Jump to content

Talk:Bash Back!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Bash Back)

Demonstration at Michigan Church

[edit]

Is the attack on the church in Michigan still considered illegal if nobody was arrested? Saying they did anything illegal seems like a lot of hearsay.----Dana

Removed "christophobic" to describe BashBack members in the action as it was obvious editorializing, but also if we're using neologisms, "myschristonistic" (hatred of christ) might be a more acurate term. -d

That would probably be "misochristianic" (by analogy with "misogynistic"). – ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah I see, Gays can use words like homophobic but when I use Christaphobic, I'm editorializing. Typical liberal logic Maybe I should have used the word Hetrophobic - No that would be editorializing also because the Gay left didn't make up the word so it can't be true after all the words thy make up are never neologisms are they, they are facts after all Wakopedia even has a page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.209.136 (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Homophobia" is not a neologism, its use (in the homosexual sense) dates back to 1971. Occu͡pax (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Term Christaphobia goes back to the 1st century church hence the use of the Greek terms. except then it was two words instead of one. they also used Dietyphobia or Dietiphobia (fear of God)in fact there is even a old christian punk band with that name--75.31.209.136 (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pople didn't speak English in the 1st century CE and we didn't have the institution of psychiatry to create disorder complex classifications in the 1st century CE either. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.87.203 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, homophobic is not used in this article. Are you talking about some other article? Occu͡pax (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was up there along with Transgenderphobes until I edited it 7 times & almost got banned for it. Then someone screwed up & forgot to remove it or got tired of me & edited it out. but it was up there for as long as the article first appeared.--75.31.209.136 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the information to change things, but we ought to address the paragraph "This action resulted in a large uproar from the religious right, where they eloborated and made up many stories about the actual events that took place such as stating that fire alarms were pulled and people were "sodomizing in the restrooms." Neither accusation has been conclusively confirmed." I don't believe there are any citations, and this is clearly editorializing, isn't it (not to mention the word "eloborated," which I can only assume to be elaborated...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.112.19 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bringing up liberals and gays when upset typical conservative tactic

Wikipedia's censorship

[edit]

I looked up Bash Back (The sodomite terrorist group that attacked the Church in Michigan) on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash_Back) just to see what liberal bias they would have. Under the section "Antifascist action at 2008 Milwaukee Pridefest" Wakopedia says "In response, Bash Back! Milwaukee planned a confrontation of the hate group." the "hate group they are talking about is the NAZIs but then if the NAZIs are a hate group then Bash back must also be a hate group so I edited it to say "In response, The hate group Bash Back! Milwaukee planned a confrontation of the hate group."

Since they also didn't have any topic for the new terrorist attack on the church I added a few lines & was attacked by the Admins. So they added the following paragraph 2008 Disruption at Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, MI

Bash Back! members disrupted a Sunday sermon at Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th, 2008. They dropped a banner in the church, threw thousands of fliers, made out in front of the congregation, yelled "Jesus was a Homo", pulled the fire alarm and initiated pro-gay chants. Mt. Hope is an Assemblies of God church which holds and promotes "ex-gay" events and preaches that homosexuality is a sin.


I edited the first line of the paragraph to read "Christaphobic Bash Back! members disrupted.... & added the following footnote


"Christphobia (from Greek Christós: Messiah; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Christianity."

I took the defanition word for wors from Wakopedia's defanition for Homophobia & just changed the Homo/Christos & Homo/ Christian parts.

