Talk:Salamanders (Chapter)

@Racism Allegations Section

is written by some idiot who evidently knows nothing about Warhammer 40k from before 2003. The Salamanders have had a gene seed problem since fucking 3rd edition. GW may have failed to mention that fact in whatever codex was available when DOW was released (when the writer presumably started following). GW aren't suddenly racist because you wrongly assumed that the Salamanders were 'real' blacks and were too slow to catch up on the fact. -- Yu-gi-oh ! (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Eh, have the only visible black space marine not actually be black isn't much better. Honestly, just having more minority representation would work better. And honestly, I would avoid having skin color change be a thing for being a space marine. Eye color changes are fine. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

They're not the only visibly black Space Marines, those are limited by how much the players want to paint black and there are literally thousands of chapters, not to mention it would be far worse if they made them being black into a big deal, having them just as an offhand mention right now is far better since they don't treat it as something weird. -- Triacom (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. On refection, it's not every like the salamanders is the only loyalist legion/chapter who forces a skin tone is that unique. See Raven Guard and Blood Angels. Honestly, just having the "generic" chapters (i.e. Smurfs, Magpies, Fists) have some minorities makes salamanders less weird. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What makes Salamanders wierd? Stop projecting your own latent racism/misguided SJW onto here.

Agreed, I honestly think the section should be deleted outright. If I wanted to read ID politics bullshit, I would visit Tumblr. --Asorel (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Salamanders "Daily Rituals" and "Organization"

Hi Guys Im Just a Noob to Warhammer,Wondering what my first army should be (any suggestions?)but I read alot of the fluff,I Am Afro-Lumbee,and in the spirit of fun and gaming,I'll just say I get the jokes and stuff but alongside the previous "racism allegations"are these really needed? Granted many of 1d4chans pages are rife with all types of silly insanity,I feel these sections could be removed,as they can be misconstrued as an intolerance to minority gamers or minorities in general,Besides ol' E and Cristal no one drinks that shit anymore lol,but I was the one recently deleting these sections because they also added no more useful information and I honestly thought no one would miss them,sorry I didn't take the formal steps eager to change the page,back on those armies though Aos and 40k choices for either would be appreciated,I will also continue to try and include my friends to the hobby because I believe that diversity is what it needs and can be a chill way to break down barriers of miscommunications of this nature that can lead to flame wars and ignorance anyway eager to hear from you all sorry for the long first post I'll keep them short and sweet later,crit all day.Peace.

You won't find that people care one way or the other what your personal thoughts are on "diversity in gaming." What most fa/tg/uys loathe with a passion, however, is attempts to inject politics into games and fluff when they just want to roll dice and have fun. Making edits based purely on political motivations (and "someone might get offended by this" counts as political) isn't met with a great amount of sympathy. What these sections add to the page is an element of humor, and humor is one of the things that separates 1d4chan from the drier wikis found on the Internet.--The Forgefather (talk

I was just providing a background and you're right no one Is asking my personal opinion but I was giving it based off my experience with table-top games but sure I understand,no politics,I'm not asking for sympathy,I appreciate humor,I'm just trying to understand why it would be a form that is disparaging to people,when I have seen other space marine chapters that don't have these sections,Thank you for your reply.

First, sign your name with four tildes. Second, if we gave a flying fuck about your opinion we would have asked. Accept these things called "jokes" for what they are and keep in mind that diversity doesn't mean shit if your friends couldn't care less about the games themselves. --Newerfag (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Stereotyping and Racism.

I'm not going to go off on a rant about how this artical is insulting or racist or immoral, but I am going to rewrite it because this "marines in the hood" shit is boring and a bad read. I'm going to rewrite some sections of this and tone down the racist shit. If you disagree with this bring it up in discussion, don't just undo the edit, talk about it. Keep in mind that this gangster stuff came from one author, so it's not like this is a /tg/-wide thing, even if we have accepted it for some reason. Josman (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• While I don't have any objections to the majority you've undone, I think removing all of it presents /tg/ in a bit of a dishonest light. Even when it's only from one editor there's a reason it wasn't removed before now. -- Triacom (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

One author does not represent the entirety of /tg/. Racism is common on /pol/ or /gif/, but how often have you really seen racism on /tg/ itself? I can think of one occasion. Just because some dickhead wrote this artical doesn't mean we should let it stand just because he's "part of /tg/." All communities will have undesirable elements, but that doesn't mean you let some twelve year old write your shit. There's no precedent for this stuff in the lore and only the tiniest sliver of it in /tg/, so why let it stand when it makes the rest of us look like idiots? Josman (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that depends on what we're talking about when we say racism, if you mean outright racism like that "gangsta" shit, then I don't really see any reason to keep it, however when it's small remarks like a certain bird fried to a crisp, then that's meant to be a joke in a more intelligent sense. If you wanted to remove that picture, then you should also slap a delete tag on the picture because there's no point in keeping it on the wiki if it's not linked anywhere. Also just because you can't find a thread doesn't mean one didn't happen, threads that're archived usually get deleted if they're not popular (determined by posts) after a while. -- Triacom (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• • If it helps, I'm not fine with the outright complete and total removal of all racist content on the page, but I would like to see it made much more subtle. Let me put this out there, I'm the most racist person you will ever meet in your life, but even I think this page needs to have some class. Outright saying they're niggers that spend all day eating fried chicken and watermelon isn't okay. Keep the racism subtle, make it a point that the imperium hates them for being Vile and detestable mutants of an unusual skin colour. Say they're unusual in behavior and mannerisms. All this kind of stuff. Just don't outright remove it, because that's not okay.

