Tears In A Vial posted:

this is me tho

quote:

Women and the stooges[edit]
I'd like to add something about why women seem to hate the Stooges so much. Yet, perhaps in the younger generation, some are beginning to dissent from the prevailing dogmas and bias. A trio of very charming amateur comediennes has produced a wonderful "three Stoogettes" video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW6eg8jrbdg


Shall we explore this issue? Is there change in the wind? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.73.102 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC).


See my contribution "Stooge Critical Theory". Perhaps women hate the Stooges because they do not feel their dignity under constant assault in authoritarian institutions in the way of men and don't see the point of reconciling themselves to this assault.

One woman, a technical writer at a Silicon Valley company at which I worked in the 1980s, in which male techs were reacting to constant down-sizing and "market" pressures by Stooge attacks and other forms of clownish behavior including "Bob and Doug MacKenzie" riffs, wondered aloud to me why the Stooges, so obviously dreck in comparision to Charlie Chaplin, were so popular, being toxic waste of the Great Depression.

Perhaps women hate the knuckleheads because the films were garbage, made under exploiting circumstances, which so overworked the actual PEOPLE behind the personae of the knuckleheads that they died of job-related illnesses without any workmen's comp.

"Liking the Stooges" isn't hip. It's pathetic.


Wow...the above comments are really off the wall. You might not be a Stooge fan, but that really says more about an absence of comedic appreciation in you than it does about that of anyone else. The circumstances under which the Stooges worked are interesting and certainly unfortunate...but they have absolutely nothing to do with the performances themselves. Anyone who would refuse to appreciate their work because of the circumstances of its creation is really the pathetic one. Is it ok to appreciate a painting done by an artist who is so miserable they commit suicide? Or would you consider the support of their work to somehow be tantamount to supporting suicide itself?

If your post has any merit at all, it is that it gives us the opportunity to explore the modern and horribly irrational need to have Big Brother support us and take care of us in everything we do via your comment about the Stooges not having workman's comp. The guys were doing something they loved and could have exited that career at any time if they felt they were being treated unfairly. Moe managed to take the money he made and make it work for him so that he was comfortable throughout his life (and he helped the others do the same to a lesser extent).

Is it unfortunate that they were mistreated by the studio? Certainly, but they were big boys and I can't imagine they would approve of the idea that their work should go unappreciated simply to avoid supporting the "evil" corporation which made so much money off of their sweat and blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.14.13 (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

hemophilia posted:

some of that cruxifixion in anime discussion is me, and it looks like they removed the good parts <ad hominem removed>

I want to physically harm wikipedia admins sometimes.

Tears In A Vial posted:

Tears In A Vial posted:

AEMINAL posted:

This is an outrage. The citizens of the United State of America (it is not comprised of every state on the continent of America...) you are an ungrateful lot. You are given a language and you have to change it. Why ? to be different. Now you are trying to change to change English to American. If Colour cannot exist, then drat it I want you to see the world without IT. Oh and Interiot - can you find the flaw in your english expression above. I will give you a hint ( double negative) --if you cannot find it, it is contained in "Since it's not a non-controversial move))." Not a non-.... I think you mean it would be a .. oh never mind. Go read Orwell on the decline of the English language. --dbmoodb 11:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ROFLburger posted:

it is not possible to top this

quote:

REMOVE THAT PICTURE NOW

The picture of the Pope in the beginning is VERY offensive to the Roman Catholic Church and if someone does not remove it soon I will sue for anti race. THAT IS VERY offensive. Fawtzzz (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the removal (done by an autoconfirmed editor shortly after your post, hmm) has been undone by someone else. Please see my reply on Talk:Flatulence. ~ Kimelea (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Papal-able one currently in the article is historical, if not hysterical; and then there's the one at Lese-majesty. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hell Yeah posted:

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fart

quote:

Fart fetish[edit]
No information on this ever-increasingly common fetish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.158.70 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

quote:

Transgendered[edit]
Why is there no discussion about how Tails is transgendered? See [2]. 166.171.120.182 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia uses strong secondary sources (news, media, etc.) not twitter feeds of random people. Jcmcc (Talk) 01:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
+1, the day Wikipedia starts using Twitter as an acceptable secondary source, will be the day that Wikipedia dies. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
What is this, a joke? --Frogging101 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

quote:

