Worst Wikipedia article titles

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:39 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
86Mookie wrote:Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy (T-H-L)
One of the notorious "men's rights" target articles. And one of the few places on Wikipedia where right-wing cranks like Glenn Sacks and Rush Limbaugh will be quoted as "references".
Still amazing to me that things like the misandry and "violence against men" categories aren't being deleted every day. Wikipedia tends to be PC to an extreme.

And btw, men's rights leads to Category:Fashion_freedom (T-H-L), which contains:
Male bra (T-H-L)
Men's skirts (T-H-L)
Pantyhose for men (T-H-L)
The Utilikilts Company (T-H-L) (a company that Wikipedia actually likes!)
I almost quit Wikipedia after my first run-in with the men's rights manchildren. Oh, if only....
Well I tried: Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy (T-H-L), but judging by the discussion, it turns out boys really are stupid. At least on Wikipedia.

Good to see you around again.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:06 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:Well I tried: Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy (T-H-L), but judging by the discussion, it turns out boys really are stupid. At least on Wikipedia.

Thank you Marek. I've added this to the list. Shakehandsman would show up to scream at you. So predictable.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:44 pm

Sweet Revenge wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Okay, how about Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel?
Or, as it's now called, Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) (T-H-L). What a hash.

Moved not long after to Israel-related animal conspiracy theories (T-H-L).

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:07 pm

Tarc wrote: Apes and pigs in Islam (T-H-L) (AfD, where an ARSehole can always be counted on to contribute to shit article retention)

Oh, funny.

25 September 2010: The AfD is closed as keep.
8 October 2010: Difluoroethene (T-C-L) moves it to to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Apes and pigs in Islam. ("The article as it stands now is embarrassingly bad and unsuitable for Wikipedia, but it did pass an AFD. So I'm incubating it per WP: BOLD.")
10 October 2010: Trendsies (T-C-L) moves it back. ("revert No reason to move, the "objections" have been dealt with previously, It's obviously a known term past/present radical-Islam")
A couple of hours later Seb az86556 (T-C-L) turns up and systematically guts it of synthesis, broken links, speculation, unverifiable claims, and so on over the course of an hour until there's so little left that he's able to convert it into a redirect to Islam and antisemitism#Judaism in theology.
21 minutes after he's finished, HalfShadow (T-C-L) tags the redirect for speedy deletion as "recently-created and implausible" (CSD G3). 9 minutes later: Boom! It's gone.

In the words of Tenacious D,

That's fuckin' teamwork!

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:55 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:Well I tried: Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy (T-H-L), but judging by the discussion, it turns out boys really are stupid. At least on Wikipedia.
Thank you Marek. I've added this to the list. Shakehandsman would show up to scream at you. So predictable.

Oh how wonderful and such a busy, busy boy with an agenda in the last month.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:15 pm

Current link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!_controversy (T-H-L)

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:28 pm

There used to be an Earthquake Predicting Old Lady (T-H-L), but now it's a redirect.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:26 am

Hm, shouldn't this thread be under general discussion rather than governance?

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:31 am

Hex wrote:Hm, shouldn't this thread be under general discussion rather than governance?

Mod's note: Yes. Done.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:44 am

Thanks Hersch!

Sweet Revenge wrote:
Hersch wrote: Yes, it does work, provided you enter a date, and spell the original article name in a flawless and case-sensitive way.
Good lord, what little busy bees.

And then that was followed by this.

This has immediately made it into my favorite edit summaries ever:

21:27, 13 August 2007 Cerejota moved page Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Lets push things forward!!! BOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is Madness? THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:57 am

We all know that ancient Persian expansion into the eastern Mediterranean five centuries before the start of the common era was responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ask Herodotus and Cicero. History textbooks need to be revised.

Darius I always wanted to sow discord between the Hebrews (being the sons of Israel) and the Philistines (from which the term Palestine originated), which makes it easy for his son, Xerxes, to control the Levant.

This is something Zack Snyder forgot to add.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:04 am

Johnny Au wrote:
We all know that ancient Persian expansion into the eastern Mediterranean five centuries before the start of the common era was responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ask Herodotus and Cicero. History textbooks need to be revised.