You should consider doing what I did with the Dark Angels pages. Take one concept and overblow it completely to the point where it becomes satire. With the dark angels, their page insists that "THE DARK ANGELS ARE THE MOST PERFECT CHAPTER EVER AND HAVE NEVER HAD ANY OF THEIR NUMBER FALL TO CHAOS, ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A HERETIC WHO SHOULD BE BEHEADED".Evilexecutive (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but the dark angels example actually has precident in their lore and /tg/. This racism thing is just something one jackass twelve year old came up with one day. It doesn't fit /tg/ and it isn't even that funny. The dark angels thing is funny because it's true. The dark angels are obsessed with their own purity, and they'll censor the fuck out of ANYONE to keep their rep clean. That is good humor, as it's a truth blown way out of proportion to poke fun at the dark angel's character. The racist stuff about the salamanders isn't pertinent or funny. If you wanted to poke fun at the salamander's character it would make more sense to blow their friendliness out of proportion and make them look like groupies or rapists or some other "too much affection" problem. Josman (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It does fit in the sense that SJWs have been calling GW racist because all Salamanders have black skin, and the "racist" content makes light of those accusations by taking them to an absurd conclusion. I'd also be very surprised if the man that wrote this was in fact a racist.--The Forgefather

I don't expect that whoever wrote it was intentionally being racist, I just think it's bad humor. If you're going to be edgy and offensive with your humor, that's fine. Heck, that's good. But if you're going to touch on a taboo subject be clever with your humor, don't just laugh and say "Hey, this exists!" (best read in southern US accent) "Haw haw, they're black so they must eat fried chicken and watermellon! They've got their bling and their 'pimped rides', haw haw!" I'm not especially annoyed that it's racist, I'm annoyed that it's a shitty shitty joke made in poor taste with no real payoff. Josman (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So what's so wrong about the "certain bird" or that "Chapters guarded secret" image? Both of those are poking fun at a stereotype without doing it just to say "Hey this exists!" You might as well get angry at the Space Wolves page for calling them furries/furfags. -- Triacom (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the space wolves thing is a one to one parallel because that is part of their character and their choices, not a facet of their identity they can't control. The space wolves choose to be furries (that statement right there could open a whole new can of worms). The salamanders don't chose to be black. Still, to be honest, I'm withdrawing my complaints, because now that I think about it, the page has reached a balance of a sort. There is shitty racist humor, yes, but also, in the middle of the page in bright red capital letters there is an indictment of that racism, so while I don't think either side of the issue is really happy this seems a good compromise to me at least. Josman (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The Space Wolves don't choose it any more than the Salamanders do since their wolfy nature is quite literally embedded into their DNA due to the Canis Helix, and either you haven't heard of the Wulfen or you've forgotten, but turning partially into a werewolf is an actual mutation that they have and try to cover up from that also comes from the same source. I'm happy so long as we can close this at least. -- Triacom (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know what the canis helix is, but I was more talking about their tendency to name everything the "(x)wolf". That's more of a cultural trait than a geneseed trait. Josman (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we have at least one "Blacksmith" pun?

Lamenters v space wolves

On a somewhat less grim note, I'd like to put forth that while discussing the salamanders' rival for "most bro-tier space marines" the Lamenters or Celestial Lions might be a better choice than the Wolves. While yes the wolves do sometimes stick up for the little guy, they're also absolutely uncompromising and without mercy when putting down rebellions and heresies and the like. Compare this to the Celestial Lions or the Lamenters who will gladly die in glorious last stands to defend civilian populations. The space wolves' most famous defense of civilians, the 'months of shame' following the first war for Armageddon. When the shit hit the fan and the wolves had to face down the inquisition on their home turf, they rolled over and surrendered the civilians in exchange for a pardon. The Celestial Lions lost 90% of their chapter because they tried to call the inquisition to task over slaughtering civilians needlessly. The Lamenters are constantly fighting in glorious last stands to defend civilians who then inevitably shun them because they are seen as bad luck. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on the Wolves. I actually played them for most of 6th edition. I just don't think they're as friendly and "bro-tier" as this page would have you believe.