Popularity of character.[edit]
The article's main section mentions the popularity of the character Tails, placing 3rd to Sonic (1st) and Shadow (2nd). However, it does not mention that this popularity contest is something much more recent and arbitrary in history. Previous contests would have ranked the characters in popularity as Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles... or perhaps Sonic,tails, and knuckles .
To be more honest with the character's actual popularity in the series, I believe this sentence should be changed to something neutral, like: "Tails is the second most recurring character in the Sonic Series, followed by Dr. Robotnic aka Eggman." (no source handy) ~ Agvulpine (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC) kl

quote:

Buttocks fetishism/Buttocks eroticism

I do not see how moving Buttocks eroticism to Cultural history of the buttocks is "more accurate." The article is about sexualization of the buttocks, and so naming it that would have been a better move. User:Handcuffed likely should have left it titled Buttocks fetishism. His reason for moving it from that was that the article "[c]onstitutes such a widespread phenomenon that it's not necessarily a 'fetish.'" But if one looks at the dab page for fetish, it currently says "Sexual attraction to objects, body parts, or situations not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature," and an attraction to the buttocks has been argued as being not "sexual in nature" (and sometimes as a paraphilia) since the anus is not a sex organ (no matter that it is used as one). However, the dab page points to the Sexual fetishism article for the definition of "fetish" that we are talking about and that article's lead says that "Arousal from a particular body part is classified as partialism." So I don't know how "fetish" is supposed to be defined. What I do know is "Cultural history of the buttocks" is not the right article title for material that is only detailing sexual attraction to the buttocks. I'll ask one or more editors to comment on this. 31.193.138.200 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

31.193.138.200, thanks for the invite. Posting to a wiki project (sexuality, arts, etc.) might get a wider response than posting to specific editors. Also, please be aware that you'll have more credibility as an editor once you set up an account.
The pelvic proportions are sexually dimorphic among humans, so an interest in this feature could be explained as mere heterosexuality (among men, at least). As a result, I wouldn't consider it a fetish, and so support the first move. Regarding the second move, is this going to develop into an article mainly about art, mainly about eroticism, or somewhere in between? There isn't a wrong answer to this. If somewhere in between, we should try to think of a title that is somewhere in between too. Aligning the page with the appropriate wikiproject also wouldn't hurt, assuming there is a consensus regarding which wikiproject that would be. (Multiple projects is also an option.)BitterGrey (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I was unsure about what to title this; as you say, "fetish" isn't really accurate, "eroticism" is more relating to art, and "sexualization" (which I had considered, but it seems to be a rare term). I think "cultural history" is the best way to go since much of the cultural history of the buttocks has been related to its sexualization. As well, it leaves room to expand the article, and I was thinking a series of articles on the cultural history of body parts would be interesting. Handcuffed (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have broached this subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but it's not a high-traffic project and requests there for editors to comment in a discussion are usually ignored. Moving on: BitterGrey, though I'm sure that you are not, I have to ask are you suggesting that attraction to the buttocks is something only found in males? Or just that the aspect of pelvic proportions is something that may have been passed down in men as part of the evolutionary reproductive process (something to make men more appealing to women)? And, to the both of you, regarding "fetish," it actually is an accurate description of this topic when going by reliable sources that define "fetish" to mean a sexual attraction/arousal to/by a body part. Partialism is just an aspect of "fetish," so seeing the Fetishism section at the end of this article describing a "buttocks fetish or buttocks partialism" as "a condition wherein the buttocks becomes a focus of sexual attention"...when this entire article is about focusing sexual attention on the buttocks...is odd. That section also says that "Pygophilia refers to sexual arousal caused by the buttocks," as though sexual attraction is all that different from sexual arousal in this case (or usually that different anyway), and when it's just an alternate name for buttocks fetishism. All of the similar articles - Anal eroticism, Breast fetishism, Foot fetishism, Underwear fetishism, etc. - are all titled "fetishism" or "eroticism." I'm mainly asking, "Why should this article be any different?" Looking at sources defining sexual fetishism, it doesn't seem that one has to have an obsession with a body part in order for the attraction to classify as a fetish, although that appears to be the more accurate description of what a fetish is. And, yes, having an obsession with a body part can be classified as a paraphilia, but not all fetishes are paraphilias, and some normal attractions to body parts (the breasts or buttocks, for example) are only classified as paraphilias if they cause "significant psychosocial distress for the person or ha[ve] detrimental effects on important areas of their life."

