Talk:Jews

most of this page is extremely offensive and not funny.

i made the rabbi page to try to have some Jewish heritage and Jewish myths into a otherwise Latin etymology myth base game--Nlstrong (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• So you're vandalizing it with whinefests about how this wiki is antisemitic? Give me a fucking break. I'm Jewish myself and I didn't bat an eye at any of it- and I certainly don't need someone to act offended on my behalf. --Newerfag (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

this page is extremely offensive

• Is that why you added the "Rabbi" class to it? Can't have it both ways.--Newerfag (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nistrong, you got rid of the hilarious 4e jew to add your own version. I have merged the two in parallel. --Editor84 (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• You might want to reformat it- it looks like a mess now. --Newerfag (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What the shit is this --96.56.44.162 01:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny as fuck. --Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we do something like this for other religions or should this itself (despite being worth a slight grin) be deleted? --50.45.70.173 12:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• The latter. Even in spite of its limited comedic value, it's just plain poorly made overall.--Newerfag (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed, it's not funny (more a regurgitation of already prevalent jokes that got old decades ago) and gives the site a worse reputation. Unless there's a /pol/ category to shuffle it away into and give a disclaimer in the process anyway. --Thannak (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's pretty loathsome, but we have lots of awful shit on this wiki and if you choose to start drawing the line here just because it's a raw issue lately it will never really end. The question isn't whether it's shit, it's whether it's /tg/ related shit. To which I'd reply, "ehhhhhhhhhh". --Petro (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's enough to elicit a chuckle. Seeing as we have Racial Holy War on here, I fail to see how this is much worse, or how anyone with half a functioning brain will interpret this as anything but a joke.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Well the Racial Holy War page is about how goddamn horrible that vile piece of trash was. The issue here is about applying crude religious/ethnic stereotypes.--A Walrus (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • And how does that make it any more relevant to /tg/? I've yet to see a Jewish-themed RPG, and if I wanted a history lesson I'd go to Wikipedia.--Newerfag (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • You've never seen people talk about jews on /tg/? Not even in Games Workshop threads? And, while the board may have been completely overrun by quests and smut threads while I wasn't looking, D&D was pretty relevant to /tg/ last time I checked. --RubyEclipse (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I have yet to see them mentioned in regards to their use in a tabletop game, only in terms of bitching about prices (or the kind of crap that would not be out of place on /b/). Give me one example where Jews or Judaism were mentioned in the context of actually being part of a game.--Newerfag (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Being in a sourcebook is not a requirement for something to have a page here (unless there is a stat block for meatbread somewhere). They are talked about on /tg/? Somewhat often, too? Often enough to inspire an entire webpage of homebrew racial stats, classes and feats? That sounds like a significant enough piece of information to warrant getting mentioned on the board's wiki. And, what a coincidence, it already is. --RubyEclipse (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Not a single thread on /tg/ has ever mentioned homebrewing Jews as a race in any RPG format to the best of my knowledge, and that stat block was literally meant as a joke (and not even a good one at that matter). Given that Walrus has openly admitted that the page is about applying crude stereotypes, why stop there? Why not make pages for every other ethnic group and religion you can think of too? After all, people talk about them on /tg/ as well, and probably have statted them out too. You're essentially opening the door for /pol/ and their kin to barge in and make articles full of thinly veiled racism. We do not need or want that.--Newerfag (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
            • If it does remain, it needs a "/pol/ article, brace for butthurt racism and fail." disclaimer template. Maybe with a derpy image to go with it, like a googly eyed SS officer from a tabletop. --Thannak (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is even relevant

• I too doubt the relevance of the article but at least it looks relatively nice in its current state. The jokes in the "4e Racial Traits" section are more stale than dwarf bread though.--50.45.77.139 18:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• What are we, the History Wiki? This article's only vaguely /tg/-related section is just a bunch of ancient jokes that stopped being funny ages ago. Trying to improve it is a waste of time and effort better spent on improving good articles instead of trying to salvage garbage.--108.31.78.204 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that this has no value towards /tg/, nor any comedic value. The deletion reason is funnier than the page itself.- Riptidemtmte 11:09 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• +1 Why does this page still exist.--Otter (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why the hell was this deleted

Since when is "vandalism" an excuse to delete pages around here? The page itself wasn't amazing, but it certainly could have been improved. As for "why does this exist," remember that Judaism and Jewish tradition is used as an idea bucket for damn near all Western fiction and a lot of Eastern fiction because of the spread of Abrahamic religion. There's a fuckload of cool shit there for worldbuilders to plumb for ideas. Plus when /pol/ comes around it'll be helpful to have a vague idea of what they're talking about. OriginalPrankster (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it's by definition a giant target for anyone with half a mind to do so. For fuck's sake, is Wikipedia not good enough for you people anymore? --Newerfag (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not really a valid excuse. We have other pages that cover real-life articles that could have been covered by wikipedia already, but we did it anyway for the sake of putting its relation to fantasy and the community's own spin on the topic. If you're gonna start deleting articles, for the sole purpose that "they're giant targets for anyone with half a mind to do so", start clearing house and make this place about as politically correct as Tumblr. Tactical Mehren (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. You'd have to delete China for being a target for Ching Chong Ding Dong shitposting, Nazi for "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong" spam, Viking for "muh glorious Odin" shitposting, Capitalism and Communism for /pol/ vs. /leftypol/ shitposting. Fuck, that's just the History category and we've already deleted everything that has even a hint of subjectivity to it. And no, Wikipedia is not an acceptable substitute. If we wanted Wikipedia, we'd go to fucking Wikipedia, but instead we want our information delivered with /tg/'s unique perspective. If you think it's a good idea to start deleting shit just because of the threat of shitposting instead of actually trusting the community to act in good faith and fix the messes of people acting in bad faith, you might as well stick to RPG.net for all your information needs. It'll probably conform to your worldview better anyway. OriginalPrankster (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a sin to joke about (((these people)))--107.182.226.250 13:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, but pretending to be a /pol/ shitposter to make deleting this page look like a good idea isn't a substitute for an actual argument. (Unless you're being serious, in which case you should take your bait somewhere else. /pol/ doesn't fucking care about /tg/. OriginalPrankster (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As a counterpoint to all the above, keep in mind that the way it was written was absolutely nothing like what Prankster wanted and nobody else seemed to care enough to want it kept back then. If he wants to recreate it and make it into a worldbuilding resource, he can do so. As for why it was deleted, that was just my assumption and personal opinion about the matter, and should be interpreted accordingly. Ask AssistantWikifag if you want to know the real reason, whatever it is- he's the one who actually decided to delete the page. --Newerfag (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

At the time I deleted it, it was the subject of an edit war by some folks like 107 above. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been more convenient to put a restriction on who can edit it? Tactical Mehren (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be the only protected or semi-protected page we have, if that's implemented. I'm not sure the version of MediaWiki we use supports that. --Newerfag (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)