Talk:United States

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
("God's Chosen Nation")
(original "article")
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==seriously?==
 +
 +
Is this seriously the best that a "rational" wiki can come up with?  This makes conservapedia look objective.
 +
 
==original "article"==
 
==original "article"==
 
God, when someone makes this article real, ''please'' copy my useless snark here so I can laugh at it once in a while. '''<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">[[user:human|human]]</font><sup>[[User_talk:human |<font color="#00AA00">be in</font>]]</sup>''' 01:29, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 
God, when someone makes this article real, ''please'' copy my useless snark here so I can laugh at it once in a while. '''<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">[[user:human|human]]</font><sup>[[User_talk:human |<font color="#00AA00">be in</font>]]</sup>''' 01:29, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 03:21, 15 December 2009

Contents

seriously?

Is this seriously the best that a "rational" wiki can come up with? This makes conservapedia look objective.

original "article"

God, when someone makes this article real, please copy my useless snark here so I can laugh at it once in a while. humanbe in 01:29, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Im thinking one of our resident historians or other slaves could turn this into an interesting article about the US and religious freedumm..just sayin'--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:57, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't know enough about American history to contribute - but shouldn't these be some mention of the Indian wars here?--Bob_M (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Shhhhhhh! "They all moved to Canada and Australia". humanbe in 13:31, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Jesusland

Wp:Jesusland gets a mention, but could it be expanded on? Or is that too much like evolution? Totnesmartin 10:21, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

How about redlinking it and writing it? Sounds like a good separate article to me... humanUser talk:Human 12:51, 26 October 2007 (EDT)


Whats wrong with the KKK joke? Elassint Throw things at me 13:35, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Ummm, it wasn't really funny. PFoster 14:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)

This is like uncyclopedia, only slighty more factual. — Unsigned, by: 83.144.95.66 / talk / contribs

Thank you! I tried... humanUser talk:Human 12:23, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Found a good quote to work into the article.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they've tried everything else." — Winston Churchill What do you think? I love it personally. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 17:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I like it. Rational Edperception 17:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Hehe... You have source too? humanUser talk:Human 18:10, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't know, I got it from Wikipedia... but considering it's from Winston Churchill, it shouldn't be too hard to source. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
And WP usually (always?) sources their quotations, so that shouldn't be hard to find. Which WP article, do you remember? humanUser talk:Human 21:06, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraprosdokian --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Dang, it's unsourced. I have old quote books, I wonder if it's in one of them? humanUser talk:Human 21:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I imagine it should be. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 22:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Wikiquote has it as "The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative", and it's in the "disputed" section, I'm afraid.— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 22:44, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, here's the deal. It's a great "quote", but perhaps without source. So we just use it without attribution. I go do so now :) And thank you, Eira. humanUser talk:Human 00:23, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
By giving it no attribution, we give it attribution. At the very least, it says, "we're not making this up... someone else did, but we didn't." :) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 18:36, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Spanish colonists

1. read the next paragraph:

Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics. Its enlightened rulers decided to only persecute those lousy non-Christians.

Less snarky: "read the following paragraphs":

The French and Spanish also founded many colonies in what was to become the United States (and Mexico) in the 16th and 17th centuries, most of which were later sold (France) or lost in wars (Spain and her successors) to the U.S., which is why the country today is trilingual.

Ok... fine, this says that there were many French and Spanish colonies as well... however it doesn't establish that the vast majority of Spanish colonies are far older than even Jamestown. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 13:21, 13 May 2008 (EDT) 2. Florida is on purpose: Why? Florida wasn't one of the original thirteen colonies... so mentioning it over New Mexico, and other Spanish colonies that later became the United States is... why? --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 13:21, 13 May 2008 (EDT) 3. please discuss on talk page Ok. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 13:21, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