The Space Wolves have been around for far longer and have gone above and beyond for the regular citizens, they've disobeyed direct orders, even from the Inquisition just so that they could defend civilians and evacuate centers, and killing innocent people just to get your goal accomplished to them is absolutely unacceptable (they've also had glorious last stands to defend civilians). Even when they're culling Chaos Cults they do not kill people they think had nothing to do with it, whereas the Celestial Lions stood by as an Inquisitor killed a lot of presumably innocent people and were then sent off to fight battles while presumably a Vindicare assassin killed their Apothecaries. They didn't try to call him to task or even try to stop him, they made an offhand remark and the Inquisitor became suspicious of corruption. Also the Lamenters are on a penitent crusade, they're doing that because they're forced to, not because it's their ideal way of doing things. -- Triacom (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"they do not kill people they think had nothing to do with it," Yes they bloody well do! The space wolves rival the black templars for how hard they come down on traitors. They really take a "burn it all" (though perhaps "slash it all" would be more appropriate), and that goes all the way back to the heresy and Russ himself. I actually expect that a lot of their currect goodwill comes from the Old Wolf himself, and after reading the horus heresy books I think that Logan and Russ would butt heads a lot if russ ever comes back from wherever the heck he fucked off to. Russ himself really didn't have the compassion and goodwill that the modern wolves have. Plus their most famous example of fighting for the little guy (first war for armageddon) ends with them rolling over for the inquisition as soon as things get rough, whereas the lamenters and the celestial lions both got fucked in the ass harder than the wolves did, but those two never gave up or conceded. Josman (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Name me one time that the Space Wolves intentionally killed innocent civilians, intentionally and without doing it to kill actual Chaos worshipers when they were trying to clean up a Chaos Cult. If they did this the months of shame would never have happened. When they're not sure if somebody had anything to do with the Cult, they don't kill them, simple as that. Yes they're brutal when they're killing the actual members, however Cult members aren't innocent people now are they? Also the Lamenters DID give up, that's why they're on the penitent crusade, if they didn't give up they would have been killed to the last. The Celestial Lions never gave up, but that's because they never started anything. You can't give up in a fight that never happened. -- Triacom (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Name one? The Ragnar Blackmane books, midway through the third book "Grey Hunter," Ragnar and his pack fight their way into a traitor citidel and kill every single living being they encounter that isn't wearing power armor, civilian staff included, though to be fair this was a hot-blooded pack of blood claws, so I'll concede that particular example. If I really wanted to be petty I could point out the dozen times in the books we see wolfen going on killing sprees, but that hardly counts. I could also count a dozen different campaigns during the Great Crusade where Russ used less than efficient methods to destroy a population that resisted compliance, making no attempt at diplomacy, but to be honest that's more on Russ than his sons, and he was a dick anyways. I could technically use the First War for Armageddon, where they rolled over in the end and turned in the civilians they'd "saved" to the inquisition, inevitably resulted in their deaths. How about the times the space wolves have destroyed ecclisiarchy ships that enter their systems? Though to be honest, while researching this I actually found that all the good examples of the wolves being dicks happened under Russ. Once he left I can actually find plenty of examples of them openly fighting imperial forces who were attacking civilians (833.M41, Honour's End, against the Flesh Tearers. 879.M41, Hyades against, the Dark Angels. 499M41, Palacia, against less-than-scrupulous Guard. 4 different times against the inquisition an ecclesiarchy), though every single one of those examples of them helping civilians was directly overseen by Logan Grimnar, so I think assigning that value to the whole chapter is a bit shaky, so I'll relent on that front. Josman (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I figure I might as well respond to those examples in case they come up again later. So Ragnar was 100% sure that the civilian staff wasn't involved with the cult in any way? The Wulfen aren't really Space Wolves, they're supposed to be monsters, and yeah I'd put that on Russ too, though that's because I'd say the Primarchs aren't Space Marines in the same way that Space Marines aren't human. In the First War for Armageddon while they eventually gave up a lot of those civilians DID get away, they weren't just hoarding them somewhere. Also the Ecclesiarchy was there as part of an investigation (they weren't civilians) into whether or not the Wolves were morally corrupted, and they consider leveling that accusation at them tantamount to heresy. Also not all were overseen by Logan, just look at the Battle for Montberg Spaceport, or the Daemonbane War. Another thing, while Logan is their Great Wolf for those fights, I don't think for a second he was at every fight, not to mention the Wolves are called in almost exclusively to help the civilian populations, they usually don't (and by that I mean by percentage almost never) go off to start their own fights. -- Triacom (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the Lamenters, I was more referring to The Corinth Crusade or the fight against Abaddon's ninth black crusade, situations where they stood to the last man, taking enormous casualties, to fight for civilian populations that other imperial forces refused to help. During the Badab War I wouldn't say they "gave up" so much as they realized they were on the wrong side. Yeah they got the shit kicked out of them, but that actually happens to them a lot. Finally, as to the Celestial Lions, yeah it's true there was never really a fight for them to begin with (if you're talking about the events during and leading up to the third war for armageddon) they didn't really fight the inquisition, but that wasn't for lack of effort on their part, but furthermore they do try to avoid civilian casualties on the offense, and they were willing to risk extinction for a chance to call the inquisition to task. While yes, the wolves have demonstrated that they're willing to fight for a bit to protect civilians, they gave up when things got hot. The lamenters