For this I recieved the following note from the admin

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Bash Back. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Please maintain a neutral point of view. ukexpat (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny how liberals love to censor everyone & then call us evil

--75.31.209.136 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia does not publish original research. The neo-nazi groups mentioned are referred to by reliable sources as hate groups, Bash Back is not.
  2. Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. What you wrote was opinionated, and even if it wasn't,
  3. you don't "own" what you write; if you don't want it to be edited, do not submit it. Occu͡pax (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH so if I get a liberal gay rag to write it then i can quote it like you guys do. NICE, real NICE, get a quote from one liberal rag & call it truth. I agree that the Neo-NAZI group is a hate group, any moron could see that but so is any group that vomits HATE at anyone so Bash Back is a HATE GROUP but I guess when they start to burn down churches & kill Christians then maybe, just maybe, you liberals will call them a hate group after all if them carrying signs that say THIS FAG KILLS NAZIs isn't HATE, I don't know what is. OPPS I forgot, only conservatives can be a HATE GROUP. Sorry I forgot I was in Liberal Land when I entered Wakopedia

About the edit part, it would be fine if normal folks edited my stuff but when Censoring liberal Admins delete anything that they feel is not PC then yes like all REAL AMERICANS I get upset after all this us the U.S.A. for 2 months not the Socialist States of Obama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.209.136 (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are not the only reliable sources, if you can quote an academic paper from a sociologist studying a hate group that would be even better. And only one organization naming it that would probably not be accepted, especially if it were excessively partisan as you suggest.
Admins don't "delete anything that they feel is not PC", by the way, there are established policies and guidelines even they have to follow. Occu͡pax (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's about time LGBT people fought back against morons like you, and calling people sodomites got old after people stopped believing in fairytales. Remember Matthew Shepard and Harvey Milk the people who killed them were more terrorists than these guys. You've just proved how liberals are much smarter than you.

Why was the word terrorist removed

[edit]

According to the all knowing god-admins of wakopedia, terrorism is defined as

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Is that not what these terrorist did to that church???????? so why not call the kettle black if it is indeed black --75.31.209.136 (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, can you imagine the reaction if a bunch of Neo Nazis disrupted services in a Jewish temple, called the congregants "Evil Kikes", placed a Nazi banner,and began giving the Hitler salute? There would be a Federal investigation, the FBI, Hiomelsnd Security would be involved, all involved would be put away for decades under so called "Hate Crime" laws.........Do you liberals really think that you can conceal your hypocrisy and double standards much longer? What will finally happen when decades of repressed rage from the normal working and middle class population finally erupts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.15.26 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Occu͡pax (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have a look at WP:TERRORIST. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So in others words Wakopedia is not a trusted source for info. I quoted this wakopedia definition of terrorist in the article & said that Bash back was by definition a terrorist group & then I was banned because I didn't quot from trusted sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.209.136 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, yes. Articles should rely on reliable sources, and not on content from other Wikipedia pages. PhilKnight (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they haven't killed or bombed anyone have they? they're more protesters than terrorists

Reword article

[edit]

This article states among other things that members of this group, ' made out in front of the congregation.' This should be rewritten. It is not language appropriate to an encyclopedia. Devil Goddess (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is the word "queer" okay to be used? 86.149.223.56 (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some sections of the gay community use the word "queer" to describe themselves so, yes, it is OK as used in this article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion of "queer" necessarily. "Made out" should definitely go - it is an informal expression, and including it gives the article an inappropriate tone. It is simply not the kind of thing one expects to read in an encyclopedia. Devil Goddess (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that congregants "made out" in front of the conversation is sourced only by right-wing blogs and Bash Back! news, neither up to snuff for Wikipedia. More reliable journalistic investigations deny the veracity of the claims. PyroGamer (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ALSO: the website for Bash Back has changed? The external link is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.98.1 (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Right Michigan" is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia

[edit]

Wikipedia does not accept propoganda for source references. The "Right Michigan" article that is being used as a source opens with "This is what we're up against". It is not an acceptable source. The City Pulse article was merely reporting that "Right Michigan" was CLAIMING these things.

