Talk:86 (term)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Allusion"

This seems resolved.

Note this edit: we do not know if that small "sign" or whatever it was was an allusion to this reading. An allusion is only an allusion if it is intended to be one, and we just do not know that. Cold Season, removing that (again) is a BLP violation: it is the same as putting words in the governor's mouth. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC) @Drmies: You are WP:INVOLVED as I suggested on your talk page. Your edit is not supported by fact. Detroit News 1 Newsweek 2 New York Times 3 - Your addition of the words which right-wing media claimed was are not supported by RS. It looks like WP:POV. I oppose the edit but you have not allowed anyone to revert you with your administrative restriction this was your second time adding in the disputed language and non-admins are not allowed to revert. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 1RR sidebar @Lightburst: WP:INVOLVED applies to administrator actions, and as far as I can see, Drmies has not taken administrative actions with respect to this page. If you're referring to the 1RR, that was me who placed that restriction, and it applies to admins just the same as it does to any other editor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC) @GorillaWarfare: I saw that and I do not consider you involved because you are not forcing your edits- yet Drmies is immune from a 1rr. He added the material twice which is a revert of it's own kind. I have asked him to self revert a POV not supported by RS. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC) How is Drmies immune from 1RR? How about you, Drmies, and whoever else is interested (Cold Season, presumably) all discuss the change here, and then if there is consensus to remove/change the content it can be implemented? Hell, I'll implement the change myself once consensus is achieved, if that's what it takes. I introduced 1RR to try to force y'all to discuss rather than reverting one another, and having you just move to trying to force each other to revert your own edits is not the outcome I was hoping for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) From my reading of BRD: adding disputed material is the opposite of WP:BRD. Drmies claim of BLP is a misuse of the guideline. We follow the RS and none of it says "right wing media". Yet how does one revert an administrator who twice added disputed material? One does not... Lightburst (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC) One discusses the change here, explains their concerns with it, and reaches consensus along with other editors of the page. I am still confused by your interpretation of 1RR and how it does or doesn't apply to admins, but that is perhaps neither here nor there, because reverting is the last thing anyone needs to be doing right now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Since administrator GorillaWarfare has clarified that WP:1RR, which she placed on 86 (term), "applies to admins just the same as it does to any other editor," it's germane to point out that administrator Drmies violated that restriction with his reversion at 17:22, 19 October 2020, coming 19 minutes after 1RR was imposed and 61 minutes after his previous reversion of the same edit. Should a sanction be imposed? NedFausa (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Drmies added disputed language 1 was reverted 2 added disputed material again 3. I am taking a break. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I have been looking at policy pages to try to clarify, but I don't believe that 1RR applies retroactively to edits before the restriction was imposed. Another revert by Drmies would unquestionably be in violation (assuming there is no BLP exemption, but this does not appear to be the kind of egregious BLP concern that would normally grant an exception to #RR restrictions), but I don't think his actions so far are. Open to input from other admins if my interpretation is unusual. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC) In that case, the page notice should be revised, per the addition in bold italics: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article after 1RR was imposed, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. NedFausa (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Silly season indeed. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare, my feeling is that of course it doesn't apply retroactively; to me that seems absurd. I'm not even sure that would need to be clarified, though I have no objection to clarifying a rule if it's confusing others. —valereee (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Appreciate the second opinion; I was surprised it wasn't mentioned at WP:1RR but perhaps it is so obvious to others that it hasn't been mentioned for that reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Nice interpretation. So I am free to revert it? It will be my first revert since the notice. Lightburst (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I am pretty sure this is the standard interpretation. While you technically won't be in violation of the 1RR if you revert, continuing the edit war does not reflect well on anyone and I am this close to full-protecting the page for edit warring. Can y'all please just discuss this rather than insisting on reverting? This probably could've been done and dusted if you'd just discuss the contested text over these past few hours rather than litigating the revert restriction. You are experienced editors, you should know better. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC) A few months back an editor was sanctioned under DS for problematic edits made before they were aware of DS (one non-problematic edit in topic area was made after awareness, uncontroversial grammar fix). I was, out of curiosity, asking L235 about awareness rules in response to this, as logically I would think (further) problematic behaviour has to occur after being aware to be sanctioned. Otherwise, one could just run-around the DS rules by alerting then sanctioning next time they make any edit in the topic area, even if it's just adding a comma where it should be. The wording of AWARE doesn't seem to explicitly say problematic behaviour has to occur after being aware, though, which I found odd. Maybe I'm missing a fineprint somewhere. I suspect that sanctioned editor might have been able to appeal their topic ban successfully, but they were too knew to understand ARCA etc. Unfortunately, they've now left the wiki. I think this is something ArbCom must clear up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Going to respond on your talk page since this seems mostly unrelated to this issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) A self revert by Drmies would be appropriate. The material they have added is not supported by RS and it is disputed. The way things have been done on the project: disputed material is removed and then discussed. Disputed material is not installed and then discussed. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Lightburst, what I'd suggest instead is that -- on any 1RR article, including this one -- you open a discussion and everyone stops reverting until consensus has been reached. —valereee (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC) "Allusion" discussion Should which right-wing media claimed (or similar) remain in the sentence In 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer had a small sign inscribed with a "8645", which right-wing media claimed was an allusion to the term and the 45th US President (Donald Trump), in the background during a Meet the Press interview? Remove. I find this to be a bureaucrat dispute... Does anyone really believe that 86 does not refer to 86 as in the term? The references don't: The collection of numbers, as listed on Urban Dictionary, is "a sneaky way to illustrate one's support of getting rid of Trump, '86ing' the 45th president." Anti-Trump apparel bearing the same symbol uses similar descriptions of its meaning. Merriam-Webster defines eighty-six as a slang term synonymous with the following phrases: "to refuse to serve (a customer)", "to get rid of", or "throw out". (NEWSWEEK) So does 86 mean murder? Merriam-Webster Dictionary says it means “to refuse to serve (a customer),” “to get rid of” and/or “throw out.” That’s because it’s most commonly used in restaurants or bars when they want to get a disruptive patron to leave. (IBTIMES) Whitmer, a national campaign co-chair for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, made the comments with an "8645" emblem on a table beside her visible in the camera frame, an apparent anti-Trump message referring to "86ing," or getting rid of, the 45th president. (DETROITNEWS) “45” refers to Trump, and “86” is slang primarily used by restaurant workers to denote getting rid of something or it being out of stock, or refusing to serve a customer — though the shorthand, which has no confirmed etymology, has become popular outside the service industry as well. (NYMAG) In common parlance, 86’d means to get rid of something, and the term is widely believed to have originated in food service as a way to designate an item that wasn’t available anymore or a customer that should be ejected. (VICE) According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "86" is slang for refusing to serve a customer. It can also mean to get rid of or throw out. The etymology for the term is disputed, explains Ben Zimmer in The Atlantic, but it has its origins in the restaurant industry to refer to menu items that are no longer available. (DETROIT FREE PRESS) Whitmer's own spokesperson doesn't (in response to the Trump campaign claiming that 86 is about killing): It's pretty clear nobody in the Trump campaign has ever worked a food service job. [1][2]. Neither left-wing and right-wing media is in dispute that 86 is in reference to 86 as a term. Only its meaning. Nor is it only right-wing media that states that 86 references the term. --Cold Season (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Remove. The disputed sentence is followed by two references, neither of which support Wikipedia's clause which right-wing media claimed. The first, Washington Examiner, does not mention right-wing media broadly. Rather, it attributes the claim to one "of the Trump campaign's verified Twitter accounts" and to the Urban Dictionary's definition as "a sneaky way to illustrate one's support of getting rid of Trump." In its own voice, Washington Examiner explains, "The first half of the sequence, 86, is a common restaurant industry term meaning to remove something from the menu—typically because the kitchen has run out of it. The second half, 45, is likely a reference to Trump, the 45th president." Given that Wikipedia identifies Washington Examiner as a "conservative news website and weekly magazine," the most that can be made of this source is that one conservative news outlet, not right-wing media generally, infers that allusion. The second reference is Newsweek, whose post-2013 articles "are not generally reliable," according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Like Washington Examiner, Newsweek attributes the 8645 allusion to "Trump's reelection campaign" and cites the same Urban Dictionary definition. Newsweek does not generalize about right-wing media. For these reasons, I believe the clause in question should be removed. NedFausa (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I have only looked quickly, but according to sources it seems like the claim was made by the White House / Trump's campaign, and they're the main ones promoting this (presumably as a campaign strategy - god knows why they think this is helpful to the American voter) so why not just say that? i.e.: "In 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer had a small sign inscribed with a "8645" in the background during a Meet the Press interview. Representatives of the 2020 Trump presidential campaign interpreted this as an encouragement for the assassination of Trump." What are we mentioning right wing media, or media in general, for? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Also, where is the citation? Neither of the two sources have "right" or "media" in this context? This just seems like OR? If the current wording is a BLP violation as claimed (which it perhaps is), just strip the entire part of the sentence and do what I wrote above, attributing the claim directly to the campaign, which can be sourced. Respectfully, I don't see how introducing OR is ever the answer to fix a BLP issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Remove adding "which right-wing media claimed was" is editorializing. Frankly I am astonished that three administrators believe it is ok to force disputed content into an article and then insist that we need to discuss removing it. The RS does not support that this was a "right wing media claim". I have posted some RS which says nothing about "Right Wing Media": Detroit News 1 Newsweek 2 New York Times 3. Drmies added disputed language 1 was reverted 2 added disputed material again 3 I asked Drmies to self revert and I am quite disappointed that he refused. Lightburst (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I feel the disputed material is an editorial - I guess Drmies just confirmed that with this statment. Suggests that I should care more about the Governor. It is a False equivalence but it also reveals a motivation. I have much respect for Drmies on the project, but I am afraid he is wrong here. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Also suggests that I am the "right wing"? Or that those who want to excise the language are? I am surely baffled since we seem to be tying to fairly attribute material without a political editorial. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Lightburst, no one is saying it's okay to force disputed content into an article and then insist we need to discuss removing it. We're saying stop reverting and discuss and that as administrators we are less concerned with the "right" version than we are with preventing edit warring. There's discussion at The Wrong Version. We're saying don't make me stop this car. —valereee (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Thank you, I was looking for that! Didn't think to look way over on meta, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Found it at WP:WRONG VERSION :) I too was surprised to find it wasn't on enwiki. —valereee (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC) It's sweet that admins Valereee and GorillaWarfare can joke amongst themselves, but it doesn't change the fact that this disputed content remains on the page despite its obvious lack of Wikipedia:Verifiability. NedFausa (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC) NedFausa, I'm sorry we've discussed this in ways that don't come across as serious. Many of us try to pull discussions that have descended into assumptions of bad faith back into territory where we can discuss reasonably, and many of us use humor in that attempt. That doesn't mean we don't take it seriously. Have you read the discussion at The Wrong Version? —valereee (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Valereee: more to the point, have you read the discussion at Talk:86_(term)#"Allusion"_discussion? NedFausa (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) NedFausa, I don't really care about the discussion. The editors here need to figure this out, and I'm not going to try to provide a supervote. I just want you to stop edit warring and start discussing and finding consensus. —valereee (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) @NedFausa: One side of the dispute claims that disputed content remains on the page despite obvious lack of verifiability; the other side was claiming disputed content remained on the page despite BLP violations. That's precisely what the page valereee linked addresses, albeit in a humorous way. I am keeping an eye on this discussion for a bit longer but I assure you I am staying good to my word that I will implement the consensus myself if and when I see it. I have no opinion on the actual dispute, I am just here to try to keep the peace. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare: you yourself said "this does not appear to be the kind of egregious BLP concern that would normally grant an exception to #RR restrictions." What other BLP concern do you have? NedFausa (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) See WP:3RRNO, which explains that what counts as exempt per BLP is contentious. There are some bright line things that would be exemptions (e.g. "so and so committed [some heinous crime]" without a source), which is what I was referring to by "egregious". But I didn't (and don't) think that the concern here was such an egregious one that the #RR needs to be bypassed, especially with the number of experienced editors' eyes on the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I implemented the change suggested by ProcrastinatingReader above here. I think they make a good point and seeing as no one here wants unverified OR in the article and this should address the BLP idea I think it is a good fit. PackMecEng (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC) That has no consensus and is stripped from all context, not an improvement over [...] with a "8645", an allusion to the term and the 45th US President (Donald Trump), [...]. The sources agree that 86 is a reference to 86 as a term and that 45 is a reference to Trump. The only thing that's in dispute is what 86 means, which is not an issue here as there is no mention of it in this sentence. The only thing in error is the addition of the OR which right-wing media claimed. --Cold Season (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I've implemented the emerging consensus to remove the phrase here: [3]. I think PackMecEng's other addition can be discussed further if need be, but there is at least agreement to remove the phrase regarding right-wing media. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC) That further discussion is not necessary. Whitmer herself commented about the situation now, which reconfirms the pointlessness of this "allusion" dispute by user Drmies. --Cold Season (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead this needs to be restored

Resolved. Content restored.

Eighty-six or 86 is American English slang. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it primarily means "to eject or debar (a person) from premises; to reject or abandon". It is used in food and drink services to indicate that an item is no longer available or that a customer should be ejected. Outside this context, the term is generally used with the meaning to 'get rid of' someone or something. This was removed as merely duplicating the lead. The opposite is true, the lead is to summarize the article. Gleeanon 04:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC) References Oppose. Regardless of its placement in an article, any paragraph that repeats nearly verbatim the paragraph immediately preceding it, is needlessly duplicative and should be removed. NedFausa (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandal editor specifically admits to political bias driving this edit war

The editor who originally vandalized the page (made knowingly bad edits)specifically admits to political bias driving this edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Involved

"Bullshit. The Newsweek article makes it clear that it's the Trump team ..."

They then abuse WP's policies on providing safe spaces by demanding that the editor who disagreed with their changes was *stalking* their user page and demanded that they leave. Clearly not the actions of an honest person acting in good faith.

Yes, it is abnormal to have to call this out but the process appears to be breaking

Whatever someone's motivation is for linking to WP, or whatever they stand to gain from referencing a particular fact, it is the goal of WP to be complete and correct. Even if you stand for this editor's politics you must resist this abuse of our shared commons.

Read all the posts of NedFausa and Drmies here and on their user pages, and then GorillaWar whose edits and edit-locking all coincidentally serve the same goals. Read my user page to see Gorilla's earlier abuses, deleting "bad" comments that point this out. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How is "Bullshit. The Newsweek article makes it clear that it's the Trump team ..." admitting to political bias? Discussing what sources say is precisely how disputes are meant to be resolved on Wikipedia. As for my edits, clearing out comments that violate WP:TPG is standard practice, and removing screeds about how "Wikipedia is becoming Trumpipedia" etc. is not "abuse" (not to mention it was a comment that directly contradicts the bias you're claiming we all have). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't claim WP was becoming Trump anything. You have the confusions.

Drmies comment should be sufficient proof that they're more concerned with the politics than the facts. My earlier comments pointed our their disingenuous arguments but yeah, you followed policy by deleting them. That's crack editing. Similarly NedFausa was upset that the Trump team was getting value from a WP link. How dare they reference WP, those dirty rightists... This clearly isn't a valid reason to make a purportedly factual edit.

The bias I'm claiming that *you* have is to process over results even when you can see that your cronies - as editors, not necessarily politically - are acting in bad faith to disagree with non-editor users (generally those whose ID is an IP.) I'm saying *you* would rather play your complex Nomic because you seemingly support form over function, and call all accusations personal attacks even when they're plainly evident.154.5.84.161 (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You were complaining about the comments I removed, and I was referencing one of them ([4]). But I agree with Gleeanon that this is a waste of time to reply to. If my (or anyone else's) editing is biased or otherwise against policy, feel free to report it at the proper noticeboard. Otherwise, this just appears to be an unproductive rant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm not looking to join another tiresome process, nor do I actually want to censure *any* of you. I want you all to recognize your actions are harmful and self-adjust. N and D in their transparently conflicted editing, or you being more interested in tell me I'm ranting than calling out fellow editors abusing the system. ("Please stop stalking my user page ..."). If you simply had not picked a side and let the edit war continue we'd be better off than with a playground cop censoring comments.154.5.84.161 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

154, your WP:TLDR rants are exhausting and not worth responding to in general. Please consider more constructive ways of acting with people you hope will see you view. Glee^anon 22:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