will fight to the very last to protect civilians. Josman (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Standing to the last man against Abaddon's Crusades isn't that uncommon, it would be far easier if you'd point out the chapters, Guard regiments and Navy vessels that did break and run rather than the ones that didn't. They also thought that they were honour-bound to help Huron, they could have turned on him when they realized they were in the wrong, but they chose to keep on fighting for him anyway. Also when exactly did the Lions try to call that Inquisitor to task? Last I checked it was still an offhand comment. The Wolves give up? Care to point out when? I can think of one example (the months of shame), every other time they fight even when there's no hope of winning so long as they can get more civilians out, as I pointed out with the Battle for Montberg Spaceport. There's also the Battle for Maelstorm's Maw where they did this. -- Triacom (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The Lions sent two delegations to Holy Terra to entreat the Highlords to call the inquisition to task, both consisting of multiple deathspeakers and warleaders (chaplains and captains, respectively) on a strike cruiser. Neither ship was ever scene again. The Lamenters went in to both of the last stands I mentioned to help imperial civilians that the rest of the empire had abandoned, knowing full well they likely couldn't win. Seriously, go to the warhammer wiki and look through the Lamenter's chapter history. It mostly consists of "the Lamenters were in a glorious last stand to protect civlian populations and were wiped out down to a fraction of their chapter before rebuilding and having a glorious last stand to protect civilian populations-..." Finally on to the space wolves, your other two examples really don't mean much when compared to their surrender during the months of shame, as those two examples had only one or two companies. During the months of shame Logan Grimnar had the chance to match the Lamenters in commitment and courage, to risk his entire chapter to defend the civilians he had swore to protect, and I think his conduct speaks for itself. When it's just a company or two they'll go balls to the wall, but when they actually have to risk their chapter as a whole, they won't take the chance. Is the space wolves' approach smarter? Probably. But it's colder, it's less courageous, and for the guys who value honor and ferocity above all else, it's a weak move. Now, as always, context is important, and in the specific situation it was only partially Logan's call. It was actually Bjorn who ordered Logan to stand down, and while yes Logan was the acting Great Wolf, he more or less had to respect Bjorn's call, and I think this kind of feeds back to Russ's legacy again. Bjorn, who served during Russ's time, sees the legacy of the chapter as being more important than any civilians, this compared to Logan who is the most loved chapter master in the imperium. As much as it would have been bad for Logan to refuse Bjorn, he still has to face up to the fact that he compromised his ethics and broke his oath rather than face down his Elder. You may see his reverence as a virtue, and I think we can both understand why Logan did it, but that doesn't make his actions any less significant. When it comes down to it even the most compassionate wolf holds Russ's legacy higher than honor or honesty. Josman (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I had actually forgotten about those delegations, however the last stands aren't any different than what the Space Wolves do most of the time. "An Imperial X is in desperate need to help, so the Space Wolves show up to save the day" can describe most of the fights they've been in, and as I pointed out, they've been around a lot longer and so would have had more of them. Most of the time the Space Wolves aren't together either, for a Wolf Lord to risk their company, is the equivalent of risking a chapter because their company is built around who they are. You're not going to find two companies that're alike in everything, because they've got different mindsets and the only thing that unites them is their Great Wolf, they're far more individualized than regular chapters and so you cannot compare companies in the same way. If the shit hits the fan, they've got nobody to pull them out, or provide backup, either that Wolf Lord and his company succeed, or they die and that's it. I also fail to see how those acts don't mean much when they're the same thing. It's also for this reason the Logan gave up, getting all of the Space Wolves killed while the Inquisition would be back at full strength in the sector within a few centuries would be a terrible thing to do to everyone beneath him, and I'm glad that you pointed out how he wanted to keep fighting and all of his Wolf Lords wanted to keep fighting before Bjorn pointed out what a stupid idea it would be because if it wasn't for him, they'd all be dead, having sacrificed the entire chapter. The reason he stood down too wasn't because he was ordered to, it was because he wanted the chapter to live on so that they could do what they were made to do, protect the Imperium because there's a good reason he's the most well loved Chapter Master. What's the more virtuous act? Sacrificing everything in a foolhardy defence that'll likely get everyone killed, or taking one defeat so you can go on to save billions in other victories? Whenever he's put in charge of defence he works with the Guard, training and directing them because he thinks they matter and wants to win with as few lives lost as possible rather than leave them out in the cold, whereas other chapters would fight well ahead of them, prolonging the fighting and causing more lives to be lost, or in the case of the Lions, fighting so stupidly far ahead without help from the Guard (they could have gotten it so that even if their Apothecaries died they wouldn't have lost so many Marines) that they lost nearly their entire chapter. Even after victories the wolves look in on the worlds in their aftermath for a bit to make sure they're okay, which is definitely something you can't claim is the same for the Lamenters or Lions. -- Triacom (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• How about this, since this is an argument that I can see going on for quite a while and I'd rather like to cut it short, how about we change the line to this: "the Lamenters and Space Wolves coming in right behind them." -- Triacom (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Transferred everything below this to my own discussion page, as this is no longer even remotely connected to the Salamanders, and as thus problably shouldn't be here. Feel free to pick things up on my talk page. Josman (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop Removing the "Fried Avian & Watermelon" Gag

