Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[scathefire]

In a few years fucking Thomas Sowell will be called Nazi adjacent.

In a few years? According to Vaush he already is.

 

[AnOminous]

The article's primary author has the username Activist. Their user page is just a mess of infoboxes, most of which are about having set foot in various countries.

The opinion of anyone with "infoboxes" on their profile should be automatically marked as utterly worthless. Plus they should be put against a wall.

I didn't know that beauty pageants were the source for a lot of sperging on Wikipedia. They've locked up most pages pertaining to them. This years "Miss Universe" pageant page has the good-old blue lock on its page, so only users who waste their time accumulating over 500 edits can edit the page.

Miss Universe 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any article like that should have a flashing red warning at the top in a huge font informing readers that only severely autistic mental retards are allowed to edit the article.

 

[Lucille Bluth]

How can you sperg over fucking pageants?

If the retards on Wikipedia can have autistic freak outs over trivial things like nationality/ethnicity and using "politically correct" language (i.e - referring to people by their "preferred' pronouns for a non-binary or troon's Wiki article), then I'm not shocked that there are people who sperg out over beauty pageants.

Any article like that should have a flashing red warning at the top in a huge font informing readers that only severely autistic mental retards are allowed to edit the article.

Wikipedia has a ton of "sanctions" related to topics that IP users and registered users are sure to sperg on about. There are many pages locked for anything pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Gamergate, gender and sexuality and anything related to American politics from the 1990s to present will have this lovely warning banner:

 

[Josterman]

a slight update from the Palmer report Wikipedia page

 

[Shmuel "Sam" Coinsniffer]

a slight update from the Palmer report Wikipedia page

You wouldn't bother to post the context? This means nothing.

 

[Josterman]

You wouldn't bother to post the context? This means nothing.

Well it came from his talk page which I posted before and don’t get brazen with me

 

[Tootsie Bear]

Just when you though Wikipedia's standers couldn't sink any lower:

Wikipedia is a cesspit!

 

[Josterman]

I wonder how Wikipedia is handling the trial

 

[Pissmaster]

Just when you though Wikipedia's standers couldn't sink any lower:
View attachment 2733180
View attachment 2733020
Wikipedia is a cesspit!

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archived 20 Nov 2021 03:03:55 UTC

archive.md

That's the first time I've ever seen an animated GIF on the front page of Wikipedia

I wonder how Wikipedia is handling the trial

Kyle Rittenhouse is the most famous person in the world today, yet he doesn't get his own article. Instead, his name just links to Kenosha unrest shooting

 

[Josterman]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archived 20 Nov 2021 03:03:55 UTC

archive.md

That's the first time I've ever seen an animated GIF on the front page of Wikipedia


Kyle Rittenhouse is the most famous person in the world today, yet he doesn't get his own article. Instead, his name just links to Kenosha unrest shooting

Yeah that’s unfortunate

 

[Flaming Insignias]

This reads like leftist propaganda, and that's because almost every link is to some left-wing site or Biden's CTC

 

[Basado]

This reads like leftist propaganda, and that's because almost every link is to some left-wing site or Biden's CTC

They really listed "Trumpism" as part of their ideology and even made a page for "Trumpism"! Just lol!

 

[Sasha]

using "politically correct" language (i.e - referring to people by their "preferred' pronouns for a non-binary or troon's Wiki article),

I'd love to see this extended to more "fringe" identity things. Like "x is a pegasus, with a magic penis"

 

[Lucille Bluth]

Users debated on whether or not Hermione Granger from the Harry Potter series counts as a "Catgirl", despite it being clear as day that Hermione is not a "catgirl".

Talk:List of catgirls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia defines Catgirls as: "a female character with cat traits, such as cat ears, a cat tail, or other feline characteristics on an otherwise human body". Some of the lovely discussion:

This sentence (which I found on a user page), is really something...

 

[kcbbq]

It was always a Faustian bargain to get into politics via the Klan, although it was more practical during the '20s incarnation. The problem was it could get you into politics but later, you'd be answering questions about why you were in the Klan at all. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, for instance, was in the '20s incarnation of the Klan, which was more or less a necessity to get into politics in Alabama at the time, but resigned before becoming a U.S. Senator, in 1925.

Nevertheless, he was answering questions about it the rest of his life, including at his Senate confirmation hearing after his appointment as a Supreme Court Justice by FDR.

