Misplaced Pages

Talk:Niggers in the White House: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:50, 15 September 2013 editMaunus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,261 edits →Horrible: it is horrible, but that doesn't mean we cant learn from it← Previous edit Revision as of 06:56, 15 September 2013 edit undoBonkers The Clown (talk | contribs)14,613 edits →HorribleNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
:] (]) 01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC) :] (]) 01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
::History is rarely nice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to learn from it. ] 01:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC) ::History is rarely nice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to learn from it. ] 01:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Precisely why I love American history. All the rich vocabulary. Unutterable? Niggers niggers niggers niggers. There! ☯ ] '''\(^_^)/''' ''']''' ☯ 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:56, 15 September 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Niggers in the White House article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WikiProject iconPoetry Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NOTCENSORED vs. COMMONSENSE

I wasn't trying to censor anything with my edit, but with an article this short, it doesn't seem to be necessary to repeat the fact that "niggers" refers to "African Americans". In the odd case that someone is unaware of this, it is explained clearly in the lede. Repeating it in the body seems entirely unnecessary, given the brevity of this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lead at all, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; it arguably is superfluous wherever it is included, and unnecessary.—John Cline (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Fine with me. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Horrible

Horrible! Horrible!! Awien (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I know WP isn't censored, but aren't there things like this unutterable filth that are best left in richly-deserved oblivion, not stirred up?
But now the article has been created, could its creator Bonkers the Clown kill it if they thought better of what they're doing?
Or if not, if everybody involved decided publishing this is ill-judged, what would it take to get rid of it?
I wish I hadn't touched the horrible thing.
Awien (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
History is rarely nice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to learn from it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Precisely why I love American history. All the rich vocabulary. Unutterable? Niggers niggers niggers niggers. There! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Niggers in the White House: Difference between revisions Add topic