Talk:Metapedia

Do we really want to "invite" school-age students to this site?

It seems like "highly provocative" is a euphemism for racist hate-speech. How can any responsible person condone inviting impressionable kids to visit the site, as in "Anyone who wishes to investigate Metapedia for himself is invited to do so". I'm taking this line out, and anyone who feels it's appropriate for kids to visit a hate site needs to justify it here before reverting. --DinsdaleP 15:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I think people should be informed (read: warned) about this site because it's racism and Holocaust Denial, disguised as "just another wiki encyclopedia". However, I'm somewhat confused why our article starts out so extremely tame and only sorta-kinda points out the real identity of this site later on. The intro should really say that this is a site that pushes historical revisionism and racism.

And I completely agree that we shouldn't encourage people to visit this site. At all. What would parents say if they discovered that their children visited a racist site? And what would they say if they were told that THIS site encouraged their kids to do so?

I would also ask somebody with Upload rights to scrub the URL from the screenshots. It's silly to say that linking to the site is forbidden when the URL is plainly visible in apparently all images of the gallery. --DirkB 15:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

What's ridiculous is that certain wikis are forbidden to be mentioned or linked to from CP because they express non-conservative views while claiming to be rational, and you don't see articles about them with screen captures to show why it's inappropriate. Yet somehow, it's okay to devote an article full of euphemisms and screen captures with the URL to a hate-speech wiki that disguises itself as "alternative". I wonder just who from "the administration" is willing is willing to put their names on the record as being for the not-so-subtle promotion of this site on CP. --DinsdaleP 15:59, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm willing to Assume Good Faith for the moment, but when comparing this to some other extremely bold "We expose the truth!" articles (like the ones about Obama, Wikipedia, etc.), it does look "carefully worded".

The article does need work, even when you ignore these issues. I'll try to aid in the clean-up without being overly "controversial". --DirkB 16:05, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm in two minds. On the one hand it's an nasty, deceitful little site. It tries to look reasoned and rational, slips in little insuations, then little half truths, then full blown Nazi lies. On the other hand: looking at this site and reviewing just how it tries to go about it's foul purpose would be a very good exercise to innoculate students against some of the more insidious deceit that's put there. Anyway I think the article should either be deleted (no great loss!) or it should "tell it how it is" (I've put something in to that effect) --Toffeeman 17:21, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Gallery disclaimer

I'd like to remove or at least trim the two-point disclaimer for the Gallery because it strikes me as trivial. However, I'm waiting for Green Light From Above because it's not urgent and because there might be a deeper meaning behind it.

The first point simply says that these screenshots are JPEGs (*gasp*), and the second point seems to be senseless since Metapedia doesn't allow IP editing anyway, so there shouldn't be any IP info that had to be scrubbed. However, I admit that I didn't scan all screenshots in greater detail, so please correct me if I'm wrong. --DirkB 16:30, 6 September 2008 (EDT)