Why are you doing it? Pls stop now ok Flammer (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one removing it, but I'd guess it's because it's shitty humor dependent on a largely innacurate stereotype. I guess if you really can't think of anything better than fifth rate referential humor to 80's ration stereotypes we can leave it up, but it's presence adds nothing to the page. Josman (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

it's hardly the height of sardonic social commentary but it helps demonstrate that 1d4chan is not a "safe space" hugbox. it serves a purpose in that regard. - Flammer (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that 1d4chan isn't that, given that we openly have profanity in info pages. And if you're really determined to make sure people know we aren't a hugbox, perhaps you could think of a less edgy way to do it than an unfunny racial joke? There are actual funny racist jokes you could use for that purpose, instead of just going, "HAHA GUISE THIS STEREOTYPE EXISTS GUIS RIGHT???" It strikes me as pointless edgy flailing by someone who thinks that the freedom to make racist jokes MUST be used simply because it exists. Josman (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

stop equivocating. the joke isnt being removed because it sucks; it's being removed because its rayciss. the whole point of not being a hugbox is that racial jokes are fair game, funny or otherwise. if you think the joke sucks enough to warrant condemnation, strike it through and condemn it in the article. dont be a faggot and censor it because it triggers you - Flammer (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't make them see reason. They don't seem to understand that what they're doing is exactly the same shit the SJW boogeymen are doing. Censoring shit they don't like and being unconstructive. It's pretty much them creating "Safe spaces" for themselves by removing the jokes and articles made by someone they don't like, all under the guise of "It's just not funny to me". Well shit, someone else might think it's funny that we blatantly use these guys as the designated nigger marines. Someone else might have thought it was amusing that I added that The God Emperor once went by the name of Donald Trump. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Flammer, just to be clear, strikethrough edits are cancer. Josman (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

so find some other way. censorship is for homosexual neurotics - Flammer (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Evilexecutive, stop being disingenuous. My complaint is not that the joke is racist, it's that the joke is shit. If you can think of a better joke, put it up, I don't care if you outright call them niggers, but doing it by way of sixth grade humor that literally consists of nothing other than pointing out a stereotype exists is pretty lame. Josman (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You're not going to be happy EITHER WAY WE DO IT. Previously the entire page was solely dedicated to salamanders being the NIGGER MARINES. The whole page was one enormous nigger marine joke, that couldn't possibly be any more blatant. Then because of the fucking SJWs, the whole page got sanitized and all the good nigger marine jokes got scrapped. Now we're trying to add back in more lighthearted jokes, and you're fucking sanitizing those too with the excuse that "They're not funny". And yet the other suggestion is that we bring back "LOL FUCKIN' NIGGER MARINES, FREID KICHEN WAWTAMELON AN' PURGIN' XENOS N' SHIEET, GIMME DEM' SISTERS O'BATTLE PUSSI". Which you won't like either because you're a fucking niggerfag jewsucker who can't take even the lighthearted version of said jokes.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, dude you are REALLY triggered right now. First off, this isn't your safe space. We don't have to do everything your way and respect your careful gentlesir sensibilities. Second, I love how you think anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is an SJW niggerfag jewsucker. Third, I know this may be hard for you to understand, but... Some people actually like the Salamanders. Those people would rather not have a page devoted entirely to making racist jokes, hence the page's current configuration. Also I'd like to point out that literally none of my objections have been based on racism. Nigger. Nigger nigger nigger nigger. Now that you've had your dose of obligatory fourth grader racism, do you think we could actually have a civil conversation now? Act a little less like a triggered liberal snowflake and more like an adult. Josman (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My objections are based on it being shitty humor. It's the same reason I get rid of the "lol they suck dicks lolo" jokes on the ultramarine pages; it's thoughtless and unfunny. Allow me to state one more time: I have no issue with the racism. Make an actually funny racist joke and I'll be fine with it. Saying, "Hahahahaha, black people are a thing and these marines are black! lol!" is fucking fifth rate humor and you know it. Josman (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point something out since I missed that you said it the first time around, "you're fucking sanitizing those too with the excuse that 'They're not funny'," I haven't changed anything on the page before this discussion came up. I was merely explaining why someone might have done it. Try to pay attention to what's actually happening before you start screaming SJW. Josman (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

we agree its a shitty gag. its not being blanked because its shitty though, its being sanitised because it triggers faggots. thats unacceptable. every time you whine about it being shitty enough to warrant a blank it looks like youre equivocating in support of these self-same faggots. - Flammer (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not the one changing it. I think it's going to far to to the whole summary in niggerspeach as evilexec put it, and I'll redact that, but that's done along the same line of reasoning I'd use if you tried to make the Ultramarines summary greek. I didn't come here trying to start shit or advance the social justice agenda, I was just pointing out why someone might be doing it. And even then, maybe they are taking a moral stance, that doesn't mean you should write them off without even hearing what they have to say (though I wish the person making the edits was actually here to explain their thoughts). Josman (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

i get where youre coming from, but i think theres a principle involved here that transcends the shitty quality of the gag. stuff like this gets blanked and its never replaced with a more pertinent and insightful version of the shit-ass joke; it just vanishes. gets sanitised. fuck that shit. if you want to read fluff-accurate descriptions of the salamanders chapter, go to lexicanum. if you want funny, or at least some maladjusted autist's definition of "funny", come to 1d4chan. - Flammer (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If don't come to 1d4chan for "some maladjusted autist's definition of funny", I come here because it's a more informal wiki that almost doubles as a forum. People can post their opinions in the article. details from past editions, and meta commentary. Explaining why the fandom looks poorly upon the Grey Knights and Ultramarines because of Ward's fuckery would NEVER happen on a true wiki, just as the opposition to those ideas would NEVER get put up on a true wiki. 1d4chan has its upsides and its downsides. The occasional sperglord screaming about his precious feelings is one of them. Josman (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