Darius I always wanted to sow discord between the Hebrews (being the sons of Israel) and the Philistines (from which the term Palestine originated), which makes it easy for his son, Xerxes, to control the Levant.

This is something Zack Snyder forgot to add.

People have long memories in that part of the world. Certainly the Arab expansion into Israel in the 7th century was largely to blame.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:23 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:
We all know that ancient Persian expansion into the eastern Mediterranean five centuries before the start of the common era was responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ask Herodotus and Cicero. History textbooks need to be revised.

Darius I always wanted to sow discord between the Hebrews (being the sons of Israel) and the Philistines (from which the term Palestine originated), which makes it easy for his son, Xerxes, to control the Levant.

This is something Zack Snyder forgot to add.
People have long memories in that part of the world. Certainly the Arab expansion into Israel in the 7th century was largely to blame.

...and that Jerusalem was an extremely important city in Islam (after all, it was where the prophet ascended).

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:43 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:Well I tried: Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy (T-H-L), but judging by the discussion, it turns out boys really are stupid. At least on Wikipedia.
Thank you Marek. I've added this to the list. Shakehandsman would show up to scream at you. So predictable.

Who is that Shakehandsman guy? I just barely dipped my toe into this "Man's rights" area and there's already a swarm of sketchy accounts jumping up and down on me. The Shakehandsman and Obiwankenobi (T-C-L) accounts sure do a lot of back-slapping and post a lot of "what you just said is soooooo right man!" kind of messages to each other. Maybe it's just the usual (but justified) Wikipedia paranoia.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:19 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:Who is that Shakehandsman guy? I just barely dipped my toe into this "Man's rights" area and there's already a swarm of sketchy accounts jumping up and down on me. The Shakehandsman and Obiwankenobi (T-C-L) accounts sure do a lot of back-slapping and post a lot of "what you just said is soooooo right man!" kind of messages to each other. Maybe it's just the usual (but justified) Wikipedia paranoia.

Shakehandsman is one of the worst misogynists and trolls on Wikipedia. And he gets away with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... kehandsman
Our blog already did an item on him;
http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/11/14/ge ... wikipedia/

We thought he had quit Wikipedia in April 2012. But he came back last month, no warning, and started patrolling vandalism. Then started attacking people on noticeboards.

And this time, he's got a friend in Karl "Obiwankenobi (T-C-L)" Brown, an employee of the Rockefeller Foundation who has edited the Rockefeller Foundation article to remove "bad things". Obiwankenobi was one of the defenders of Qworty, and something of a misogynist too.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:09 pm

How about this for a stupid renaming chain?

List of minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (T-H-L)
was renamed to
Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (T-H-L)
which was renamed to
Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (T-H-L)
which was renamed to
Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) (T-H-L)
which was renamed to
List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) (T-H-L)
which was renamed to
List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) (T-H-L)
which was renamed to
List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters (T-H-L)

Can anyone top that?

If there weren't hordes of bots scuttling about taking care of double redirects, you'd never be able to find anything. (No, I wasn't actually looking for information about Sonic characters, I noticed this in an old VfD I was looking at.)

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:38 pm

Hex wrote:How about this for a stupid renaming chain?

List of minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (T-H-L)
was renamed to
Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (T-H-L)
which was renamed to
Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (T-H-L)
which was renamed to
Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) (T-H-L)

...

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Sun May 11, 2014 10:12 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:Well I tried: Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy (T-H-L), but judging by the discussion, it turns out boys really are stupid. At least on Wikipedia.
Thank you Marek. I've added this to the list. Shakehandsman would show up to scream at you. So predictable.
Who is that Shakehandsman guy? I just barely dipped my toe into this "Man's rights" area and there's already a swarm of sketchy accounts jumping up and down on me. The Shakehandsman and Obiwankenobi (T-C-L) accounts sure do a lot of back-slapping and post a lot of "what you just said is soooooo right man!" kind of messages to each other. Maybe it's just the usual (but justified) Wikipedia paranoia.

