From 1d4chan

Racist Anons[edit]

Whoever keeps using the terms "niggers", or has a problem with dark-skinned people, better stop.

I'm neutral on racism, though the joke from the start wasn't really funny.
Tactical Mehren (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What Heresy?[edit]

Am I a Heretic for reading this article?

Sure. Fatum 09:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
*BLAM* --Bob 22:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Section two article six of the imperium civis codice clearly states Only respectful people will be allowed in the Empire of man. in the name of the god emperor and my power as a grand inquisitor, i here by banish this web page to the out lands. never to return to the empire of man under pain of death. --Grand Inquisitor Cade 01:08, 7 mar 2016 (UTC)


Do we really need anymore provocative images of furries as an example here?
Serious dog 02:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends, will there ever be enuff' dakka?
Mr. Spooky 02:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You drive a logical argument, good sir.
Serious dog 03:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's just remember that adding furfaggotry is liable to summon furfaggots.
Ragnasal 04:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. More for us to kill!
Leman Russ 19:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Behold! More furries!
Mr. Spooky 23:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The original picture was excised due to Heresy(TM).

For the record: Ima Hairtic. Derka Der (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Real Life Heresy Section[edit]

I feel that the first paragraph neatly sums up what Heresy was and the Catholic churches history with it. The following paragraphs mostly consist of veiled and not so veiled insults at the institution and seem needless in a article that is meant to be about over the top fluff in Warhammer 40k. The insinuation that Catholics will immediately get back to the business of oppressing women and persecuting homosexuals as soon as the current Pope dies is also rather tasteless and unnecessary. 15:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Its a generalized page on heresy, not about 40k specifically, and I believe the commentwas meant to be a "someone's gonna kill him" rather than any insinuation of future intent. Furthermore there was nothing offensive nor was there any "veiled accusations" in that. --Thannak (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The page is 99% Warhammer and Warhammer 40k and it's intent is quite obviously to be about the fluff of those two game lines. Which makes sense as this is a wiki that is almost completely dominated by Warhammer and it's spin offs. The purpose of the two paragraphs in question seems to be to mostly judge the medieval catholic church by modern moral standards over social/political issues. Perhaps I am misreading the last bit as Pope Francis is going to die and the church will revert to harassing homosexuals and not treating women equally but if I am it should be reworded at the least as it is easy to take it that way. The Catholic Church is certainly not innocent as a institution but this is not the wiki for those kind of religious critiques and activism. Not to mention that heresy and persecution of it was certainly not limited to just catholicism. The first paragraph rather neatly sums up what Warhammer and Warhammer40k drew it's inspiration from on its treatment of Heresy and the Inquisition. Which is all we should be concerned with on a tabletop and /tg/ focused wiki. 15:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. However, I would prefer to hear A Walrus's side of the argument first, if only for the sake of courtesy and to ensure that there's no chance of miscommunication leading to an edit war again. --Newerfag (talk)
I have reverted once more in a attempt to bring A. walrus to the talk page to hash this out. It is not my intention to cause a edit war but Warus seems somewhat unwilling to give his/her reasoning on their insistence that this remain as it is.-- 20:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel that a lot of good content on this wiki is being needlessly pruned under the label of "not related", even though it helps add context to the article. Going into a bit more detail in this, Galileo was listed in what was cut and that was one of the bigger examples of charges of heresy being used to quash science (which appears in Warhammer 40,000) and I agree with thannak about the 'veiled accusations'. Maybe some re-wording would be in order, just don't crudely cut chunks out.--A Walrus (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand how your feelings on the matter but 1d4chan hasn't had much in the way of standards for articles in a long time and it has been to the wiki's general detriment. The general belief on /tg/ is that we are good for 40k tactics, fapfics, lewd drawings and not much else. I think that a lot of articles are in desperate need of pruning and refocusing due to years of wild west editing. I don't think I'm the only who believes that either. Wikipedia has a very detailed series of articles on the Catholic Church and it's history with heretic hunting and the Inquisition that anyone who is interested in learning more can visit. We have more than enough to write just keeping up with all 40k content, original and official. As a side note, the tone of the paragraphs reads pretty hostile and biased to me. If you are insistent on keeping the information than at least make it funny.