User:SPIKE/Islam-10

Islam

Rickyrab

I wish you'd reconsider or abridge your fifth of five edits to Islam today. I think it adds a lot of sect-by-sect detail, and a little editorializing, for not a lot of additional laughs. Thanks. Spıke ¬  02:45 27-Oct-09

I have blown up my fifth edit to Islam.Rickyrab 02:54, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, see ya. Spıke ¬  03:01 27-Oct-09

Pelargonium

I just read your Islam article again, and it really surprised me how much you know about it. I mean, it's a very sensitive subject that most people avoid for fear of being politically incorrect, but you seamlessly worked in the facts without making it seem overly serious or just a blatantly Islamophobic rant that the old article kinda was. What I mean is, as a humor wiki, this isn't a place to make a serious article exposing Islam, but you somehow made it work, intentionally or not. Well, now I'm getting too serious with my "exposing Islam" lecture, and obviously this isn't the place for that kind of debate. Basically, as someone who has studied Islamic history and the Quran, I'd just like to say that your article is much more accurate than you may know, and thanks for (re)writing it that way. Feel free to add this ninjastar to your userpage.

—Paizuri MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 19:40, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

My secret is merely crash training at Wikipedia, a secret I often use when rescuing an article (such as from VFD) on a subject I know little about. Often when reading Wikipedia, I see immediately a good way to misunderstand it in my rendition. However, your comment sums up exactly what I was trying to achieve, so it's gratifying. Spıke ¬  06:27 30-Dec-09

See also Baha'i. Spıke ¬  14:03 30-Dec-09

Dramadeur/Hyperbole/Merging Islam and Muslim

ChiefdusticeJS recommended me to advise with you first, so the last time you reverted my edits thinking I was doing vandalism, when in fact I just merged two articles (since it's not wikipedia, and these two articles are about the same), just like this, this, wow I'm not even saying about this which is being redirected to the entirely different article.. and it's a nation while what I'm about to merge - is followers of religion. And I transferred the content from previous article in that article, which you reverted (it wasn't my writings) So if you find some sections to be unnecessary you can simply delete it, but all I was doing merging two articles how it's supposed to be, I'm not making up or creating something new. Cheers.Dramadeur 13:54, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Now I see--your "cut and paste" did not come from, say, an external humor site but from elsewhere in Uncyclopedia. Still, it should not be done. A core tendency of Uncyclopedia--I'm not sure it's written down anywhere--is that, when different authors want to approach a given subject in different ways, they are encouraged to write new articles, with no presumption that they have to hang together. For example--

• George W. Bush is inconsistent with George Dubya Bush, and the treatment you prefer depends on how you feel about the guy.
• Global warming spawned Climate Change, for an editor who didn't like the subtle treatment of current events in the original article but wanted something more goofy.

As a newcomer, please contribute in ways other than by reorganizing articles; you cannot yet have an understanding of all the debate that came before you arrived. The usual way to start is to write articles--initially in userspace, such as Dramadeur/Islamic Britain, then go for a free "Pee Review" and let other editors review you and suggest additional directions. Spıke ¬ 14:03 23-Aug-10

PS--I've now read your dialogue with the Chief Justice. Please! we disagree with each other's edits all the time, and to characterize disagreement as "hatred" is unwelcome--It is one step up from accusing someone of hating everyone of your skin color, as a student of "diversity" should have observed. We stay together by avoiding such drama--by the way, your coworkers on the job will probably have the same ethic.

Regarding checking with me before you apply your edits again: No, the article on Muslim is, as I said, more unsubtle and negative than the article on Islam--sorry I concluded that these negatives described your own style--and the two articles should not be merged. Spıke ¬ 14:15 23-Aug-10

Sorry, but it's not up to you to decide, why shouldn't it be merged, just like this, this articles it should be redirected with accordance to lex non scripta. And it also surprised me, why is there a different article, when it could be written in this article in the first place. And if you really wish this humor encyclopedia to be systematic and under rules, then you shouldn't prevent me from merging how it should be done. Why should there be an article for followers of religion? It can be perfectly written in sub-section of religion article, or, if you think some followers deserve to have an article - create it. But per se an article dedicated to followers, isn't a good idea, since these two conceptions are side by side. Don't be so selective, then remove redirection from this, and this articles as well, followers per se aren't something that should have their own article, but some followers who are notable enough, I agree, should have an article dedicated to them. Like Ahmadinejad. Dramadeur 20:58, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, Dramadeur, Islam is already too long. Pasting a whole other article into the middle of it would not only horribly screw up its flow but also render it virtually unreadable to anyone who doesn't have an attention span miles long. In theory, we could incorporate the funniest elements of Muslim into Islam very strategically and redirect the former to the latter. In practice, that would take hours that I don't want to spend, and no offense, but you're new and I don't trust you to do it right. Like SPIKE said: why not get some experience by cutting your teeth on your own new article? pillow talk 20:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

This is not an argument «too long», who's holding you by the hands? Make it simple and remove unnecessary mess, just how Spike deleted my section. "I don't have a time" - so what's it's all about? Well then I have a time, because it in the end would help to this site's right systematization, which in this case is merging unnecessary created article with this one. Dramadeur 21:01, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Dramadeur, we're not Wikipedia here. None of our articles are necessary. We often have multiple articles on the same topic, as SPIKE pointed out. And, I'm sorry, but I strongly suspect that if you attempt the merge, I'm going to have to revert you. Again, no offense, but you appear to have a strange relationship with the English language. pillow talk 21:06, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, not Wikipedia here, my relationship with English doesn't make me thing less adequately, now does it? And what's your point? No need to clean up the mess, it always will be so? Well, I suppose that's what any encyclopedia is, it's just a matter of who will have a time to systematize what he wants. In this case, I want merge Muslim article just like Christian, Buddhist are merged with religion articles. And like I said, if you believe some of the followers deserve to have an article - go ahead, but per se followers of religion having its own article when anything you want regarding them could be written in their religion article? Dramadeur 21:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Let's start over, provide arguments why you think it shouldn't be merged like all other articles. Christian, Buddhist etc.

Your premise is flawed. We often have multiple articles on one subject. For example, we have Christians and Christianity, as well as Christianism. We have both Jesus and Jesus Christ, in addition to Jesus Fucking Christ and Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ - Alcoholic and Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We're not really big on merging articles around here. It's unnecessary. pillow talk 21:38, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Jam Jesus is my favorite. If I do say so. Spıke ¬ 21:40 24-Aug-10

Okay, I see, I missed this article, well then. Just thought it'd be more easier and simpler if these two close-relevant things were as a single article. Sorry for bothering. Dramadeur 21:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?

Hyperbole, no offense meant, but you fucking asshole! You have no problem with phrases like "I'm going to have to revert you"--You just want to be the one saying it. And no problem with an article having a de-facto owner--provided it's you. Well, you own it, lock, stock, and idiot newbie. The changes you are making--and no, they aren't "modest"--are not in my style, they are hardly bad, but I have no interest in further debating them one at a time. Same as the clique shopping a drive-by overhaul of UnNews and trying to get a majority of Uncyclopedia voters regardless of whether they ever contribute to it or even read it. It's not ugly, but it's only necessary in terms of their own egos. Good luck. Now both of you, get the fuck off my talk page. Spıke ¬ 21:35 24-Aug-10

SPIKE, I just spent half an hour this morning addressing the exact notes you made on the talk page of the article. So, no, I don't think I'm acting like the de facto owner of the article, since I was working specifically to make it more to your liking. And I think we're both in agreement that Muslim shouldn't be merged into Islam. So, frankly, I have no idea what your problem is. pillow talk 21:40, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

You know, I need to add to that, since you're basically calling me a hypocrite. I would never tell an established Uncyclopedian that I was going to revert his or her changes. If you popped onto an article I was watching and made a change I didn't like, I'd either leave it alone or come over and ask you for your reasoning before I took any action. And I can think of plenty of examples of that - like the changes Sycamore made to Don't vote for my dog! Didn't like them; didn't change them. But there's a huge difference between an established and experienced Uncyclopedian and someone who's been here less than a week and doesn't know how things are done here. Shouldn't that be obvious? pillow talk 21:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

May Allah bring peace to this discussion, and may the black stone of Mecca pop out of its placeholder to bop the infidels on the head. Peace, my brothers. Now I shall bow and pray. aiiiiiii aiiiiiii aiiiiiii ooooooo aiiiiii aiiiii That should do it. Aleister 21:54 24 8

Ahem...Spike I think that was going a bit too far by calling Hype out though I can understand your frustrations with the Islam article following that long discussion with Dramadeur (now there is a name to invite pages of heated discussions!). I agree - keep the Islam and Muslim articles separate, they can be completely inconsistent in my view as this is indeed not Wikipedia. Regards the UnNews business, that is a separate issue and I have noticed Hype had changed his vote on that discussion so I don't see them interlinked. And you too Hype, please keep the heat down too! Hey, come on boys! It's time for tea so scrub up and meet the vicar...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:05, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

After calming down

Perhaps it is not hypocrisy--one standard for you, Hyperbole, and one for everyone else--but a single standard, based on rank. But what rankles is your drama when I proposed to revert you, and for two of your edits that you ultimately reverted yourself. I did not know, and do not know, that all of the following are true:

• That you outrank me
• That rank should extend to creative decisions
• That, as we wrangle out the destiny of the Islam article, any change I make that undoes a change you make is "starting a war."

Rather, I believe that, in the process of jointly editing, some changes are going to be undone, and that informing you in advance was an extra courtesy. And bottom line, I feel as though your resulting theatrics were one piece of a process of elbowing me off the page. You did good editing, but I would have preferred if you had advised me that it was time to finally drop the oldest parts of the article.

As with the UnNews page, someone came in and proposed a total edit, and implemented it ineptly, and the process suggested to others that the article was now "in play" for massive changes. None of your changes to Islam was uncalled for, but their magnitude and timing is based solely on the drive-by work of Dramadeur, and I was thoroughly startled. Spıke ¬ 13:04 29-Aug-10

SPIKE, I don't outrank you on Uncyclopedia, but neither do you outrank me. We're both experienced non-admin editors. We both consider this page to be important - in part because it's the subject of a Facebook group. So, we've both done extensive work on it. But keep this in mind: not once have I ever said "We should say A," and you've said "We should say B," and I've said "No, it has to be A." Instead, I've specifically solicited your opinion on the changes I made - and then I went back through the article and altered my changes based on your feedback. That doesn't seem to me like I'm acting like I outrank you or that I own the article - exactly the opposite.

Also, maybe we misunderstood each other, but I'm not suggesting anything like "any change you make would be starting a war." I was hoping you'd go through and polish the page up. All I was saying is: edit, instead of revert. I'm experienced enough that when I make a change, I make it for a reason; if you think the resulting joke falls flat, then by all means fix it, but at least acknowledge why I made the change and try to find a better way to address the issue. Or, ask me why I made the change and point out your objections. But don't say "The way I did it is right and the way you've done it is wrong." I've never done that to you, SPIKE, and I'd like the same consideration. Yes, I'll tell an IP or a two-day-old Uncyclopedian "your edit sucks and has no merit and I'm erasing it," but never someone who really knows the site.

Finally, please understand that I've considered this article "in play" for large-scale cleanup for months. It is not a piece of original writing on your (or anyone else's) part. It had multiple issues, and it's been on my mental "to-do" list for a long time. Dramadeur may have reminded me of the page by pushing it to the top of my watchlist, but his edits weren't the reason I made mine. pillow talk 18:36, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Varieties of humor

Two topics have come up on what type of humor should be used. Here are my personal opinions:

• Obscenity (for which my standard is the same as race-baiting): If it contributes to the humor, it is wrong to shy away from it. UnNews:Style says that, if you are ridiculing a potty-mouthed celebrity, you are pulling your punches not to use the swears he would. If it is gratuitous, however, it is not necessary, even to shock, and it will unnecessarily put off some readers (whom we on the US coasts, and in England, tend to overlook). Calling someone an asshole (a change to Islam that Hyperbole withdrew) is a slap, not a joke, and hardly as funny as a more artful insult could have been.
• Tangential humor is dangerous, as it calls attention to the fertile mind of the author more than it entertains the reader. An exception is if you can bend all the tangents back to the original theme, or interweave them into a conundrum. Dialysis and its digression into alcoholism--and back--did so. Spıke ¬ 13:04 29-Aug-10

  One does not necessarily need to be talking about an obscene topic in order to use obscenity effectively. There's a reason that George Carlin, Tucker Max, Maddox, Kevin Smith, etc., are regarded by many as some of the funniest humorists around: many people believe that obscenity can be a funny way of overreacting to an issue (or properly reacting to an issue to which most people underreact). I laugh at all those four humorists, so I guess I fall into that category.

  Your point on tangential humor is well taken, but let's discuss a third category of joke: Stereotype humor. Some people think that simply recalling a stereotype is a funny form of humor. Some people think that "France has a tendency to surrender" or "Most Americans are fat" or "Islam is a religion of terrorists" are very funny jokes. I disagree. I think they're stupid. Whenever I need to choose between flatly invoking a stereotype or going off on a funny tangent, I'm going to incline toward the latter. pillow talk 18:48, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; they are not "very funny jokes" but memes, though all these stereotypes, as one form of shared experience, form the basis for funny jokes if developed. I would not write "Islam is a religion of terrorists" and expect anyone to laugh. But the line I now miss the most from the article--which would now read, "Balaam never wrote about putting infidels to the sword. At least not one hundred times."--was a roundabout way of reaching the shared experience of thinking of Islam as a religion of terrorists (and being unwilling to say so). More subtle, in fact, than what you replaced it with.

And yes, when certain comedians conclude: "Fuck that shit!" it's hilarious. We are not those comedians. In this gig, we are dry writers of encyclopedia articles. Now, it could be a great shock gag to have such a person say such a thing. Or it can damage the encyclopedia canon. I don't have a hard rule for deciding which effect is more likely; I personally like to stay in character. Or perhaps I recall Michigan farmwives who will not consider the humor of the utterance but will simply refuse to let you date her daughter. Spıke ¬ 19:16 29-Aug-10

HODIS

I'm trying to rewrite the whole thing it to make it a bit less offensive. – Preceding unsigned comment added by HODIS (talk • contribs)

We just been through that. Twice. See above on this page. As you briefly attached {{VFD}} and {{ICU}}, what you are really trying to do is make it go away. Visit some of our other pages on religion, or read the talk page on Islam, and see how merciless we are to all religions, and in fact to everything. This site is about humor, not about conforming to the notorious Muslim tendency to take offense to everything. Please choose more productive activities. Spıke ¬ 17:43 22-Oct-10

I would second Spike on that HODIS. If you really want to write a different version, compose it on your user page by creating a new page in that space. The Islam article is one that acts as drama fly paper in here. Otherwise, try some other subject. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:23, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting Hyperbole's rewrite

Now that I got your attention (Hyperbole I have paged), let me confess that despite my declared intention to wash my hands of the page, I have obviously policed it; also, let me list my remaining problems with the article, most of which you already know about:

1. "Dude, Where's My Car?" This was added after my pass over the page, by a user who rightly wanted the yucks to start earlier. But this particular laugh is Randumbo, compared to the reality-based, subtle humor used elsewhere.
2. In Nomenclature, "nappy-heads" would more memorably refer to Don Imus, the broadcaster who used the slur, than the object of the slur, the Rutgers women's basketball team.
3. In History, I still think the way I ended the first paragraph was a better and more subtle reference to Koranic murder than Hyperbole's ending.
4. The notorious dispute over the proper heirs of Mohammed is relatively hidden in the list of sects. The story should begin to be told at the end of the History section.
5. In Sects of Islam, the "fuck you" doesn't help (though, as above, our tastes for swears differ) and Sunni vs. Shiite should be a lot funnier, perhaps ridiculing real-world sniping, such as in Iraq.
6. Six pillars--Again, there are really only five pillars of Islam. I don't know if it's immediately clear why we say six (including Jihad as a sixth) nor if it's more funny than confusing.
7. Section 4.6.1 is properly underneath 4.6, but it looks strange (at least on my screen) to have exactly one sub-head. A minor point.
8. References--I know the Wikipedia standard is to put footnotes at the article's foot. This is because, in Wikipedia, they are especially pedantic and need to be hidden. In Uncyclopedia, they finish the bleepin' joke and should go at the end of the section where the joke begins. Spıke ¬ 00:28 23-Oct-10