that informality is why i come too. you get humour and commentary as well as information. i dont come just to read retarded fried chicken jokes on the salamanders articles and the unremitting virgin-ass neckbeard rape fetishism on the sisters articles makes my skin crawl - but nobody gives a fuck why i come here or what i do or dont want to read. as long as its not illegal or actively impeding the "quality" (such as it is) of the wiki, just leave it alone. dont be a faggot, and dont encourage the faggotry of neurotic, narcissistic PC cuntbags by rinsing anodyne "rayciss/ sexiss" shit out of the articles. thats what im saying. - Flammer (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Racism just for the sake of being racist isn't funny. It's racist. And completely irrelevant to the Salamanders because they really aren't stereotypical at all of any black stereotype that I know of (I think they're one of the least stereotypical Space Marine chapters out there, really, compared to say, the White Scars or Space Wolves). If that's what the moderators/owners of this wiki want to allow, then so be it, but... I don't think they do, because I've seen people get banned for less stupid less vile and actually more relevant and funny things than the junk certain people have been posting as of late, and frankly I wish they'd ban the people who did worse things than what some of the bans lately have been for. Of course, we'd need a moderator or owner to chime in to actually know what they want. TiamatRoar (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

racism for the sake of racism is racist. what about if i do it for humourous reasons, is it not racist then? theyre black - thats whats being stereotype, not their in-universe behaviours. for what its worth i like the salamanders, but given the neckbeard white-ass demographic of the fandom you have to accept someones going to make a joke about chiikins if leeway is granted to do so. its not funny, its pathetic - but because its pathetic i just cant get worked up about it. it spoils nothing, can be mildly amusing, and doesnt "oppress" anyone. fuck it. let it ride. - Flammer (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If we could keep banning out of the discussion, I think that would be best. This was never really a discussion about what wikifag wants or will tolerate, it's about the article itself. I'm fairly sure we'll all find out pretty damn quickly if we cross a line wikifag doesn't like. Josman (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikifag only cares about people being destructive. He's the best kind of admin who just wants people to find a solution to the problem themselves. This wiki has been around far longer than you have Josman, and so have I. Trying to say this wiki isn't racist, or that we should discourage racism is just being outright delusional. Listen up you little shit. This website has it's origins in the days of Something Aweful, which was our sister website and home of literally all of the bullshit nonsense. All of the racism for the sake of racism, satire, and just randumb nonsense. And it was absolutely fucking hilarious in one end and out the other. Even boatmurdered was originally created by Something Aweful. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask you. Do you understand what the purpose of Satire is? When we make an entire page dedicated solely to how salamanders are NIGGERS, it kind of gets the point across that we aren't SERIOUSLY trying to tell people that they're niggers. Because it becomes a joke when we blow it completely and irresponsibly out of proportion. The joke is in how mockingly we take it seriously, and how extremely out of proportion the racism is. Do you think we're ACTUALLY SERIOUS about how salamanders drive around town in pimp out Niggermobile Land Raiders with enormous bass speakers, eating fried chicken and watermelon, bangin' white pussi in one hand, while holding a gat an' purging xenos in the other? Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Actual Satire involves showing why the thing being satirized is ridiculous or to be ridiculed, not just having it there just to be there. TiamatRoar (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

First: "BACK IN MAH DAY," is not an argument. Second: I would ask what it's actual satire of? The Salamanders don't have ANY of the characteristics you're describing. Why not mock the ultramarine's tendencies to herd reindeer and build cute woodland cottages? Oh, maybe because they aren't fucking Swedish. "Oh, but they have the same skin color of the swedes! That means we can mock them with our clever satire!" Or you find some actually relevant way of mocking them. It's not like there's nothing there to mock, as they're these friendly touchy feely marines who nonetheless look like fucking demons with glowing red eyes, and like to burn people to death more than any other way of fighting. They're hilariously impotent in terms of successors, having (so far as I'm aware) no canon successors, and they've been neurotically running around the galaxy for ten thousand years trying to hunt down seven possibly mythical artifacts, and in all this time they haven't even found all of them. For ALL that, the best you can come up with is looking at them and saying, "HAHA THEY HAVE BLACK SKIN THEREFOR NIGGER STEREOTYPES!" Josman (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

