Forum:On the Jewish Question

Forums: Index > Village Dump > On the Jewish Question

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5661 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Jew. What are we to do with it? I like the article we got from IC, I really do. But it is far from what I would expect to find in an article titled "Jew". Someone has recently reverted it to the old version and later expressed his concerns on the talkpage. And in fact, I somewhat agree with him on the issue. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple. We kill them. The Jews, causing the current economic crisis!!! --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Me to. The old version needed work (obviously) but the new version should be moved to another title and maybe linked with {{Whoops}} from the best old version we can find in the history. The new version is just not right as our main article on the subject. It is so totally fixed in its concept that it's almost impossible to add content to it without messing it up. Recently someone tried to add a section on Bagels to it, but we decided that they could not. When our article on Jew does not allow a section on Bagels there is something very wrong. IMO (obviously). MrN 17:02, Apr 5

I prefer the IC version, myself. Considering the substantial amount of links to the article in question, it seems more reasonable that we keep the IC version over the sloppy, mismatched, and near-random article that used to be there. Even if it isn't entirely relevant, keeping the good stuff under a topic that's been linked over 500 times increases the chances of a casual reader happening upon the decent article, and thinking we don't suck (we're not loljewslol like the rest of the Internet). – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:05 Apr 05, 2009

Yea, the IC version is "better". I would just rather that it was realistic for people to be able to edit the page. Check the talk page and history for examples of that which have already happened. If we leave it like this, we are forever more going to be telling people "you can't edit that cos it does not fit the style". The problem is that the style is too fixed to allow the kinda content which people are going to want to put into what is our main page on the subject. It's probably possible to clean up the old version in less than an hour. If we agree to revert back to the old version, I'm happy to clean out the crap and make a presentable page. MrN 17:12, Apr 5

Or have a link to the bastard friendly non-elitist older version of it... Probably not, though. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Solution easy: make a new page with the old version on it. Link from IC page. Problem solved. Now who wants some gefilte fish?--<<>> 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Or we could do it the other way around... Even most people at UN:IC agree that this rewrite was not that successful. If the new page was FA quality then fine, but it's far from that. MrN 17:46, Apr 5

Will this be the final solution? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I thought that for now we leave the IC version there, because it is somewhat better than the other one. But it signaled to me that the system needed work, and it still needs work. Truth is, I got a lot going on over here and IC is starting to take something of a backseat. I'm not giving up just yet, I'm determined to make it work. But at some point in the future, I would like to come back to Jew and re-rewrite it. Until then, we need to stick to smaller articles and work out an effective system. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I liked the IC rewrite MUCH better than the old one. It's prettier, it's funnier, it's less confused. Move the old one, like we did with Bushie.--<<>> 20:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Much ado about titles and such

I would propose to move the present Jew article to something with a more appropriate title, maybe "On the Jewish Question", "Jews: A History", "What it Means to be a Jew", "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or something of the likes. We make "Jew", "Jews" "Judaism" and such redirect to that article. If someone recreates the old pre-colonization article or creates a new article, the person to first note this puts a rewrite/expand/whatever tag on it. If it is not improved, the article is to be deleted in one of many monthly maintainance killing sprees and consequently again redirected to our colonization article. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No! You shut up! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I thought this was Forum:BENSON RETURNS. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Uterus or GTFO! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I used to be a Uteran. Then I found out that it wasn't an official Christian denomination. Instead, it was just a chubby housewife with a van. Still, it was pretty awesome. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This was kinda my issue with the idea of IC

Now don't get me wrong; I love SysRq and I always look out for his posts. In fact, one time, I was just looking at some random stuff on my computer and I thought I saw his name in one swift look, before it turned out to be the Prt Scr key on the board. Anyway, the problem I have with IC is that it targets articles that have a fair likelyhood that peeps will want to come over and contribute something because it is that easy to add something that can be funny. If you prevent these guys from doing that, it could harm the number of noobs coming into Uncyclopedia. Sorta like how turning a beautiful forest into an un-eraseable city will kill off all the cutesy animals who used to live there. Furthermore, IC seeks to avoid clichéd humour, which panned out almost perfectly for Al Gore, but critically suffered in Jew. IPs can turn out the decent humour at the subjects where it is warranted: people hate racism, fascism, discrimination and Jews so why not let people use the full extent of a wiki that they can edit and add tasteless humour? So what if it isn't going to be featured? You think you can do better without mentioning Hitler? Some things in life are destined to be ruled by 'raiders', that's why they exist. It's good to ensure that they don't overflow and fill every article with meme-related crap, but there are some fucking great articles that they have done. To offer a suggestion with cricitism, I'd say that articles, at the least, deserve to be organised, not much more, so it isn't a clutter. I have more suggestions, of course.