As an aside, I also don't see how "eroticism" relates more to art. 31.193.139.40 (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any signs of unwillingness to discuss better title ideas, but can't think of any at the moment myself. As for partialism, the DSM groups it as "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified (302.9). This means that, at least according to the APA, it and fetishism (302.81) are separate.
While paraphilias are more common in men, I don't see why a non-paraphilic attraction to male rears would be absent among some or many heterosexual women. BitterGrey (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, my previous comments in this discussion were noting the popular definition of "fetish," which includes body parts, because, like you say, Bittergrey, the DSM-IV-TR distinguishes fetishism from partialism. And so does the ICD-10. Looking at the Sexual fetishism#Diagnosis section, it says "Furthermore, it must be noted that according to the ICD, an addiction to specific parts or features of the human body and even 'inanimate' parts of corpses, under no circumstances are fetishism, even though some of them may be forms of paraphilia. And "According to the DSM-IV-TR, fetishism is the use of nonliving objects as a stimulus to achieve sexual arousal or satisfaction. (This only applies if the objects are not specifically designed for sexual stimulation (e.g., a vibrator)."

So then I ask why do we have all these articles about body parts with the word "fetishism" in their titles? Is it because the term "fetishism" has generally come to include body parts? Or is it that "fetish" is somehow a little more distinct than "fetishism," but the terms are almost always used interchangeably? The matter was briefly discused at Talk:Sexual fetishism#Semi protected and definition. To be clear, for these articles, it's okay to mention that fetishism commonly refers to an attraction to body parts, but, per WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions, we shouldn't have the article titles include the word "fetishism" when the medical sources say that they are not fetishism. Based on the authoritative medical sources distinguishing fetishism from partialism, all these articles should have the word "partialism" in place of "fetishism" (or even "eroticism"). This article should be titled Buttocks partialism, like it once was. Turns out that Handcuffed was also the one to move it from that title to its fetishism title.[1] We can debate if a sexual attraction to/arousal by the buttocks is fetishism, but it can't be debated that it's partialism. The high-quality medicals sources call it partialism. And, remember, partialism is not always a paraphilia. One thing I want to point out (mentioned in the linked discussion on the sexual fetishism article), however, is that the DSM-5 proposal for Fetishistic Disorder does not distinguish between fetishism and partialism. Criterion A says: Over a period of at least six months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from either the use of non-living objects or a highly specific focus on non-genital body part(s), as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors. 31.193.132.76 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that this article has information relating to the buttocks in culture outside of partialism; for example, "In Japan, large buttocks are considered vulgar". I think a lot more could be added to this end; for example, history on Saartjie Baartman. As well, I don't think partialism nor fetish is the right term for the almost universal sexualization of the buttocks that occurs in so many cultures. Similarly, I don't think "breast fetishism" is an apt term for the societal obsession with women's breasts. These words describe individual conditions, and I think using them to characterize a much larger phenomenon is incorrect. A fetish is when a person is, say, obsessed with feet to the point where they require them to get off; this is something different.

If you really want it moved, you could always hold it to a vote at WP:RM. Handcuffed (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for the late reply. I've been preoccupied with a situation in my personal life and somewhat on Wikipedia, brought on by an ordeal that has concerned my sibling's Wikipedia account. From what you're saying, I understand that you want this article to be about the general attraction (and related non-attraction) to the buttocks, how, in most societies, people are generally sexually attracted to the buttocks, instead of only being about a sexual interest with an exclusive focus on the buttocks. In that respect, as broached before, your Buttocks eroticism title fits better than the current title. Another thing is that going by the first two medical definitions of fetishism listed higher, your definition of "fetish" is wrong. Even if we go by the popular definition of "fetish," your definition is half wrong because people who say they have a fetish for something don't usually need that something to "get off." For them, it's just a part of the body that they favor more than other body parts. Some sources describe fetish to include sexual attraction to body parts period, whether a primary focus of sexual attraction or not. The way you are describing fetish is the disorder definition of partialism, and I've said before that partialism and fetishism don't have to mean "disorder." There are critera for these things to be considered disorders.