theres a joke about child support in there somewhere - Flammer (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You both need to chill with the edit war. First, Tiamat, remember what kind of wiki this is. Nigger. NIGGER. NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER. Racism isn't against any ToS here, so if you want something like that taken down, you'll have to argue your case, not just expect people to abide by it. Evilexec, let's hear what he has to say before we crucify the guy, and keep in mind that this "no censorship" thing can go both ways, so if Tiamat decides that the racism is grounds to write an essay about the evils of nerd culture, he'll have every right to post it on this page, because it would be every bit as pertinent to the page as the black people stereotypes. Or maybe, rather than fighting a war with contents and edits on the page, we could just talk this out and find a middle ground. Josman (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You know what? Fuck this compromising. You know what this is? We started with a cake. Someone said I can't have a whole cake, so they force me to "compromise" by taking half of it. Later on another person said I can't have half of a cake, so they force a "compromise" by taking another half of it. Just rinse and fucking repeat until the cake is completely gone. A week ago it was a compromise to just tone down the racism to just this one paragraph, this week it's a compromise to get rid of that paragraph. I'm not backtracking any fucking further than this, if anything it's time to claim back some of the cake that was stolen piece by fucking piece. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You haven't actually addressed any of the concerns brought up, you're just whining like some college kiddy in need of a safe space because your views got challenged. We're all adults here. Stop and fucking talk about it, don't just scream about RECLAIMING WHAT YOU'VE LOST! For someone whining about SJW's, you're sure as shit acting like one. Josman (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though, my issue with the racist shit isn't that it's racist, it's that it makes no fucking sense. To use my previous example, why not have the ultramarines herd reindeer and build cute woodland cottages? Maybe because they aren't fucking swedish, they just happen to have the same skin color, so equating the two would be stupid. If you want to mock them, mock them in ways that make sense! A good example is the hot peppers thing, because black people stereotypically favor very spicy foods, and the Salamanders are obsessed with burning shit. Or as Flammer pointed out above, their lack of confirmed successor chapters combined with the obvious existence of successor chapters (given the possibility of using their chapter tactics), there's plenty of room for child support and baby daddy jokes. If you want to make racist or stereotype humor, go right ahead, just do it in ways that make sense. Josman (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, no one drinks crystal or old e anymore. Josman (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I editted it out originally because when EvilExecutive mentioned about the satire being acceptable because the whole article was about "insert tons of random racist African remarks here", it caused me to wonder if that was really what the article was about. A read through of the article showed just the opposite, in fact. To start off with the infobox, are there any satirical jokes about the Salamanders being African just for the sake of them being African there? No, there's nothing at all in the info box like that. In fact, there's no mention of them being African at all there even, even in the "Specialty" section. So how about the first part of the page, "Salamanders in WH40k"? Well, that section is primarily about their blacksmithing traits, slower reaction times, and other factual official information about how the Salamanders operate. Nothing about them being stereotypical Africans, or African at all, in there. Moving on to the next section, "The Salamanders", it talks about their personality of them being kind and caring about civilians, which is generally not associated as an African stereotype to my knowledge, and then there's a section that's actually about how they're NOT explicitly stated to be African (BEFORE I editted it to add official sources that made it more explicit, even) but instead have charcoal black skin which should NOT be confused with a skin tone of African-descent. The "Vulkan's Legacy" section goes into how the Salamanders love fire (which is not particularly associated with an African stereotype any more than it could be associated with, oh, I don't know, the fact that they follow the cult of Prometheus, which is a GREEK reference). Then there's a section about their organization.

So, given that this is what the article is about, why is there a "joke" about them being an African stereotype JUST for the sake of being a joke about an African stereotype in their daily rituals section? The daily rituals start with a reference to the Promethean Cult, which is relevant to the article, then there's how they practice their flamer skills and a light joke about burnt cages, which is also relevant to the article's discussion of their love for fire. Then there's a reference to their forging abilities. Then there are a few racy jokes about peppers and pimping, but both of those are at least relevant to what the Salamanders actually are (even for other Space Marine chapters, it is often talked about how they love to "pimp out" their armour anyways), and then out of no where there's this FREAKISHLY LONG paragraph making vague references to food and drink from millenia ago all for the sake of "LOL they're African!!!!" despite how the entire rest of the article had nothing to do with that and what little part of the article even mentioned Africans was about how they were NOT to be confused with being (officially) African.

Even if this joke was not completely tasteless, what place would it have here? The joke could be completely non-racist in form whatsoever and it still wouldn't make any damn sense. It makes even less sense when you consider that GW even portrayed some Caucasian Salamanders on one occassion (in addition to this, if you were to go and list the names of every Salamanders character from Nocturne, you'd end up with a whole bunch of different ethnic names). It's completely random and clashes with the entire rest of the article. If you're going to make a tasteless racist joke, it should at least be worth the payoff in it being connected to the article in some way, which could be considered the case for the pepper joke and the pimping joke, but this one is just dumb and is literally just racist for the sake of being racist rather than anything to do with the Salamanders or this page. TiamatRoar (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

the fact the salamanders are black is a source of "humour" throughout the article. its full of cracks about them being nigras. none of them are particularly artful or amusing, but theyre relevant because the salamanders are fucking black and 1d4chan is a place where humour derived from race, gender, etc. is tolerated. i hate all the embarassing virgin-ass pms/ rape "jokes" in the sisters article, but im not going to blank them like a massive faggot because theyre acceptable in 1d4chan terms. when i hit one i roll my eyes and skip past it. why not do likewise? - Flammer (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"its full of cracks about them being nigras." Really? Where? With the exception of some pictures in the gallery (which are always a lot more random anywhere in any page anyways), there are no "nigra" jokes anywhere else in the page. I summarized the entire page on purpose for a reason. Like I said, the only time "African" is even mentioned ON THE ENTIRE PAGE is the part which basically says they're not meant to specifically be African. TiamatRoar (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

dont be an autist. the word "nigra" is not specifically mentioned but the fact theyre black is commented on frequently. there's a bit where someone gets blammed for mocking their skin colour, there are other bits where people are sperg-splaining that theyre not black even though theyre black, etc etc. thats all good, because 1d4chan is a place where such humour is tolerated, if not actively encouraged. tidy it up because it sucks if you must, but you dont get to sanitise it because if triggers you - Flammer (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The black explanation is a factual serious explanation explaining why people mistake them for being African with no humour intended whatsoever. The blamming is not a racist joke but instead ironically a comment about how the racist jokes are stupid, with the actual punch line being that it is done with a commisar voice. Also, this one anti-racist joke does not mean the page is full of racist nigra jokes. Quite the opposite in fact, and only serves to make the latter (and only) racist nigra joke thats only racist for the sake of racism (compared to the far more relevant items in the daily rituals) stand out even more. You are clearly exaggerating the tone and humour type of the article to suit your own agenda (which you stated above to be to show that 1d4can is "not a safe hugbox", apparently to the detriment of what actually makes sense and is relevant to the article in question) made even way more obvious by how the triggered one is clearly you. For you, this is not about what's best for the salamanders page. It's just you trying to stick it to those SJW bogeymen. TiamatRoar