-- 22:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The original Real Life section was not biased. It talked about how Heresy was mostly a political thing with nasty consequences, which is true, then went on to describe why Heresy is no longer a thing in the modern day (the shifting demographics of the faithful and on the slow liberalization of the Papacy and down). Personally, it seems like 1d4 has been getting a lot of sensitive people lately. --Thannak (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It's more accurate to say it's been getting a lot of people who don't want politics in their articles in any way lately- a backlash against /pol/ in /tg/, if you will. On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree- I come here to get away from those real world issues, not approach them from a new angle. But on the other hand, I'm sure there are better ways to deal with those issues, although quite frankly I can't think of any which anyone would be sure to agree on. Plus, the "real life" section wasn't really all that funny to begin with- unless you all want to begin copypasting directly from Wikipedia and call it a day, it would be best to ensure that those sections are as humorous as they are informative, if not more so. Problem is, the way those sections tend to be written more often than not comes off as being "SRS BUSINESS" in the worst possible way. That's something we have to address in this article and all others that have some degree of real world relevance, especially since the people with the strongest views on them have no sense of humor at all. Remember, Walrus- "goodness" is very much in the eye of the beholder. As for standards, that's something the wiki as a whole has to sit down and work out, preferably with Wikifag or AssistantWikifag overseeing it all. I know I've been pretty strident on the issue in the past, but even I'm willing to admit they're the ones who have the last word on the matter. --Newerfag (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)--Newerfag (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess the compromise is what I believe the original intent of the Real Life section was; to give a basis of comparison for how exaggerated and fucking ludicrous Fantasy and 40k heresyand punishment is. Which again, I feel it had before the edit war; showing it really was cruel, but more motivated by political advantage than outright belief in larger cases and how it stopped being a thing. Then contrast to the Imperium being a fucking joke in most cases, while in Fantasy the Witch Hunters tend to destroy themselves or innocents more than root out their actual foes. --Thannak (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That could work, but what would stop it from relapsing into what it ended up becoming, then? When I read through it, I got the impression that it was trying too hard to draw comparisons between different contexts. and much more importantly it just wasn't funny. And given that real world religion is not something to poke fun at lightly (historically or otherwise), I suggest we drop it for the moment unless we can find a way to make it humorous. Nobody cares about the development of Catholic theology or how cruel things used to be 500 years ago (again, there's that judging things by 21st-century sensibilities that I warned you about, it doesn't belong in a supposedly objective discussion), they just want a cheap laugh. Besides, it's practically a given that everything in Warhammer (both fantasy and 40k) is over the top even without a point of comparison. --Newerfag (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a way to make it both funny and inoffensive. The humor ought to come from the other sections (truth be told, the Heresy meme is so stale I don't personally have any idea how it would be funny in any way anymore, but whatever). The Real Life section would be purely informative to add something of quality to the article via contextual comparison, rather than the entire page be an overused meme in an overused meme. --Thannak (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent point. Regardless, it should be written carefully enough not to step on anyone's toes or come off as being judgmental by accident. --Newerfag (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the paragraph we have now is pretty close to what we want. It probably needs to be reworded and tightened up a bit but it basically lays out what the Real Life inspiration for 40k and Fantasy's Inquisition and Heresy concepts was without belaboring the point needlessly.-- 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not get it why the Galilean affair had to be excluded, as it best described why in the modern era the word 'Heresy' is no longer taken seriously and relegated into a meme about the Dark Ages in Space. 22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Because it's overly political, and diverts focus from 40k heresy, which is the article's primary subject.--Asorel (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)