I'm not going to press any further for this article to have the word partialism in its title, since it is about more than favoring the buttocks over other body parts, but I still say that your current title is not the best. I may take you up on your offer to try and have it moved by community consensus, but that will have to wait. In the meantime, for the part in the Fetishism section that says a "buttocks fetish or buttocks partialism" is "a condition wherein the buttocks becomes a focus of sexual attention," I'm going to change "focus" to "primary focus" because, as pointed out before, this whole article is about the buttocks being the focus of sexual attention. 31.193.139.40 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

quote:

UNTRUE!!

A train does not have to be a connection of carriages that moves along a track! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesta178 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what it says in the section 'Types of train', straight after the introduction...
EdJogg (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this article is mistitled, and its description of a train is quite untrue. There are several different kinds of train besides a railroad train, which should be the correct title of this article. I have noticed that "railroad train" does not even redirect here. The fact that this article is about railroad trains must be stated directly at the top of the article, preferably in its title.

Other kinds of trains that I can name is nust a few minutes include these:
A. A series of wheeled cargo containers that we call "trailers" in North America, and which are pulled by one truck. These form trains that move on highways. In some states and provinces, the maximum number of trailers allowed in one of these trains is three, and in most of the others, the maximum number is two.

B. A series of tracked cargo vehicles that are made to travel on snow and ice is called a train. These are seen in Antarctica, northern Canada, and in Alaska - and perhaps in Greenland and in Siberia. The most notable long-distance trail for these trains runs from the ocean at the seaport of McMurdo Sound to the Amundsen-Scott Station at the South Pole. The Amundsen-Scott Station was supplied for many decades by airlift, but sometime during the decade of 2000 - 2009, the trail was constructed (requiring the filling in of thousands of crevasses in the icecap) so that these trains could haul in cargo a lot more economically - cargo such as the large amounts of diesel fuel (for generating electricity, for heating, and for melting ice for fresh water), food, and construction. For the past several years, the Amundsen-Scott station has been in the process of being completely rebuilt (to a much more modern & scientific design) during the "summerimes" because the old one (with its geodesic dome) was becoming buried by decades-worth of ice and snow; generally getting worn out; becoming inadequate in its amount of floor space; and worst of all, its foundations were failing. The new station is designed to be jacked up twice in its lifetime, and it has been designed in an aerodynamic shape to force gales underneath it to blow away as much snow as possible. Even so, the usable lifetime of the the new Amundsen-Scott Station is expected to be about 40 years.

C. Any significant Army, Marine Corps, or Air Force unit requires a "supply train" to keep it in action. Much larger than the number of men in the fighting force needed in the "sharp point of spear" in this situation is the number of men and women needed in its supply train that brings up to the front the ammunition, food and drink, fuel, fresh water, extra clothing and footwear, lubricants, toilet paper, medical supplies, spare vehicles and weapons (incl. aircraft), spare parts for repairs, repair shops, tents, portable housing, field kitchens, replacement soldiers, mail, repair & maintenance shops, field hospitals, telecommunications gear, and everything else that you can think of that these military units need.

D. Any significant naval fleet or task force that projects power to the far sides of the oceans requires a large "supply train" of ships to keep it in action. Much larger than the number of sailors and airmen in the fighting force needed in the "sharp point of spear" in this situation is the number of men and women needed in its supply train that brings up to the fleet the fuel, ammunition, food and drink, spare aircraft and spare parts, lubricants, mail, toilet paper, telecommunications gear, medical supplies, spare clothing, spare sailors and airment, paint, hospital ships with doctors and dentists, and everything else that you can think of that these naval units need.
During the War in the Pacific of 1942 - 45, the supply train that was needed to to keep the U.S. Third Fleet and the Fast Carrier Task Force in action in the Western Pacific Ocean grew so large and so important that its commander was promoted to the rank of commodore (United States), which is higher than a naval captain, but lower than a rear admiral (United States). (Commodores only exist in the U.S. Navy during wartime.) Of course, Admiral Chester Nimitz, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, had a Vice Admiral (United States) working under him who was in charge of logistics, and Nimitz's logistics staff at Pearl Harbor (moved forward to Guam in early 1945) consisted of hundreds of officers and enlisted men, and those directed millions of sailors and Marines who carried out the actual logistics work.