its about whats best for the article in the context of 1d4chan. this isnt lexicanum. its not about factual accuracy or solely in-universe concerns; its about providing a discussion of the salamanders both in and out of universe. the racist jokes dont detract from that. theyre an example of one facet of the salamanders' presence in the 40k universe - the fact theyre black is a source of humour (sometimes ironic, usually moronic) for certain sections of the fandom. you can suggest thats a bad thing and should change if you like, but many people dont share your viewpoints and think racist jokes are appropriate. thats fine. this isnt lexicanum. racism is not inappropriate. the article likewise provides a platform for people to criticise this attitude, and people do that - thats also fine, because thats directly relevant, and represents another side of the same issue. if you get to have speils about the wickedness of racism, i get to make shitty watermelon jokes. ultimately though no matter what side of the fence youre on, if youre asking 1d4 to blank shit because of how it makes you feel rather than because its actively ruinous or irrelevant to the material then you are a cunt. the fact the salamanders are not-black black rather than african black is also relevant, but its not a good reason to blank the naughties because people make watermelon jokes regardless of what kind of "black" the salamanders actually are. - Flammer (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Tiamat, I'm pretty much with you here in that I think the jokes are pretty tasteless and stupid, but I also think that Evilexec is right to a certain degree. Scroll up and look at some of the discussions above this one. There's already been a ton of racist content removed from the article. Hell, I've even been here once before arguing the same point you are now, as have plenty of others, and each time it comes up, something is taken. Evilexec is right. It's always one more joke that has to go. Is it stupid racist an immature? Yeah. But other editors have just as much right to keep stuff up as we do, and we shouldn't try to police everyone else. Josman (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What I AM tempted to do is update it. No one drinks crystal or old E anymore. Y'all racists need to get caught up with the times! Modern stereotypes only please. Josman (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I wasn't here for the above discussions and edits (well, I was possibly HERE at the wiki but not the page as I've been lurking and making some edits to other pages here for years but apparently didn't notice the above events as they were happening), so as you've noticed, I am speaking from the perspective of someone looking at the article in its present day state. That said, looking at the above, the things were taken away for a reason. People realized that lol afrikans!!! Just because the Salamanders were African (mistaken to all be it, at least) was nonsense, and that still holds true today. Leaving the remnants of nonsense on the page just because prior nonsense was removed is an awful weak reason to leave forced "lol racist" things on the page, I feel. And as I'm hopefully showing, it look utterly ridiculous to any one who is either looking at the page for the first time or who forgot what the page originally looked like (my case apparently, though my memory vaguely tells me that I never looked at this page at first in large part because it was completely immature nonsense that gave no real info on the salamanders or at least was buried under so many crass irrelevant jokes that had nothing to do with them that it wasn't worth trying to fish out the actual info under that mess. Indeed, one of my first thoughts when I came to the page last week was "wow, this is a lot more coherent than I remember it"). Anyways, there was a reason it was changed and actually finishing the change instead of leaving remnants that don't enhance the article at all (even evilexec and flammer specifically stated it was more because they were tired of 1d being dumbed down rather than the page itself) is probably the better course of action in my opinion. Besides, times and culture changes to the point where some jokes even without considering how they fit on the page become obsolete, and this joke as you've noticed has not aged well at all. Now that time has moved on, lots of people these days weren't even born during the time the stereotype existed and its been so long ago that my own memory had to stop and forcefully remember what watermelons had to do with anything. TiamatRoar

All valid points, but something you have to keep in mind is that whether or not we think it's good to have the stereotyping there, other people think it should stay, and this wiki is a collaborative project. The solution? Find a middle ground. Given all the debates that have happened in the past, we're pretty much standing on that middle ground right now. But as evilexec said, whenever the page reaches a new middle ground after a fresh round of debate, someone new comes along and insists it be cut down. You think it would be better not to have it. I think it would be better not to have it. But you and I aren't everyone, so we don't get to dictate the contentious points of the artical. Josman (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Want to make it better? You can do so. Do what I did and add more factual content about the salamanders. You could also come up with more apt humor. Hell, if you come up with some more accurate stereotyping humor, you could add that. That'd probably be an ideal compramise. Josman (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The middle ground would be actually funny racist jokes. Also, there's no need to sign every single paragraph you write. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

i added some shit

middle ground stuff; its racist enough that racists will be pleased but not racist enough that autistics will whine. it might be ironic. i dont know. - Flammer (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks pretty good for the most part, though it's wrong to say they're mutant white dudes. HH books confirm that the people of noctourne are dark skinned, but just like african dark, not salamander dark. Josman (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Following Josman's advice, I added the KKKaos guy to at least give some backdrop/context/sense/reason to the racist jokes amongst other things. I don't know if that will be adequate for others but I'm fine with whatever now for the page, I suppose, even if I don't condone such things. Also, I'm going to take Josman's word for it and slap in the official (if ridonkulously late) confirmation that they really are African black, too. TiamatRoar (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)