteration of editors brings their own points of view and this is reflected in our articles - another inevitability.
- Having said this, I am not sure how helpful our relatively left-wing stance is. Who is our audience? If we wish to persuade those on on the right about the usefulness of vaccines or the unsuitability of homeopathy then it might not be in our best interests to have overtly political articles which will immediately put them on their guard to our more scientific arguments.
- On the other hand, if our audience is those on the left - then we run the risk of becoming a simple echo chamber. (Yes, I understand that things are more nuanced than a simple right/left axis of opinion, but I am using that shorthand for brevity.)
- I hope this is the clarification you were looking for.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- What would you consider an example of a 'overtly political' mainspace page, so I can accurately gauge your drift? [surely at least one has crossed your path semi-recently...] KarmaPolice (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am talking about the drift of the wiki itself. If you look at recent changes you will see large number of edits to articles which are either political or politically adjacent or about living people. From memory (and this is about 20 years ago there there is the possibility of error) our main focus was on things actually related to the mission statements. Articles about skepticism, challenging anti-science, alt-med and conspiracy theories and counter-apologetics. Quickly glancing at Recent Changes only an edit "Flat Earth" really stands as being part of our initial interests.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that can be filed under 'fair comment'. Counters;
- I am talking about the drift of the wiki itself. If you look at recent changes you will see large number of edits to articles which are either political or politically adjacent or about living people. From memory (and this is about 20 years ago there there is the possibility of error) our main focus was on things actually related to the mission statements. Articles about skepticism, challenging anti-science, alt-med and conspiracy theories and counter-apologetics. Quickly glancing at Recent Changes only an edit "Flat Earth" really stands as being part of our initial interests.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- What would you consider an example of a 'overtly political' mainspace page, so I can accurately gauge your drift? [surely at least one has crossed your path semi-recently...] KarmaPolice (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- - 'Low hanging fruit'. That a lot of the big conspiracies/crankery/anti-science RW pages have been done aeons ago and done damn well. A lot of the arguments are the same reheated crud refuted a million times before and it's not that often that a new topic comes up that needs us to deal with it. And arguments don't become outdated either, do they?
- - 'Use of RW'. A lot of our top hits do seem to be living person biogs via search engines. It's understandable that a decent % of the editing-base think that's what RW is 'for'.
- - 'Difficulty threshold'. To write a subject page you need to have decent knowledge of that subject. Not really for biog pages. Therefore, there's more folks doing biog pages because it's easier.
- - 'Politicisation'. A lot of RW's 'core mission topics' were on the 'cranky right' 15 years ago [and a decent minority were 'batty left']. Now in America - they are in the White House. And here in Blighty, both the rump Tories and Farage are duking it out on who can be the most cranky. I've been listening to quite a bit of GB News recently and the amount of crud they peddle and touch on you could play RW bingo. It doesn't help things that the populist right and their associateds pretty clearly are anti-science, anti-facts, anti-logic and peddle conspriacy theories. There's tons of ink-squirting, to try to make even relatively obvious facts 'debatable' and 'political'; for example spouting that the British Empire was very good for the colonies to the point that they should pay us reparations for all the great stuff we did to them.
- - 'Feature creep'. I myself have done mainspace pages which are not strictly missional [I think perhaps the only one which would pass is the metric system] but I did them because I felt they aided understanding of other topics and they contained stuff which isn't easily found elsewhere [for example, my 1992-2019 coverage of UK General Elections].
- That said, I do think too much effort is put in covering living people who aren't really worth covering in much detail. That if I had my own way, I'd melt down about half to semi-stubs [simply state what they've said they believe, where have they turned up to peddle their crud and who they appear to hang out with] on the grounds most of the arguments/talking points are pretty similar, with perhaps another quarter nuked due to lack of notability [my threshold is asking the reasonable chances of decent amount of folks Googling them by name]. But then again, it's not my choice, is it? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK. So we are largely in agreement. To paraphrase what I said initially - change in inevitable. And there is also the question of what I will call "POV inertia" - once political articles and articles on living people begin to become popular then they spark more articles along the some lines. I just think this is a shame as it is more likely to alienate people who might otherwise be interested in our more hardline pro-science stuff.
- I would take some issue with your 'Low hanging fruit' idea. I would agree that the obviously really big stuff - flat Earth, young Earth, homeopathy, vaccines and so on have been hit. But new nuttiness springs up every day and doesn't really get much of a look-in.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Our mission statement is inherently political. You can't identify yourself as being opposed to authoritarianism and not be political. That's inherently contradictory. And it just so happens that we live in a time where authoritarianism is now mainstream, not the purview of the "fringe". People do look to us for our coverage of "politics". I've had people tell me they often cite the RationalWiki articles on the alt-right glossary and Gamergate in discussions on those topics. And you would be a clown to tell me those topics aren't missional. Likewise, our coverage of those supposedly apolitical topics you mentioned? Very politically charged. That's just the way things are now. Carthage (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible you did not read my initial response where I wrote: "I accept, though, to an extent everything is political and if you speak about social issues then speaking about politics is inevitable."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a differentiation needs to be made between political coverage and political slants. That while RW should cover 'political' subjects when needed [who was it who said that 'everything was political'?] we need to do our best to avoid political partisanship within mainspace. However, not in a stupid false balance way; just that we should only come directly down on one 'side' of the debate only if the other side is clearly, objectively bollocks [for example, climate change]. That be said, I have not actually seen any real 'politically slanted' mainspace pages yet [though I have flagged up a decent few which were inaccurate/crap/pointless] but on the other hand, I've not really gone out to look for any.