Byrd's situation was quite similar, although somewhat worse in that he was in the later incarnation of the Klan at a time there was less excuse for it. Note, Byrd was not a Grand Wizard as sometimes reported. He was merely an Exalted Cyclops, a lead of a local chapter which he had, in fact, actually founded. I think one of the more embarrassing things about former Klan membership has to be the ridiculous titles.

Byrd is my second favorite Exalted Cyclops. You can guess the first.

Spoiler

View attachment 2701904

Wasn't Byrd also a Kleagle (or maybe Grand Kleagle), one of the high up Klan recruiters?

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archived 20 Nov 2021 03:03:55 UTC

archive.md

That's the first time I've ever seen an animated GIF on the front page of Wikipedia


Kyle Rittenhouse is the most famous person in the world today, yet he doesn't get his own article. Instead, his name just links to Kenosha unrest shooting

They know they'd never be able to help themselves and keep to their own policies which would leave them at the mercy of the non-leftists. They think they're righteous, and losing policy arguments on what to put in an article on the merits of those arguments would send them into a seething rage, so no article.

 

[Pissmaster]

Today I made the mistake of reading the article for RapeLay.

If you've never heard of it, it's a Japanese porn game where you stalk and rape a mother and her two underaged daughters. It's disturbing even by hentai standards, and garnered a lot of notoriety when it was new.

So, naturally, Wikipedia goes into detail about the events throughout the entire game, and even includes instructions on how to unlock a secret ending:


And then we have the Talk page. I can't believe nobody's ever archived it, so here you go. It's covered with all kinds of sperging over the years, but here are some highlights:

First off, we've got a guy sperging about Iceland, because apparently it's banned there:

Here's a guy who just straight up wants more of this kinda shit:

According to Wikipedia user FreshPrinceOfBrighouse, a game about stalking, raping, and enslaving a mother and two children is comparable to over-the-top violence in first-person shooters, and it's all just a matter of what's considered socially acceptable.

 

[AnOminous]

Wasn't Byrd also a Kleagle (or maybe Grand Kleagle), one of the high up Klan recruiters?

Yes, but that was before he reached his highest rank, which was Exalted Cyclops.

 

[Josterman]

More from the PR talk page and our old friend gorilla warfare has something to say

 

[moocow]

How can you sperg over fucking pageants?

Plenty of reasons for the prurient leftists running wikipedoedia. Trump owns/runs one of the bigger American pageants (or at least used to until recently; I know his name is prominently attached to it), so that's an obvious source of spergery. The pageants focus on "actually attractive" women -- dead-eggers, fatties, butterfaces, anorexics, dangerhairs, punk/emo and tattoo/piercing/body mod skanks need not apply, which deeply offends the hopelessly ugly people who criticize beauty pageants. Pleasant personalities are also a prerequisite (even if they're fake), which immediately rules out slacktivists, Antifa/BLM types, feminists and militant activists of any kind. The classic "tradwife" even the bubbly airhead personalities are heavily favored. You can bet how well that sits with modern liberals.

Despite desperate attempts to change it, pageants have been mostly resistant to allowing trannies and most pageants still have a healthy selection of white contestants. Lots of reeeeeing to be had there, especially when a white (or latina) girl wins instead of one of the token apes.

Then of course we have the child beauty pageants which have been controversial from their inception because of hypersexualization of children and all the fucking grooming going on that's obvious to everyone except apparently the people with the authority to shut it down and prosecute it. Naturally the pedos of wikiland get pretty upset whenever someone criticizes a grooming vector they're fond of.

 

[chiobu]

