Difference between revisions of "Talk:Metapedia"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Coppicing)
("Internet hate site" = a bias newspeak epithet)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 78: Line 78:
 
:Personally I still like the comparison, since it ''does'' imply that the things won't grow (to we uneducated "most/all trees don't do that" folk)...but I dunno how common that perception is. Guess it should be removed in a while, if nobody can reword it to be funny without much ignorance. {{User:Kupochama/sig}} 07:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:Personally I still like the comparison, since it ''does'' imply that the things won't grow (to we uneducated "most/all trees don't do that" folk)...but I dunno how common that perception is. Guess it should be removed in a while, if nobody can reword it to be funny without much ignorance. {{User:Kupochama/sig}} 07:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::Yeah, there's a joke there, but I'm not sure what it is. Or I'd make it. {{User:Human/sig|}} 08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::Yeah, there's a joke there, but I'm not sure what it is. Or I'd make it. {{User:Human/sig|}} 08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== "Internet hate site" = a bias newspeak epithet ==
 +
 +
This website is currently in a category called "internet hate sites". However, regardless of ideological affiliation, this can in no sense be considered a legitimate category. The term is an Orwellian newspeak epithet, associated mostly with Communists and Jewish propagandists, in an attempt to strangle freedom of inquiry and to blacklist any form of free speech which dissents from their totalitarian party line. If anything, Metapedia is an "internet love site", dedicated to the love of European people and culture. - [[User:Neutralist|Neutralist]] ([[User talk:Neutralist|talk]]) 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:06, 23 July 2010

Archives for this talk page: <0>, <1>, (new)

Research psychologist's edits

A lot of the things he is adding to this article he either added to Metapedia or his actions caused them to be added, either way he is essentially using this article to spread the "hate speech" he was spreading there. I don't think he should be allowed to add to the quotes section as we don't really want this to be a proxy for him to spread racist views. - π 07:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


HA HA HA! You just made a reckless mistake, Pi. Your anger is making you unstable. I love how you try to put a polished covering over it with your wording (e.g. "proxy for him to spread racist views"); it's just so comically pathetic! Anyone can look at the edit histories of all of the metapedia articles in question and see that Pi is a liar; I didn't add any of those ridiculous things to metapedia. What's next Pi- having made such a deliberate deception against me, are you next going to try to assassinate me? Both actions are acts of great anger and deliberate focus. Research psychologist (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not angry, what gave you that impression I am? You did add that stuff about east-Asian only being good at torturing people, I had a look. - π 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually that was Hu1. However, I still think there is way too much of this crap and I don't want to turn this page into a outlet of this kind of material. - π 07:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
???... Come on, that stuff that I pointed out on metapedia is ridiculous. Who are you afraid is going to believe that crap who doesn't believe it already? An escaped mental patient? ...Besides, if you don't want the page to be used as an outlet for racists, then there are some more believable statements that you should be removing. Research psychologist (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. I would like to hear someone besides yours or my opinion on the matter. - π 08:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the edits some of that stuff was pretty unbelievable.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts on how little or how much to include? - π 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The changes are here. No point in including the Wikipedia or V for Vendetta comments since they relate to stuff on talk pages or buried in edit histories rather than in articles. Kitler is a deleted article. Few of these are direct quotes, & they're not really adding much to the article. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What they say, redux

Section is a bit of a mess, with some direct quotes mixed in with our "takes" on what MP says. Can we pick one approach--I prefer the former, let 'em hang themselves with their own entrails--and be consistent? P-Foster (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I will revert RPs edits on sight, however. It has failed the test of endless edits that sucked eel soup. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I prefer direct quotes with quotation marks, referenced with screenshots if possible. I also think we only need a half dozen or so, enough to get the point across that they are racist bigots, without this becoming a site mirror. Lets be honest what isn't copied straight from Wikipedia is stupid, we don't need to copy it all to show that. - π 05:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the irrational one. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I say we leave in only the wackiest quotes, and take out the more basic moderate stuff that one would expect. That way, it's more of an exposé. Research psychologist (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Be quiet, you. The grown-ups are talking. P-Foster (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha ha! I see you're pissed that a good suggestion came from me! Research psychologist (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's a crap suggestion--obviously the "basic moderate stuff" is of little or no interest because we've already established it's copy pasta from WP. and it's really not much of an exposé when the site wears its ideology on its sleeve. now run off willya, kid...P-Foster (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you actually think that that quote on Race came from wikipedia? The site's mission statement only states that it is 'pro-european'. Research psychologist (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Did I say anything about ANY particular quote? And who f=cares what the mission statement says; it should be obvious to anyone who reads at above a fifth-grade level that MP is what it is--I fail to see what sort of a coup one can score with a great exposé. It's pretty damn obvious all the way through. P-Foster (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above. We should have a few examples, with direct quotes, & none added to the article by Metapedia editors/supporters. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
RePsy's reversion was left in again, so I went ahead and cleared out some of the quotes and reformatted them while I was at it. His edit had a single quote that wasn't his own work, dull, or fake; past that, some older ones were pretty dull and/or long since toned down. Feel free to add any you guys like (if you can find them on the site; screenshot cites would help), I just went with what seemed like the best examples. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice work Kuposoop. Much better. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
All the quotations need reference links with capture tags, or deletion - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like I've confirmed the foolproof formula for making my opponents weaker: Help an opponent after getting them to hate you, and they will permanently reject one's help and refuse to admit to themself that their opponent was helping them, such that they harm themselves. I likewise got metapedia to permanently reject a ton of racial science material using that method, so now they will forever look like the unscientific bigots that they are. Egotism is such an exploitable weakness. Gya ha ha ha ha! Research psychologist (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the quotes that were written by you two weeks ago, your grammar was bad. Please don't post megalomaniacal soliloquies here. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 03:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha! I see that I upset you a lot, to make up such things about me. Wanna tissue, Kupochama?
P.S. The only metapedia excerpt that was at all created by me was that quote on Rupert Murdoch, which I later prefaced with "there is an allegation that" when I learned that it was a lie, and then Hu1 changed it back. Research psychologist (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't challenge Research psychologist, he is the genius that control the internet by making people angry. I think he might be the hat guy. - π 03:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
My first impression was that you meant this, so I'll never speak ill of Him again. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I was think more like this. - π 06:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Change section to "What it said"