I'm also certain that the article was renamed from 'Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!' to 'Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy' to allow for its inclusion in the token 'Misandry' category despite failing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... categories. I may be remembering wrongly but I swear it didn't have controversy in the title when I started editing. Either way, it makes the entire category look ridiculous, almost as much as the listing of the SCUM Manifesto alongside examples of genocide in 'Violence against men'.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon May 12, 2014 11:53 am

Drowninginlimbo wrote:Either way, it makes the entire category look ridiculous, almost as much as the listing of the SCUM Manifesto alongside examples of genocide in 'Violence against men'.

"Violence against men" is a ridiculous theme. There is far more violence against males than females, nearly all perpetrated by other males. So what?

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Mon May 12, 2014 12:44 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote:Either way, it makes the entire category look ridiculous, almost as much as the listing of the SCUM Manifesto alongside examples of genocide in 'Violence against men'.
"Violence against men" is a ridiculous theme. There is far more violence against males than females, nearly all perpetrated by other males. So what?

Well exactly, it isn't so much of a gendered issue. There is a lengthy article for Violence against women but none at all for Violence against men, that would be missing the point of why Violence against women is considered a hate crime. If anything, the Violence against men article is probably the article for Violence. I swear half of the actions by men's rights groups is just unnecessary tokenism, which also explains its significant crossover with white rights groups.

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:39 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote:Either way, it makes the entire category look ridiculous, almost as much as the listing of the SCUM Manifesto alongside examples of genocide in 'Violence against men'.
"Violence against men" is a ridiculous theme. There is far more violence against males than females, nearly all perpetrated by other males. So what?
Well exactly, it isn't so much of a gendered issue. There is a lengthy article for Violence against women but none at all for Violence against men, that would be missing the point of why Violence against women is considered a hate crime. If anything, the Violence against men article is probably the article for Violence. I swear half of the actions by men's rights groups is just unnecessary tokenism, which also explains its significant crossover with white rights groups.

Looks like it's up for deletion again, but don't worry, Wikipedia's resident category misogynist Karl Brown is here to defend it at every single delete vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... 14_June_24

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:38 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote:Looks like it's up for deletion again, but don't worry, Wikipedia's resident category misogynist Karl Brown is here to defend it at every single delete vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... 14_June_24

Got it, thanks. Karl's a real tool, eh? Surprising no one has written a whole textbook about his abuses.

Sparky · Unread post by **Sparky** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:52 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote:Looks like it's up for deletion again, but don't worry, Wikipedia's resident category misogynist Karl Brown is here to defend it at every single delete vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... 14_June_24
Got it, thanks. Karl's a real tool, eh? Surprising no one has written a whole textbook about his abuses.

That discussion is a magnificent example of badgering.

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:56 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote:Looks like it's up for deletion again, but don't worry, Wikipedia's resident category misogynist Karl Brown is here to defend it at every single delete vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... 14_June_24
Got it, thanks. Karl's a real tool, eh? Surprising no one has written a whole textbook about his abuses.

Yeah, when I first started editing I thought he was just naive but he is very deceitful. If you go through any of the websites controversies concerning gender, it's likely he had a role in them, from the sexism towards female novelists to the naming dispute concerning Sarah Brown. It's the men's rights thing that probably annoys me the most, I remember he once heavily pushed made up a bell hooks quotation that claimed separatist feminism was "misandry is brought into the mainstream". It took hours to prove to him that they were not her words.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:58 am

Always like to get faces to names.

Karl Brown aka Obi-wan Kenobi

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:27 am

Vigilant wrote:Always like to get faces to names.

Karl Brown aka Obi-wan Kenobi

Hm, I had gone looking for a photo of him, never thought to check the GSM Association's website. Especially given that GSM isn't used in the United States....

Sparky · Unread post by **Sparky** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:06 am

This AN/I discussion makes me wonder what it would take for a topic ban to be enacted.

I've seen topic bans for less cause than this.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:20 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote: Well exactly, it isn't so much of a gendered issue. There is a lengthy article for Violence against women but none at all for Violence against men...