- It is possible you did not read my initial response where I wrote: "I accept, though, to an extent everything is political and if you speak about social issues then speaking about politics is inevitable."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Our mission statement is inherently political. You can't identify yourself as being opposed to authoritarianism and not be political. That's inherently contradictory. And it just so happens that we live in a time where authoritarianism is now mainstream, not the purview of the "fringe". People do look to us for our coverage of "politics". I've had people tell me they often cite the RationalWiki articles on the alt-right glossary and Gamergate in discussions on those topics. And you would be a clown to tell me those topics aren't missional. Likewise, our coverage of those supposedly apolitical topics you mentioned? Very politically charged. That's just the way things are now. Carthage (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- That said, I do think too much effort is put in covering living people who aren't really worth covering in much detail. That if I had my own way, I'd melt down about half to semi-stubs [simply state what they've said they believe, where have they turned up to peddle their crud and who they appear to hang out with] on the grounds most of the arguments/talking points are pretty similar, with perhaps another quarter nuked due to lack of notability [my threshold is asking the reasonable chances of decent amount of folks Googling them by name]. But then again, it's not my choice, is it? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I question the size of the possible RW demographic 'who likes our pro-science stuff but is driven away by 'political' stuff'. If RW mainspace avoids political subjectiveness, biased hitpieces and clear soapboxing [which I think we've got better in avoiding than the past] I think it's possible for them to still enjoy the other bits without being overly offended. I call this the 'Telegraph test' [ie the newspaper] - that is it possible for someone who is in strong disagreement with the political ideology of the thing to still garnish credible information from it? Again, generally shite coverage is more our enemy here than 'politicisation'. If anywhere is causing this 'alienation', I would point the finger at the WIGOs - that it all too often contains the touchstones of American Progressive social justice. Which I think is an even bigger alienating factor - the fact RW's mainspace coverage outside of American topics is poor and outside the Anglosphere is almost non-existent.
- RE: Low-hanging fruit. You do have some point there - for example our coverage on the Chinese 'social credit system' is fairly shit, our GB News coverage not much better, we don't have a thing on ULEZ and TikTok is a para within 'social media' [currently working on the second and the third is on my list]. There is a part of me which also intends to update/expand some of RW's 'newbie guides' and I think if/when I do I will try to turn attentions to improving/creating subject pages related to our general mission and away from yet more coverage of social media dramas and persons. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I need to preface my next comments with this personal opinion: Donald Trump is one of the most odious and dangerous people on the plant. (Although he - at least according to some sources - won the American popular vote)
- But to my point: you state: "If RW mainspace avoids political subjectiveness, biased hitpieces and clear soapboxing ...(then things would be OK)". Our article on Trump begins - Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman, rapist, reality-TV host, four times indicted criminal, convicted felon, and conspiracy theorist ..... He is an adjudicated liar, adjudicated rapist: yes, he's a sadistic "sick fuck", and the first convicted felon to be elected President of the United States." Now, I wouldn't actually disagree with any of this - but it might just turn off the roughly 50 of the US voting population who supported him.
- This can be compared to our article on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. With a little editing our article could probably be used by her publicity department. (However, I am also not claiming that anything her article is factually incorrect either).
- But I suggest that it would be difficult for an unbiased reader (OK don't exist) to avoid the conclusion that we are profoundly in favor of one and that we detest the other.
- I would agree that we focus on the US and the anglosphere - but that is an inevitable consequence of our userbase.
- Finally, I am not at this point arguing for any actual change in the wiki - however desirable I might feel that might be. It is the product of the userbase it had and has and is a reflection of the interests and preoccupations of that userbase. I am simply giving my opinion about the current state of the wiki as I was asked about it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll be the guy to agree with you on the Trump page: I think it sucks. The intro just slings various insults and labels into an overly-long and barely-readable series of sentences. And much of the rest of the article reads as being very current-events-y, where editors have just been breathlessly reporting on basically everything he's done. I'm not a fan of that page at all.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 16:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Talk about straining my ability to skimread to the limit... okay, the Trump page is shit. It's waay too long [this might instead be three/four pages - the 'business career' alone is one], it most likely full of redundant material [as in, WP already covers it fine which we could simply link to, has already been mentioned in article], misses shit which might actually be enlightening [for example, his early/mid life], has zero 'flow' [most likely due to having a myriad of editors just putting rando lines in as/when] and comes off a 'bit ranty'. But to be honest, I've encountered pages like this before - what it needs is a single knowledgeable editor to come and rebuild it as a single piece of work [or a small clutch of editors if the page is split out]. Having done this myself for a couple, I get how bloody difficult/long this work would be. [and I did say I didn't go about looking for bad pages... my 'to do list' and AfDs are literally shit I've run into naturally].