Until there is an acceptable source for this supposed "infiltration", it was merely a peaceful picketing, and not of significance to Wikipedia. PyroGamer (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PyroGamer, I've partially restored using this source:
  • Murray, Joe (November 12, 2008). "Prop 8 Protests Against Mormons, Other Churches Get Ugly". The Bulletin.
PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulletin says it's a "family" newspaper, and the treatment in the article did not seem objective as I glanced over it. I would suggest you use the Lansing State Journal source, which, although it only presents the side of the Church, at least refrains from interjecting its own judgements. You could also reference the Bash Back website, as it appears to be the "official" (oxymoron, I know) claim to responsibility over the protest. However, this still doesn't say anything about whether this particular protest is notable, at least to the extent overzealous wikipedians made it. It seems to me Bash Back! has done plenty of protests, and this one hasn't even gained much national attention. PyroGamer (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Hate speech against Christians - typical for Wakopedia

[edit]

Seems that Wakopedia doesn't accept any none liberal gay loving source as acceptable. just like they won't accept anyone writhing the truth about this event. every time the truth is told, it gets deleted & the writer gets banned. but the gays can write any Christaphobic anti-christian speech they want & Wakopedia's fascist admins lets it say up. The part about the fire alarms was from the bash back website not a group of "Religious Right" people. now quick, admins ban me before the truth gets out - you liberal cowards.--75.31.209.136 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could I ask your opinion regarding this version? Less objectionable? PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reports that fire alarms were pulled are false. If you think that the Lansing Fire Department is a "christaphobic anti-christian liberal gay-loving" source, well you oughtn't be on Wikipedia, where we value things like verifiability and sanity. Reports of Condom Throwing and Glitter tossing have also been denied by reliable sources. The only information that is verifiable and not contradicted by reliable sources is that they dropped a banner from the balcony and showered approximately 1,000 fliers on the congregation. PyroGamer (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is this group is "against Christians"? or against groups that advocate a message they find offensive? I somehow don't think they would be against the Metropolitan Community Church.--DCX (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, Wikipedia's discussion boards are not a talk page for general questions about any article's subject, so especially about groups that are involved in controversy, I would advise not asking questions outside of the context of the article. But insofar as your question relates to the article, the points of unity are the self-identified definiting characteristics of group organizers. If it is not clear, the conflict with religious groups sometimes comes into play against those groups which advocate against gay rights. Bash Back! could be described as advocating against opposition to gay rights. Is that clear? Do you have any suggestions for making the article convey this idea more clearly? Blue Rasberry 23:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about general discussions. I ask because there is a proposed deletion of the Hate group category, and was considering if they are considered a hate group (and if, how). I have not drawn any preconceived conclusion, but it wouldn't matter if they were considered for being anti-gay or anti-christian, I cannot find evidence that they are either.--DCX (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the fire alarm, in this archived local newspaper article it is indeed denied by a spokesman of the Delta Township Fire Department that they received an alarm. Explanations that the point was reiterated in the judicial ruling could be that is was a local fire alarm (not connected with the fire department, only making a noise) or that the defendants found it unuseful to deny this further when settling the issue. Bever (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013 event in Toronto in September

[edit]

https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/BashBackTO shows groups consolidating around #BashBackTO including "Queer Action Niagara". Apparently people from the Ryerson University newspaper as well as Slate (magazine) were in attendance, so we should keep an eye out for any potential articles from them. This civilian reporter has already provided photos taken at the event which clearly exhibit widespread use of the "Bash Back" slogan used in the protest. Ranze (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bash Back!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Bash Back!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ended

[edit]

The second paragraph of the lead could be read as if the group stopped because of the Mount Hope Church ruling. However, there is no indication in the source article that there was a relation between the ruling and the up-break of the group. Although it is not said literally in this article that there was such a relation, putting information about the two events in one sentence is confusing. Bever (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bash Back!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability

[edit]

[1] @GPRamirez5, re: "These sources look RS to me." Which? Indymedia is citizen media with no hallmarks of editorial reliability. If you want to discuss one source in particular, go for it, but you just re-added a litany of unreliable sources and a cleanup tag marked for half a decade. czar 13:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I didn't realize I was restoring so much. I'm editing now with more stable sourcing.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Fire Semester 3

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Folkloree, Metsvikingsfan5, SparklyDuck.

— Assignment last updated by Princess ivy 2000 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bash_Back!&oldid=1211020667"