And no I didn't read anything above this edit. Peace and love. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I read things above this...

...but not enough to understand what was going on!!! Please explain. -- Style  Guide 18:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're back! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like the IC version. And I haven't even read it. It doesn't look like an encyclopedia style article, it looks like a story, so I have no motivation to try and read yet another first-person narrative type article. And it's not what I'd expect if I looked up "Jew" in a fake encyclopedia (not in the good way). That's all I have to say, really. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:18, 06 Apr 2009

It probably failed...

Because you executed it in the wrong style. Writing first person articles is always extremely difficult, because the title needs to fit the content, and it needs to be open for edits. On some articles, such as Creepy, the title and concept fit well with first person, making it open for edits. However, when you've got such a commonly searched concept like Jew, it's always hard to write a first person/sermon script. It's by no means a bad article- the humor (yes, i'm American) is just presented in the wrong style. Saberwolf116 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, we know this already. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey people

Remember how I made this one proposal this one time? Good times. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up. —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No! You shut up! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop. I think that we can all agree that both of you should shut up. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But... but... Incompleteness Theorem! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again

Please make an on-topic comment about my proposal... Pretty please! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Why not? -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:07, 9 Apr
  • Why? Why? Oh Why? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter what your answer is as long as you feel good about it. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:12, 9 Apr
      • The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On topic

Remember that one proposal of mine? Yeah, I'm done linking to it. If you don't comment on it, that's fine. Let's talk about Jews now. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I said sure. Jeez. -OptyC Sucks! CUN13:42, 11 Apr

You want to talk about Jesus now? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Jesus was a Jew. That's why he was too cheap to buy a proper cross and built his own. -OptyC Sucks! CUN13:51, 11 Apr

Back on the Jewish question

Recent edits have brought up the issue again. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

new header

since socky won't stop bumping this forum, i say we actually respnd to him. personally, i think the article at Jew is, at the very worst, an adequate article. however, it doesn't lend itself to easy editing because it's only about the history of the jews. therefore, i propose we move Jew to History of the Jews or somesuch, and do something about the subsequent lack of article at Jew. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough!!!

The vandalism got the best of me and I moved the colonization article to Jewish History: The Big Picture. You guys sort out the rest. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I perceive that Mordillo has reverted my edits. Whatever. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He's Mossad. Seriously. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Next time, try not making such decisions regarding such central articles (especially those that were colonized) without talking to an admin. That was not your call and you allowed a very crap old version to be reinstated. ~ 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, case closed. Stop bumping this forum. ~ 17:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for acting without talking to anyone. As I said "the vandalism got the best of me". I was fucking tired of people coming over and restoring the pre-colonization article. I was fucking tired of nobody fucking doing anything about the situation. And I'm also not pleased with the way things have been settled now. But whatever. Also, Mordillo, you just broke a redirect. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been here long enough to know how to settle things and report vandalism or request protection via an admin not via forums, not all of us read forums. My patience is wearing thin with you. ~ 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to settle things through this forum topic. Nobody cared to take action. Yes, I should have discussed this with you (or another Jew) first, despite the apparent neglectance of this forum topic (as you said, not everyone checks the forums). However, when I saw the old version was back in the article, that was the last straw. At that moment, my mental state was simultaneous, impulsive anger. That is what controlled my actions at that moment. You are right, I shouldn't have done it. I apologise for my mistake. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact of me being Israeli doesn't have to do anything with it. Any admin would do. ~ 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have probably picked you anyway. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Now run your fingers through his hair. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to cup the satchel. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:19, 14 Apr

And you ask this mere minutes after my ban has expired... —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohmahgod! That means he likes you! He's totally gonna ask you to homecoming! Squee! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

NOWAI!!!! Socky and Mordillo sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-Hey! You got squee on me! -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:30, 14 Apr

I have nothing to do with this. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay people

I just found out we had an article titled Jewish History. What should we do with it? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Marginalize it? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would replace the current "Jew" article with this very page (Forum:On the Jewish Question). ~ Kakun · talk 19:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NO U! -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:06, 16 Apr

What exactly wasn't clear about case closed, stop bumping this forum? ~ 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your face. Also, I think he's correct that the result of the colonisation would fit better under a different title. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:41, 16 Apr 2009