- I'll be the guy to agree with you on the Trump page: I think it sucks. The intro just slings various insults and labels into an overly-long and barely-readable series of sentences. And much of the rest of the article reads as being very current-events-y, where editors have just been breathlessly reporting on basically everything he's done. I'm not a fan of that page at all.
- RE: Low-hanging fruit. You do have some point there - for example our coverage on the Chinese 'social credit system' is fairly shit, our GB News coverage not much better, we don't have a thing on ULEZ and TikTok is a para within 'social media' [currently working on the second and the third is on my list]. There is a part of me which also intends to update/expand some of RW's 'newbie guides' and I think if/when I do I will try to turn attentions to improving/creating subject pages related to our general mission and away from yet more coverage of social media dramas and persons. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would actually be inclined to strip 'Bronze' off this and give it a jellybrain instead. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am skeptical that you can really draw a hard line between missional subjects and "social media drama," as social media has become the modern town square in a very real way. The goings on of social media have a very real impact on meatspace society, and to pretend like social media is its own little world separate from reality is itself a fiction. As an example of how "social media drama" can have real world impacts, it's a demonstrable fact that an increase of hate speech on social media has led to an increase in acts of violence against marginalized populations. There's also the fact that Trump owed his first election in large part to social media. Carthage (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, this Wiki was founded as a troll anti-Conservapedia Wiki. This meant that the Wiki was rather against much of Republican political scene -- which in the 2000s was quite aligned with fundamentalism -- from the get go. I mean, no one cares about Free Republic or World Net Daily these days; these articles are leftovers from the "Dubya days" (or maybe at most Obama), and the former is only marginally mission oriented (hmm, an old conservative forum, whoop de shit). Obama era conservative politicians (e.g. Sarah Palin) get ramble-filled articles full of cheap potshots too. And if you want an example of really bad articles, you only have to look at the mothballed Conservapedia section, which is largely at an "Encyclopedia Dramatica" level of discourse (well, maybe with less racial slurs and bad "OVER 9000!" jokes). There certainly were good pro-skepticism articles (and others) back then too, but let's not polish the good old days too much. :)
- I do think that a lot of the current "political slant" comes from a side effect of the above. It was a very American anti-fundamentalist wiki from the start. America's "big tent" conservative party has tended to be quite a bit more cranky/anti-science than most globally... especially now. It's hard to "play neutral" politically (from an American perspective) as a result. As a comparison, if this Wiki were Germany focused, much of the political reactionary or authoritarianism elements are found in the Alternative for Germany. Mission wise, this Wiki could honestly ignore center-right parties like the CDU. (RW does have some rather bad stubby-level text on them and other German political parties, but RW honestly doesn't need this.) So it would be much easier to not be seen as quite as "left".
- (Even on this Wiki, articles on "left" American entities that promote crankery, such as the Nation of Islam or anything New Age, aren't exactly flattering. Let alone anything "authoritarian left" like tankies. These are topics that aren't as "trendy" as complaining about SJWs or woke etc., so...)
- One additional problem here with generic skepticism is that the movement that promoted such fractured and became diminished post-Gamergate, Elevatorgate, and whatnot. The heavily-skepticism adjacent New Atheism drifted more political, with many of the big skeptic figures now skimming a wee too close to the alt-right or "alt-light" or whatnot, essentially deciding that concerns about Islam or IDW type topics were more important than skepticism. So it goes, right? Gamergate was also a pretty big "infliction point" for this Wiki from what I can tell; due to RW's stance, I think it may have pushed some of the more "libertarian" or conservative-leaning skeptics out (along with the "troll crowd", which was increasingly drifting reactionary after that point), and brought in more from the "social justice" scene. (Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is and I personally strongly agree with the Gamergate article. It's just one of the more notable shifts from the "good old days".)
- I certainly agree with the general principle of tightening up articles, though easier said than done. I personally would also discourage "cheap shot" insults as well. Cheap shots and snark are not the same thing. RW actually has way less cheap shots than it used to, but still too much. BobJohnson (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As well as the 'shifting Venn circles' argument I would also say technological changes have played their part too; that RW has survived into this new era [while folks like Free Republic or even CP have not] by shifting focus - which partly is being a repository of reviews of people insufficiently notable for WP, being used by people checking social media personalities they saw on their phone. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am skeptical that you can really draw a hard line between missional subjects and "social media drama," as social media has become the modern town square in a very real way. The goings on of social media have a very real impact on meatspace society, and to pretend like social media is its own little world separate from reality is itself a fiction. As an example of how "social media drama" can have real world impacts, it's a demonstrable fact that an increase of hate speech on social media has led to an increase in acts of violence against marginalized populations. There's also the fact that Trump owed his first election in large part to social media. Carthage (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would actually be inclined to strip 'Bronze' off this and give it a jellybrain instead. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)