The commodore who was in charge of the fleet's supply train at ses had under his command scores of cargo ships, scores of oilers (oil tankers), dozens of ammuniton ships, dozens of repair ships, several transports for spare sailors and Marines, scores of destroyers and destroyer escorts for anti-submarine warfare and air defense, several hospital ships, and his own group of six to twelve escort carriers for both fighter plane cover and to be available to deliver spare warplanes, pilots, and enlisted aircrewmen up to the fighting carriers of the Fast Carrier Task Force.

In any case, that supply train of ships for the U.S. Navy in the Western Pacific fighting the Japanese grew to be larger than the entire navies of nearly all of the other combatants, and also larger and more powerful than the entire navies of all but a handful of countries have ever been (disregarding the nuclear armament that some of these have): Let me name some of these: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Greece, Holland, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. I deliberately left out these others because of their large WW I and WW II navies: Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

In any case, there are some very important "trains" besides railroad trains.98.81.15.87 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I had prepared a multi-sentence reply, then noticed train (disambiguation) exists. This is already mentioned in the article hatnote, and hence answers the majority of your comments.
EdJogg (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Macasaurus posted:

Scaramouche posted:

Wikipedia has probably prevented more disasters in one year by distracting dangerous people with laser like focus (on ponies) than all of the intelligence agencies in the world combined.

Calstarry posted:

Rewriting this entry

Hi there! My name is Calstarry and I am working with Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. The school is aware that this Wikipedia page is not in very good shape and they have hired me to act for the organization on Wikipedia to help improve it. I'm currently looking to see what information is available on the school, but in a little while I plan to write up and post here what I think would work better for the different sections of this page.

If anyone here has concerns about this page they'd like me to keep in mind as I work, or if you would be interested in looking at the new sections when they are ready, let me know. I hope to have something to share in a little while.

One final note, I understand that editing with a "conflict of interest" is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. I will only be posting messages on discussion pages and won't make any changes to entries myself. Calstarry (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales posted:

Ok I have finished my first pass review. The proposed version is ludicrously bad and in no way neutral. Significant criticism is omitted, and puffery is inserted repeatedly. I don't see anything much of value to save, although I will try tomorrow.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Any legitimate version of this article is going to need to cover the racist comment scandal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Another valuable link - this one contains some exact quotes from the notorious video. This needs to be included in the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2013

"Calstarry posted:

Jimbo, thanks for offering your thoughts here and comparing the current and proposed versions. I do want to reply to two specific issues you mentioned.

Regarding the claims made about Ramtha, I had asked about this above, and explained there that my phrasing is intended to be neutral, since some people do believe in Ramtha. In the overview and introduction of the draft, I made a point of saying that JZ Knight "claims to channel" Ramtha, making it clear to readers that the channeling is based on JZ Knight's word, and not established fact. I can add similar phrasing elsewhere in the article, if it is agreed this is needed. The only limitation would be if the source used for a particular claim does not support that kind of wording.

Jimbo Wales posted:

As there are not likely to be any reliable sources of any kind which even remotely suggest that Ramtha actually exists (for a rather obvious set of reasons) I think that it is not ok for ANY line of the entry to suggest that it's a simple uncontroversial fact. No, a single mention that she "claims to channel" is not enough to protect the reader from misinformation and bias.
The racist comment scandal is not just about JZ Knight but about Ramtha and the school. It needs to be prominent as it is the most prominent mention of the school in recent memory. I would suggest that both the fact that the school is widely regarded as a cult, and that the leader is known for making racist comments needs to be in the lede for neutrality. Burying such critical information while at the same time pretending that since "some people believe" we have to act like it is true that Ramtha exist gives me little confidence in your sincerity in terms of writing a real encyclopedia entry rather than what you are being paid to do. I recommend that you return the money.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

mdm posted:

You just need to go to the women peeing page to see female ejaculation

Scaramouche posted:

Wikipedia has probably prevented more disasters in one year by distracting dangerous people with laser like focus (on ponies) than all of the intelligence agencies in the world combined.