There was one, and it was a shit article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (2nd nomination) (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)

This is what it looked before the last AfD concluded (not without "men's rights" asshats from Reddit trying their hardest to prevent it) that it should be converted into Domestic violence against men (T-H-L).

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:19 pm

Hex wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote: Well exactly, it isn't so much of a gendered issue. There is a lengthy article for Violence against women but none at all for Violence against men...
There was one, and it was a shit article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (2nd nomination) (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)

This is what it looked before the last AfD concluded (not without "men's rights" asshats from Reddit trying their hardest to prevent it) that it should be converted into Domestic violence against men (T-H-L).

So it was pretty much the 'Domestic violence against men' article as it is now with a stub section on war crimes? It would be difficult to recreate because there isn't much written on the phenomenon at all, so it would require a huge amount of synthesis and original research. They are better off trying to get an article or paper on the subject published.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:20 am

Hex wrote:There was one, and it was a shit article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (2nd nomination) (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)

This is what it looked before the last AfD concluded (not without "men's rights" asshats from Reddit trying their hardest to prevent it) that it should be converted into Domestic violence against men (T-H-L).

I shall quote you, sir. Thanks.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:20 am

Drowninginlimbo wrote: So it was pretty much the 'Domestic violence against men' article as it is now with a stub section on war crimes? It would be difficult to recreate because there isn't much written on the phenomenon at all, so it would require a huge amount of synthesis and original research. They are better off trying to get an article or paper on the subject published.

Yeah. The pro faction were essentially arguing that It Is A Thing (because, you know, the terrible infringement of men's rights by "Violence against women" existing alone) and everyone else was saying what you are here - well then, prove it using reliable sources. They couldn't.

Oh shit, sorry, looking at the history I totally forgot - I took an axe to it while the AfD was ongoing. Check this out to see how it looked when the AfD was filed. Everything from wicker men to Pol Pot. Uuh-huh.

Incidentally, the related "Template:Violence against men" is currently up for deletion. And look who's arguing vociferously for its retention - surprise! It's Obiwankenobi.

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:12 pm

Hex wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote: So it was pretty much the 'Domestic violence against men' article as it is now with a stub section on war crimes? It would be difficult to recreate because there isn't much written on the phenomenon at all, so it would require a huge amount of synthesis and original research. They are better off trying to get an article or paper on the subject published.
Yeah. The pro faction were essentially arguing that It Is A Thing (because, you know, the terrible infringement of men's rights by "Violence against women" existing alone) and everyone else was saying what you are here - well then, prove it using reliable sources. They couldn't.

Oh shit, sorry, looking at the history I totally forgot - I took an axe to it while the AfD was ongoing. Check this out to see how it looked when the AfD was filed. Everything from wicker men to Pol Pot. Uuh-huh.

Incidentally, the related "Template:Violence against men" is currently up for deletion. And look who's arguing vociferously for its retention - surprise! It's Obiwankenobi.

Just a FYI he's probably watching this forum debate - I got a number of messages on my IP talk page and an email in my spam folder about this.

God knows how much time it takes for him to control the representation of an entire topic on the website, you could probably write a book on 'Violence against men' in less time.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:51 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote: Just a FYI he's probably watching this forum debate - I got a number of messages on my IP talk page and an email in my spam folder about this.

I generally assume that everything I post here is read by lurking Wikipedians. Hi Obiwankenobi!

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:52 pm

If you change your !vote and convince others to, I will stay away from VAW and VAM for a month (provided others don't gut the categories), and then will work with you on an RFC on the contents.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

I think this has gotten really out of hand.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:59 pm

I don't understand why Castration (T-H-L) has a violence against men template.

The reason why choir boys were castrated during the Classical era of music was because the Church was misogynistic.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:42 am

Johnny Au wrote:I don't understand why Castration (T-H-L) has a violence against men template.

The reason why choir boys were castrated during the Classical era of music was because the Church was misogynistic.

?? What, so if boys had their bits cut off, it was somehow violence against women?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:05 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:I don't understand why Castration (T-H-L) has a violence against men template.

The reason why choir boys were castrated during the Classical era of music was because the Church was misogynistic.
?? What, so if boys had their bits cut off, it was somehow violence against women?