"Mass killings under communist regimes" is being considered for deletion

Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia

archived 24 Nov 2021 17:27:37 UTC

archive.ph

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes…

archived 24 Nov 2021 13:15:09 UTC

archive.md

Delete as synthesis, and a violation of WP:NPOV policy. There is no doubt that 'communist regimes' as defined in the article have perpetrated many atrocities, but that isn't the issue. The question that needs to be asked is whether 'Mass killings under communist regimes' is a legitimate subject for an encyclopaedic article. And I would have to suggest that the article in question does little to justify that claim. A few writers have certainly seen it as a legitimate subject for discussion, but by and large, credible mainstream histography tends to neither lump all 'communist regimes' together as a subject for scrutiny when discussing 'mass killing' or to treat them as some sort of special case requiring unique analysis. Proper historiography discusses events in context, and without simplistic presuppositions that events are driven by any specific ideology. As the endless disputes on the article talk page make entirely clear, the article, and what exactly it is that it is supposed to be discussing, has long been a subject of contention amongst Wikipedia contributors. Raththan citing credible histographic sources on such subjects, the debate has instead revolved around exactly what constitutes a 'mass killing', or a 'communist regime'. Debate almost invariably focussed on contributors own arguments and opinions, since sources discussing this are sparse, and generally on the fringes of histography. It is absolutely imperative that Wikipedia covers mass killings, regardless of who perpetuates them and what their motivations were, or are, but this article, with its loaded title and its endless wars over what exactly Wikipedia contributors can or cannot include as a 'killing' is exactly the wrong way to go about it. What Wikipedia should be doing is covering, in relevant articles about specific subjects, such atrocities, sourced to mainstream academia, and written in a manner that does not spoon-feed readers over-generalising and ideologically-driven conclusions that the sources concerned do not themselves support. Let the facts about individual events speak for themselves, and let readers decide for themselves whether they wish to blame 'communist regimes' for such crimes, or to instead blame them on the broader fallibilities of a humanity that was perpetuating such atrocities long before 'communists' arrived, and may well, if a more enlightened discourse isn't available, be perpetuating similar atrocities long after such 'regimes' have gone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum to the above: a few hours ago, I wrote that "Rather than citing credible histographic sources on such subjects, the debate has instead revolved around exactly what constitutes a 'mass killing', or a 'communist regime'. Debate almost invariably focussed on contributors own arguments and opinions". For further evidence of how such endless going around in circles to arrive at a synthesised compromise can't work, one only need to look at this AfD discussion, and at how it is once again going over exactly the same ground, with the same mind-numbing consequences. I might dare to suggest that even if it were theoretically possible from Wikipedia to create a policy-compliant article on the subject matter (I still contend it isn't), per common sense, and possibly WP:IAR, we should give up trying, since in practice it is never going to happen. Or at lest, not until the last 'communist' and 'anti-communist' has been long dead, buried, and forgotten. There are plenty of other topics to write about, or even to waste time arguing over, and leaving this one for future generations might be best for all concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete in sum per WP:SYNTH, as explained in some great detail in the nom, the above !vote, the long talk page discussions, and the prior AFDs. I am looking for multiple RS that give significant coverage to (1) "mass killings" (and not "excess deaths" or anything else) under (2) "communist regimes" (and not "Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot"; not some communist regimes, not "totalitarian states", but "communist regimes"). I do no believe there is enough RS that exists that covers this topic. Rather, the article is based on sources that talk about death in communist regimes generally, or mass killings by specific regimes that called themselves communist (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). But to combine it by ideology, without sources that explicitly do so, is SYNTH. At bottom, the view that the ideology of communism is somehow inherently violent is WP:FRINGE anti-communist POV pushing. Levivich 15:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think that there are some of these sources listed below in the discussion. I also don't think that materials which primarily focus on Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as the largest mass killings under communist regimes are out of line; the Great Purge, Cultural Revolution, and Cambodian Genocide are probably the three largest examples of this phenomenon. Reasonable sources would probably put these in the forefront and the focus of the most of their discussion given that they are the largest in scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Only Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's fit the most widely accepted definition of mass killing (50,000 killings within five years), so your arguments support a comparative analysis of those three regimes only, as is done by Karlsson 2008. Davide King (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you telling me that North Korea is not somehow engaged in mass killings through starvation? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you telling me there is consensus among scholars that man-made famines are mass killings? This is contradicted even by the long-standing version of the article having a section devoted to this. In Red Holocaust, Steven Rosefielde does discuss North Korea, alongside Vietnam and the Big Three, but he considers them to be excess or mass mortality events, not mass killings, compare "Premature Deaths: Russia's Radical Economic Transition in Soviet Perspective". Davide King (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
That North Korea is even 'communist' in any meaningful sense is a subject of frequent debate, given its deviation from orthodox Stalinism and towards a militarised ultranationalist quasi-religious ideology (Juche). They don't claim to be 'communist' any more, and Wikipedia certainly shouldn't simply take at face value assertions that they are. Not if the object of that exercise is to lump them together with other regimes just to add to the a total concocted according to arbitrary criteria by Wikipedia contributors. The crimes of the North Korean state need to be described in context, in appropriate articles, rather than thrown out of context into an article that refuses to acknowledge the complex issues and questionable premises it is built around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone doubts Levivich's statement of "the view that the ideology of communism is somehow inherently [emphasis mine] violent is WP:FRINGE anti-communist POV pushing", it is backed by this snow close in regards to communism categorization. Davide King (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)