I changed section name from "What they say" (a stereotype) to "What it said". What the wiki said at one moment could be the work of wandals, or "they" may have changed their mind since. If we linked to Metapedia, reader could see current version but I guess that has privacy implications or something. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, though (since the Wiki is still around) why not go present-tense and title it "What they say"? Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Sound like good idea or no? Who has verified this is what their communEntity said (and not just some wandal) and that it is what they say still? It will always be truth that something is what it (the wiki) said (unless someone make fake screen-shot). This wording is far more accurate. (Side note: I write about discrimination against racists in Wikipedia. Interesting is Chomsky's Jewish wisdom quote written by Trivers.) ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, how about "What it has said" then? The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh you meant it sounds like wiki is no longer around. Yes that is better then. I thought your edit history comment said "How about 'What it has said to Lumenos?'" I misread but look at good reply I write already: With wikiforum rules we would sign the individual "comments". I suppose it is just as well when you have screenshots because you can easily see the source of the screenshot (so long as it is not anon IP address). ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 02:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a better idea: bother to look through the history on Metapedia and see if it really was something said by a regular. Then leave the article heading not being stupid - David Gerard (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Both suggested titles are rubbish. I've changed it to "sample comments" & removed or amended other instances where we've referred to the website as "they". WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How to link?

Thanks for tracking down the links Kupochama. However, tinyurl does nothing useful (besides annoying Nx) since the external linking at RW is configured so as not to impact web rankings. If we do link directly to a hate site, we should link to it directly. Alternatively, as suggested in some of the comments above, we could use screenshots instead of direct links, to avoid sending our readers to a hate site. Personally, I could go for either option, but what do others think? Either way, I think we should also tag some or all of the links with some kind of NSFW warning. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. I just went with it because it was apparently the custom at WIGO:4R (elsewhere on the page) to "filter" them that way. I lost track of recent opinions, other than that there's no official restriction...but anyway, I imagine the captures could have their links removed. Alternatively, the links could just be copied into the refs from the captures/meta-links.
As for NSFW, I tacked a little warning on the footnotes before reading this. (That "negroid" edit scared the crap out of me.) A NSFW template could help if someone wants to go measure the racism concentration levels at each one, though. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. I didn't notice that you'd capturebotted it - good thinking. I just added a NSFW warning in the article text as well without noticing yours. So I'll tidy it up some. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason not to make them not just reference links with the full URL visible as sufficient warning, e.g. as done on European Union Times - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but your YET article was the straw that changed the camel's back. Please stop using it as an "example". ħumanUser talk:Human 06:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The substance of your objection is not clear. (Nor what you're talking about with YET, if you're not me.) I suggested it here because I thought it a good idea. What did you consider a bad idea? Etc, etc, etc. Clear, indisputable rationality please - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I agree. Since our links don't seem to boost stuff to #1 on Google, I doubt we're tricking anyone into becoming racist. That said, I'm burned out on wiki-ing, so I'll leave it up to others for now. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The capture pictures do a good job and if Metapedia ever gets sucked down the intertubes, we will still have them. - π 03:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, if readers do want to check out the site, maybe it's better that they can go there with a nofollow link, rather than looking it up themselves on Google, which could boost rankings. So maybe there should be an external link section with a single direct link to the site, with due warnings etc. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah hah! Yes, that way should be. But then they might go now and then get meme in memery bank, then do search later. We need experience sheeple trainer tell us right way. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Coppicing

To me, a stump implies something that has been cut down or hacked off. The bit about trees not regrowing is/was way off the mark. Many species can and do recover vigorously after being cut down; this is a common technique for obtaining copious firewood, etc. - cut the tree down every few years. The reason for the rapid growth is the large existing root system. I once cut down a damaged white birch and the dozen or so new stems grew to 15' and 3-5" thick in three years.

In other words, their choice of words is ignorant. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I still like the comparison, since it does imply that the things won't grow (to we uneducated "most/all trees don't do that" folk)...but I dunno how common that perception is. Guess it should be removed in a while, if nobody can reword it to be funny without much ignorance. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 07:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a joke there, but I'm not sure what it is. Or I'd make it. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Internet hate site" = a bias newspeak epithet

This website is currently in a category called "internet hate sites". However, regardless of ideological affiliation, this can in no sense be considered a legitimate category. The term is an Orwellian newspeak epithet, associated mostly with Communists and Jewish propagandists, in an attempt to strangle freedom of inquiry and to blacklist any form of free speech which dissents from their totalitarian party line. If anything, Metapedia is an "internet love site", dedicated to the love of European people and culture. - Neutralist (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)