*squints*
Maybe he means misogynist in the idea that instead of having girl or women singers, it was considered better to mutilate children.

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:51 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:I don't understand why Castration (T-H-L) has a violence against men template.

The reason why choir boys were castrated during the Classical era of music was because the Church was misogynistic.
?? What, so if boys had their bits cut off, it was somehow violence against women?

I thinkthough I'm not at all surethat the suggestion is that it was the Church's misogyny which prevented ladies from singing in mixed choirs. Thus, those parts in part-scores which would otherwise have been suitable for their voices had to be sung by pre-pubescent boys or castrati.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:54 pm

Zoloft wrote: *squints*
Maybe he means misogynist in the idea that instead of having girl or women singers, it was considered better to mutilate children.

Thinks. might have been a good idea to castrate Cameron, Glegg, Goves, Osbourne, ...

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:54 pm

Yes, I meant that during the Classical era of music, instead of having female singers, the Church thought that it was a better idea to castrate boys instead. The Church was both misogynistic and misandrist at the same time.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:55 pm

lilburne wrote:
Zoloft wrote: *squints*
Maybe he means misogynist in the idea that instead of having girl or women singers, it was considered better to mutilate children.
Thinks. might have been a good idea to castrate Cameron, Glegg, Goves, Osbourne, ...

Why, what have their children ever done to you?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:07 pm

Toryism runs in families.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:25 pm

lilburne wrote:Toryism runs in families.

So, if you'd started with Arthur Lehman Goodhart (T-H-L), you'd have prevented Philip Goodhart (T-H-L) but equally, you'd have prevented William Goodhart, Baron Goodhart (T-H-L) and Charles Goodhart (T-H-L).

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:14 pm

Does anybody know what happened here? Sorry if it's off-topic from the main thread, it seems a little connected at least to the thing with Obi yesterday.

This comment from Shakehandsman made me laugh a little: "the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles". I'm fairly sure he's mistaking a feminist presence in academia with one on site, you can't rewrite a century or so of critical theory with a few lazily researched online articles.

Sparky · Unread post by **Sparky** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:26 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote:Does anybody know what happened here? Sorry if it's off-topic from the main thread, it seems a little connected at least to the thing with Obi yesterday.

This comment from Shakehandsman made me laugh a little: "the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles". I'm fairly sure he's mistaking a feminist presence in academia with one on site, you can't rewrite a century or so of critical theory with a few lazily researched online articles.

Brought down per NLT by the resident WP legal scholar Kevin Gorman.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:08 am

And talk page gagged because, you know, legal threats.

I hope he lives in Berkeley and goes and looks you up Gorman.

His talk page is filled to the fucking brim with jackals.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:56 pm

Drowninginlimbo wrote:you can't rewrite a century or so of critical theory with a few lazily researched online articles.

Doesn't that sort of thing happen all the time on Wikipedia?

Drowninginlimbo · Unread post by **Drowninginlimbo** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:40 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Drowninginlimbo wrote:you can't rewrite a century or so of critical theory with a few lazily researched online articles.
Doesn't that sort of thing happen all the time on Wikipedia?

Yeah and it sucks.

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:04 pm

What does Wikipedia call it when a car breaks through a barrier and plows through people assembled in a holiday parade?

A car crash.

Does anyone remember the September 11, 2001 New York City Plane Crashes?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:40 pm

MrErnie wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:04 pm
What does Wikipedia call it when a car breaks through a barrier and plows through people assembled in a holiday parade?

A car crash.

You're right, that's definitely not the best way to describe it, or even a particularly good way. Then again, "attack" probably isn't either, since the modern connotation with that word would imply that this was pre-planned terrorism, and it's clearly not pre-planned terrorism, nor do there seem to be any significant political implications.

So while it's still technically an "attack," the accurate term would really be something like "fucked-up-criminal killer vehicular-manslaughter incident." So they'd need something that conveys that concept, but it has to be shorter than that, obviously. (Even the acronym would be inappropriate, since "FUCKVMI" would be offensive to anyone associated with the Virginia Military Institute.)