Talk:The terrorists have won/Archive 1

message: "On September 19, 2004, Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert asserted that he believed that a new bombing in Spain was intended to urge US voters to vote for John Kerry. His implication was that al Qaeda's goal was to displace George W. Bush, and that a Kerry victory would be a victory for terrorism. This view was roundly criticized by news sources as alarmist and absurd."
What news sources? I don't recall this view (which went beyond Hastert, it was even in Bush political ads) being "roundly criticized." Perhaps by British and Spanish news sources, but not in the U.S.
:Umm, it was in the news sources I was reading. Then again, I'm from Seattle, Washington, which is a pretty liberal place. You must also realize that this is the English language Wikipedia, not the USA Wikipedia. We have editors and an audience from all over the world. The current wording is vague, but in general this was criticized world wide as argumentum in terrorem. Or was that argumentum in terram? No, that was the Tora Bora deal. :)—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 06:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Such as, if they can't show the Simpsons episode with Twin Towers then the terrorists have won--Steven X 08:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the saying is also turned around and used by supporters of free speech... 

message: I created a section for satirizization of the phrase and added a well known David Cross comedy bit.  I'm guessing that the bullet on Never Mind the Buzzcocks (which should be cited incidentally) belongs in the satire section as well but don't know the context well enough to move it myself.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Satire section

message: I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. Facius 10:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing memetics category

message: Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Research, content, valid sources, wiki rules, MY BUTT.
The purpose of this article (and all the others) is to inform ME, the average reader.  You scholars have lost the forest for the trees.  This isn't a doctoral thesis, and no one gets graded or published here.  You might be practicing for something like that, but you are doing it on MY DIME.
I (the average reader) say ALL interesting content (whether it's properly referenced or not) STAYS IN THE DAMN ARTICLE.  Key word here being interesting.  If I keep reading, and happen to learn something along the way, it's all good.  If I get bored and quit, even if the article is perfect accordance with the guidelines, that's a big FAIL.
Context, folks.  The rules/guidelines have context too.  They serve me the reader and my interests, and not the other way around.  You do not sacrifice me the reader for your tedious rules and pedantism.
Finally, the person with the cast-iron balls to unilaterally delete someone else's legitiate work without discussion, who the fuck do you think you are ?  Some kind of cheese-eating monkey jacking off to cause the terrorists to LOSE ?  If you don't know all of the above (what I just posted, and you clearly don't) then you aren't qualified to be deleting someone else's work.  Step away from the computer, and go for a walk in the park.  Maybe throw a frisbee to a dog for a while.
Okay, everyone nod their heads in agreement.  "The interest of the reader is more important than your subjective (and collective) interpretation of the rules."  Repeat that as a mantra, and throw in a few "Omms" every once in a while to make yourselves look spiritual.
99.137.251.249 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedantism 

message: In its current form, this article is really nothing more than a paraphrasing with very little context.  I would like to begin adding back some of the content that had been removed, but I am sensitive to the criticisms that the article had been nothing more than a bulleted list of instances where the phrase/meme had appeared.  I would like to look at other articles on rhetorical phrases that have been used, such as "stay the course", "cut and run", which focus more on the political context of the original iterations of the phrase, and then later on go into the migration of the phrase in to wider pop culture.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add more material if well-sourced. What's the worst that can happen? Someone takes it off. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear that. Go for it - I won't stop you. Outback the koala (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are afraid to add material to an article, well then.... Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning content/context to this page 

message: To me at least, the name doesn't seem right. When I first went on this page, it almost felt like someone had vandalized it. It could be changed to "Then the terrorists win," because that could give a viewer a clearer idea of the subject. --Joshua H-Star-R 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be called "The Terrorists have Won?" 

message: The current photo seems inappropriate to the context of the article.  It's about how "allowing Muslims to do X means the terrorists have won" whereas the rest of the article seems to be about "not allowing right Y to continue means the terrorists have won".  If anything I'd say the photo contradicts the usage of the phrase in the article.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo?