Talk:Muslim/archive1

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Why you guys care?

If someone find article offensive it's their problem. Does the muslims have more rights than Christians Poles or any other nation/religion?

You may have been reading comments that pertained to an older version of the page. One with has offensive, but mainly just unfunny. As a general rule, the hecklers haven't been allowed to kill this version. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Rewrite Tag Added Again

So I see that the rewrite tag has been added again. Considering that this version has been defended by another admin and it has withstood edits for a while now, I would like to have the rewrite tag removed.
Why, you ask? This page may not be a comic masterpiece, but it does have actual humor value while abstaining from shear randomness or boring stereotypes, and that is currently a rarity when it comes to pages on Islam around here.
I admit that it needs to be cleaned up, but my vote is to remove the rewrite tag. If I get no other responses in a day or two then I will.
---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 19:25, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Huff or rewrite the Famous Muslims section and I'll have no problem with you removing the rewrite tag I added. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:26, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I'll huff it for now and put up a rewrite of the section once I have figured out a more biting way to write it. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 21:41, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Comment by 220.245.179.132

This has to be one of the best I've read so far. The fact that it's so factual makes it a great spoof rather than a crazy playpen. If only people were so PC with all the other articles!

Comment by 193.119.133.199

The entry is still very informative. Yeah, it's trying to be funny (it's not), but it's still all factual. What's the point? It's OK to say that Jews like to kill kittens, but muslims can't be made fun of? -- 193.119.133.199

Well, I didn't write any of the articles on Jews, so I can't speak to that, but Jews killing kittens at least sounds different, whereas the terrorist jokes added by many anonymous IP posters are so predictable that they have no humor value. And if you don't like the mispronunciation joke, find something to replace it instead of vandalizing it. The joke only has humor value when the information is acurate. --Isra1337 11:48, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
And if you think I am not making fun of Muslims at all I encourage you to look at th various ways this page has been vandalized. -- Isra1337 11:51, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
It's still completely not the point. Terrorists jokes might be predictable, but they would still be better than a page that simply gives facts about muslims with little bits of humor thrown here and there. The pronounciation section doesn't even TRY to be funny. What's the point? The whole point of Uncyclopedia is that it's full of crap, not facts.
Explanation of the Pronunciation Joke:
  • Something ironic: that people go around refering to an oppressed minority as "oppressors."
  • Something more ironic: that they don't even know that they are doing it.
  • Something even more ironic: that if they did know, they would do it anyway, probably even more.
If you don't find the concept of Americans slowly crushing the spirit out of a Muslim immigrant by "accidentally" calling him oppressor all the time, then just maybe you aren't a sick enough bastard to be on this site. :) --Isra1337 02:08, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Isra1337 pretty much nailed it. If you're going to contribute, put real thought into it and make it satirical and funny. The terrorist thing has been done to death and has lost all comedic value. It just makes me roll my eyes. Try harder, or choose a different subject. We've got lots. Thanks. -- T. (talk) 14:51, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
P.S. If Uncyclopedia is full of crap, it's because too many lousy contributions have managed to get in. Contrary to your perception, we take our idioting seriously around here. Crap isn't welcome, and will be shot on sight. -- T. (talk) 14:55, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the point is that this entry is factual and not that different than the one in Wikipedia. That's just... Well, for a lack of a better word: lame.

Please. Because it starts from real facts and turns them on their ear, one at a time, does not make it factual. It's just not the base, slapstick, Hollywood movie type "humour" that (apparently) passes for wit these days. -- T. (talk) 23:20, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Update: Re-write

I performed a complete re-write of this page. It might not be terribly funny, and it is actually pretty informative, but it does have a decent number of jokes and hopefully people will find it less offensive. --Isra1337 07:12, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It is very informative, do we really want that?
Ha. Yeah, that's true. I'm all for having something completely fictional so long as it is funny, but all the previous attempts were not very funny and were very offensive. My theory is that because there is a lot of real information, there are also alot of opportunities to make jabs at the things that are actually deserving mockery. I guess what I am saying is that humor is the number one priority, while making it wrong is a lesser priority. --Isra1337 00:42, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

profound indeed.

Frankly, this article is shit

I removed all miserable and offensive contents and now it becomes a stub again. -- Toytoy 00:42, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you can delete it all!. -- IsraeliBandit 00:50, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't like the article either, blanking is a bannable offence. Rewrite it or ignore it. --Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 13:31, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

this is crap

this article is bullshit, it offends the very nature of uncyclopedia, it has a lot of information, is respectful and makes no fun. Fuck that. what the hell.

Either delete it or make it real. Whatta ya guys, scared, not willing to die for uncyclopedia - you pussies - Jimbo Wales would die for Wankypedia no doubt.

Agreed, whats with all the political correctness? I changed the perceptions section around a bit because that was just lame, not sure how much I helped though. -- Damozn 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Recreate Article

Can someone rewrite the article? It deals more with real stuff rather than satire and parodies and that really ain't the point of Uncyclopedia, eh? 07:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently rewriting article

I dunno who wrote the shitty version about Muslims as victims of a disease but it REALLY IS SHIT AND NOT FUNNY IN THE LEAST.

I am currently rewriting the whole thing. For now feel free to put up whatever unfunny un-uncyclopediac shit you want.

Personal tools
projects