The point was simply to compare the two east coast colonized areas - I don't know if you noticed, but this article is a bit tongue-in-cheek. It may not hit the reader over the head, but "16th" century, as mentioned, does come before any English settlements. The info you want is there. One of these days we should write "the lost century" (or some such) - US history has a tendency to skip from 1492 to 1620 as if the 1500s never existed. humanUser talk:Human 13:27, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Whatever :P hehe. I come from New Mexico, where people are like "yay, the 400th anniversary of the founding of our city" and then on the east coast they're like "yay, we're the oldest part of the United States with our now 300th anniversary" and it's all.... wait, wtf? Of course, I have issues with the neglect of the Hispanics and such all the time already. It's like people commenting about people moving to Seattle (where I now live) and complaining that people don't speak English, and I'm all, uh... you know there are native-born Americans born to native-born Americans in New Mexico who speak Spanish as their first language right? And everyone just seems to ignore that New Mexico and other Hispanic parts of the country exist. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:48, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Would you like to help me come up with an article on the 16th century in colonial 'Murka? It sounds like you've got plenty of inspiration, plenty of knowsthings, and we could make it teh funny too. Title? How about "America: The Forgotten Century", "Project for a Lost American Century", "The lost American century"...??? humanUser talk:Human 20:53, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Totally, get it started and I'll lend my typical overly snarky hand :) hehe. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 16:22, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Would you care to pick a title? humanUser talk:Human 16:26, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I think I kind of like the idea of: "The United States in the 16th century: Los años perdidos"
Excellent title. That's why I wanted you to come up with it. I suppose it should be written in mixed English, French, and Spanish? (and Nipmuc?) ħψAnarchy dd00dd.pngUser talk:Human 18:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, I stubbed its toe. Now all it needs is 10,000 pointzes worth of improovemints! ħψAnarchy dd00dd.pngUser talk:Human 19:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Seriously

Why are you guys so anit-American. This seems like excerpts from the Uncyclopedia article. Seriously, like deficiencies in Britain can be overlooked. — Unsigned, by: 69.115.191.203 / talk / contribs

Well anon, first, why did you ask your question in the middle of an 18-month-old conversation? And what's "anit-american"? anyway, We're anti-american because we're all part of a Russian cyberhacking initiative. Hope this helps. Totnesmartin 17:41, 11 December 2008 (EST)

We're not so much anit-American as anit-whatever the target du jour (that's French, son...) is. We're pretty anit-British, too. PFoster 17:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Anti-American

My main problem with this article is this ... it genealizes over 305 million people (Americans) in many nasty hateful negative stereotypical ways. I think this could be a good article that mentions the things that sites such as Conservapedia refuse to state, but instead it has simply become a place where anti-Americans can rant about their dissent for the United States of America and the millions of people who are citizens of that country. This could be debated, but in my opinion, this article is not at all liberal, but instead is very much like a conservative article ... full of hate, lies and generalizations. That, in my opinion, is something no liberal or socialist, or anyone on the left, should be supportive of. There can still be satire or jokes within in the article, but hateful jokes that insult people based on physical apperance is something that I'm not supportive of, nor am I supportive of non sense that is not true. The article fails to specifically state the issues with the conservative liberal divide in America and also fails to state the many sucessful liberal organization of the left that are active within the United States. Jusy my opinion.72.39.10.243

Are you reading the same article I just skimmed? Also, RW isn't a "liberal" site (just most of its editors...). ħumanUser talk:Human 21:18, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

"God's Chosen Nation"

  1. I object to the needless insertion of racial invective into this section when there is nothing at all racial about the subject. White-supremacism is being mistakenly conflated with Christian fundamentalism.
  2. Using the term "WASP" to describe white fundamentalists is incorrect, as a good number of them are actually of Celtic extraction.
  3. The grammar of the disputed section is atrocious and it consists mostly of JAQing off.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Americans know more about this than I do. Proxima Centauri 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you writing about it as if you know it? Why not just bring it up on the talk page to get the ball rolling? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
PS, LX, I was sorely tempted to just delete the whole section, but I hate to do that if there's a possibility it can be turned into something coherent. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
To quote the mighty Edwyn Collins: "Rip it up and start again." Totnesmartin 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably a good idea... I always wonder when PC does these things how many other wikis have to cope with the badly-written screeds... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support