Let me give you my input on your list items. Some of this is new, and some you've heard before.

1. The "Dude, Where's My Car?" joke is very funny to me, since equating arguably the most sacred book in existence, which people have no sense of humor about whatsoever, with arguably the most aggressively stupid and juvenile movie in existence, makes me laugh.
2. The "nappy-heads" in that incident were the basketball team, so saying that Imus was a "nappy-head" would make no sense; but if Imus can be worked into the joke in a way that makes the reference more obvious without killing the cadence, I'm all for it.
3. I slashed the original "history" ending because the "Muslims are violent" joke was hideously redundant - but I think a lot of those redundancy issues are gone. Restore it if you want; at the very least, I'd like to look at it and see what it is that you think is better about it.
4. I agree that the dispute over Mohammed's heirs could stand to be expanded, yes. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge on the subject to do it.
5. As I mentioned, I think the "fuck you" is amusing, but I'm not married to it, if you've got something better. The sunni/Shi'ite split is another subject that I agree could use expanding but I'm not sure I have the knowledge necessary to satirize it properly.
6. I've definitely considered this issue. The reason I incorporated Jihad into the pillars was because I thought it would be better to have a subtle joke for people in the know ("wait, there's an extra pill... oh, I see") than to prominently highlight jihad in its own section (which I thought was just more of the same "Muslism are terrorists" redundancy). But, again, if you've got a better way to handle it, I'm all eyes.
7. I think that having a long article with a single reference is stupid. I don't have any problem with an article that includes joke references at the bottom, but the way this is right now is unacceptable. Either we need to add more references or incorporate that reference right into the text.

There you are... my input on the list items. Start editing if you want... hope this helps. pillow talk 05:10, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

I was going to humbly begin by moving the only footnote to the end of the section that uses it, but Romartus is InB4 and is instead plumping up the footnotes. His footnotes don't face my criticism above, as they go off on a tangent to tell a different joke. My point still stands that, for footnotes that finish jokes started in a section, hiding the footnote at the end of the article is a disservice to the reader. Spıke ¬ 09:50 23-Oct-10

Romartus adds footnotes

I have had a 'hack' at the article as you can see. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:55, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you keep me from having to use the term! Of the problems I or Hype enumerated, I didn't think one was the low number of footnotes, and you ought to retract the self-aware one about "the joke" before 2001, as there are no jokes here, just an encyclopedia, right? Spıke ¬ 12:22 23-Oct-10

Assuming you are done, I went in to fix the typoes. Along the way, however, I restored some punches that you had pulled. In the intro, you changed "devotees" to "extreme devotees." This looks like the Pee Cee need to clarify that not all Muslims are terrorists. It detracts from the humor, and in several other places in the intro you have softened categorical statements to treat Muslims with the obligatory kid gloves--moving from the funny to the factual or even apologetic. (I repeat that readers such as HODIS will not be satisfied until the article is completely pablumatic.) Changing "infidels" to "infidels called George" breaks a joke with--I'll use your term--randumbo. And your expansion of the last paragraph of "Sadat" is right in the middle of a joke for the overt purpose of dulling it; I've made most of it a footnote. Spıke ¬ 16:47 24-Oct-10

I agree with the George quote, that was a bit of a throwaway. Regards the other changes, well that is a matter of opinion. I was trying to replace broad strokes with more delicate brushwork. Same points if you like but done differently but I will go with your re-edits Spike. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:52, October 25, 2010 (UTC)