Talk:European Union Times/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)


I realise about seven people have heard of this site, but I've been interested in it since CP linked off to it somewhere. It's a fucking shameful website which, judging by its comments section, has a readership consisting mainly of the stupid and the nasty. However, I have yet to see any refutation or calling-out of it online, which is why I thought something had to be done. Webbtje (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OMG this is total tripe. Bilderberg Cabal on the Front Page? Check. Muslim Demographics video? Check. The entire Sports page is race-related? Check. (Check out this fucking vile thing - White boxer destroys negro, containing the classic "Do you still think negroes are stronger than whites?"). Almost every story is about the US - there's a story about Missouri immigration laws that's tagged 'Europe' at the moment. It's clearly just more of the same old TeaBagger Hate webshite, and it's one of the really annoying things about the interweb that it's so easy to seem authentic - eutimes, my arse. My bet is no-one who's ever written a word for it has ever been to Yoorp. DogPMarmite Patrol 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Even the Teabaggers aren't blatant Nazis - this is neo-Nazis reaching out to teabaggers, looks like. No idea why they call themselves "European Union Times" - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree with you there - I think the TeaBaggers are pretty blatant racists. It's just they're media-savvy racists, and play the game very cleverly indeed. DogPMarmite Patrol 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. I bet most of them honestly think they aren't, even if faces browner than #CCCCFF are all but nonexistent at their rallies. If someone showed up at a teabag rally with white power slogans then most of the teabaggers would be genuinely upset even as they themselves carry signs against immigrants (Mexicans) and anyone who doesn't speak English and even if their implacable opposition to Obama is glaringly obviously because he's black. Difference between passive and active racism - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Proprietors found![edit]

Dude, it's amazing what you can find using a s3kr1t information tool called Google. [1] - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Couple more: Other people noticing; Nazi endorsement - material for a bit of a rewrite? - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yar, definitely. Webbtje (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking to them?[edit]

Does RationalWiki have a strong guideline against linking to neo-Nazis? (per RationalWiki:Webshites.) If so, then the reference links here should probably be made non-clickable - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

O. M. G.[edit]

Digging deeper, it's a revelation, this site. Each of the drop-down menus fro the main tabs reveals exactly what the site's about - pure, unadulterated race hate. Curious to see how this plays in their Entertainment section, I browsed the movie reviews. WOW. Just wow. DogPMarmite Patrol 18:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. 'Whites should make an accurate movie about the blacks and that accurate movie would bear the name “Black Men Can’t Think”.' ... 'By the way… the movie is full of race-mixing!' Disgraceful. SJ Debaser 18:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Such a nice URL name being wasted in such a shitty website.

I would suggest or for general euronewsery around.Sen (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How would one go about filing a complaint with the company doing the ad serving?[edit]

Should some complaints be lodged with the company that's serving ads on this filth? And if so, how? DogPMarmite Patrol 20:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Wouldn't it make more sense to put the "quotes" themselves in the article text, with ref tags obviously for the sources? As it is, to read the crazy things they say one has to keep bouncing up and down. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no actual quotes in the article - what do you mean? - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I used scarequotes around quotes because they aren't quotes. I mean all the things we say they say that one has to go to the footnote to know what they are. Here is the best example...

"Examples of xenophobic, anti-semitic and even racist bias abound. Note, for example, how many article titles unnecessarily point out the ethnicity of people accused of carrying out crimes[1][2][3]. Note also the sheer amount of articles relating to Israel or Jewish people in general[4][5]. More bias? Here, have a load of nonsensical Obama bashing.[6][7][8]"

And two example footnotes:

"# ↑ Entire US Government Said Knows Obama Ineligible For Officeimg (European Union Times, 2010-04-25), accessed 2010-05-31

  1. ↑ Obama’s eligibility to be Commander in Chief called into question by US Army officerimg (European Union Times, 2010-04-23), accessed 2010-05-31"
Surely we could incorporate text like "They claim the entire US governemnt knows Obama is ineligible for office" into the body and just footnote it? And that example could then be linked to birther, or whatever our article is called. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right! Off you go and do that then! DogPMarmite Patrol
I don't want to have to read the source (in order to make sure I get the paraphrasing right). I might get some on me, and then what? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It'll give your antivirus some fun, my uni-provided one has a nervous breakdown whenever I go onto it. Webbtje (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jon Greenspon interview[edit]

The chap's a GOP candidate for the 2012 presidentials, and has interestingly conducted an interview for this lovely bunch. When I hassled him (well, probably a PR lackey) on Twatter, the response was somewhat interesting.Webbtje (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fell for the "looks professional" effect? - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Google traffic[edit]

Article has leap frogged into our top 20 incoming google search terms, just an FYI, might be time to go over it and see if we can improve/update anything? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Some HuffPo commenter claimed the refs don't support our claims. Have they changed the pages after our images were captured? - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Having had a quick glance through, I can't see any differences between the caps and the links. It might have been more general - something along the lines of a claim that we're exaggerating or distorting. As far as I can tell, the article's pretty accurate, but analysis is welcomed. Webbtje (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I take that back. They've changed the titles of the articles linked to in the first three footnotes. Very interesting. Tempted to think they've read this article and have started to be more careful.
By the by, I assume this is the commenter in question? Tempted to answer him back myself - the imgs very clearly show that what I claimed was true at the time I wrote it. Webbtje (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that while they have moved/renamed the articles, the old links still point to the same articles. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, it's possible that the HuffPo commenter is one of the EU Times crew.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite likely, I think. There will probably be claims that the images are doctored. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have answered our objector noting where to go for the image capture versions of the pages - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


The following is now a little out of date:

If that's not enough, drag your cursor over the tabs at the top of the page - is it not a little strange that the first thing to pop up under the Science tab is a 'Race' section? That the Justice tab contains an 'Anti-White Racism' section? That the Politics tab contains a 'Zionism' section? That the Survival tab contains a 'White Extinction' section? That the Crimes tab has an 'Interracial' section, said section consisting of a list of stories involving blacks committing crimes against whites?

The only odd ones I can now spot currently on the site are:

  • Economy > Handouts/bailouts
  • Politcs > Zionism, Communism, Nationalism... well this entire section really.
  • Crimes > Immigration, Genocide
  • Justice > Suppression

It's probably all subject to change so it's either work screen-grabbing everything or just not bothering. (the "extinction" thing is still there, and is nuts, but the racial overtones are mostly gone from the headings at the moment) Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)