And yet I've posted far less than Ned or Drmies and you don't feel the need to tell them that their rants are exhausting. I'm not claiming a procedural right, or actually reverting anyone and somehow it's more important to scold me for being shrill than to actually admit that this is a politically-motivated tempest in a teapot. Priorities... Had GW let my initial post stand pointing out the dishonesty of the argument, and likely many similar posts, the nonsense would be more obvious and we could short-circuit this and similar editor tantrums. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The point isn’t someone else is also causing issues, it’s that you are. Play nice if you want your opinions truly heard. Glee^anon 23:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Be *NICE*, the cry of someone who's exhausted "stop bugging me with facts". Regardless, neither of you can point to a single thing I've done (other than use too many tiresome words) that's mean. I'm not tying up a simple change with a bad-faith engagement in process, I'm simply pointing out that people's words don't match their supposed actions. I'm not standing between you and any action you're taking so I'm clearly not "causing issues." Why so dramatic? 154.5.84.161 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

My impression was that you objected to killing being removed, I have restored it in a NPOV manner with reliable sourcing. I consider the matter resolved. Happy editing. Glee^anon 00:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about that. I got here via the delete chat, not from my political leanings. The saying isn't common where I live, and your presidential election only impacts me tangentially. My dog in this fight, such as I have one, is that Wikipedia remain accurate and most importantly transparent, so it can be perceived as accurate. But, regarding your edit since you asked... it seems like if all the accepted usage isn't in the intro then it gives a direct impression that this is a fringe meaning, something which isn't supported by the plethora of examples in this talk page. So NPOV it's now understated. Seriously, just put 'or to kill' back at the top, super simple. It was correct before, that's why I called the initial edit vandalism.

Please explain why you think that Snopes *is NOT* a good source on the existence of this usage. I imagine you would accept their debunking of urban legends. You're not arguing they're a bad source in general? This is something I imagine most non-WPers are wondering about. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been here fifteen years, and I can't say that I've ever agreed with anon IP's more than in this case (154.5.84.161 and 47.148.108.245). IP have made understandable statements, presented clear evidence, made rational arguments, and been concise in same. There's been no ranting. There's been frustration at the obvious being argued as not so; and the not obvious argued to be so; I share that frustration. This talk page now is an object lesson in what is wrong not just with Wikipedia, but with political discourse and online discourse today. The utterly uncontroversial term '86', a rarely visited page all other things being equal, is used "out there" in meatspace (of sorts), and as a result we have a steaming pile here, with vitriol and victors and vanquished, vacillating seemingly by the hour. Just because some dicks didn't like what other dicks said. Pathetic. I'm stowing my soapbox now, I know it's not welcome. Anastrophe (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed Anastrophe rightly calls out the gaslighting behaviors on this page "obvious being argued as not so; and the not obvious argued to be so". I too was educated by 154.5.84.161's contributions to this page. They correctly stated that the administrators involved were playing a "complex Nomic to support form over function". I too was astonished that administrators would ignore the guidelines to support a politically motivated editorial by an administrator. This is a discussion about 86'd on the English encyclopedia - not an article about Trump or Whitmer. Yet the edit and subsequent discussion on this talk page revealed much.

This began to turn into the Bizarro world when, (to support keeping her colleague's wrongheaded edit in the article), Valeree thought it would be fun to quote a humorous essay. Gorilla Warfare quickly agreed that the essay was the correct non-policy, non-guideline to support the edit. The two administrators then agreed that the long forgotten essay pulled from the abandoned Wikipedia server was great. Valeree injected humor again by quoting what all of our mothers surely said when we misbehaved during a car ride, "don't make me stop this car." During this time waste the AfD nominator stopped by Gorilla Warfare's talk page to tell her what a terrific job she was doing "thanks for helping keep straight the craziness that is Talk:86 (term)" - yet it appears that he was the very reason for the 1rr limit in the first place: destructive edit 1, destructive edit 2- was reverted 3 destructive edit 4 and was reverted 5. GorillaWarfare said to this editor who started the edit warring, Sure thing, it's a zoo over there.... Nice work Gorilla Warfare!

When Drmies immediately violated the 1rr template by re-installing his political statment about "right wing media" (after the installation of the 1rr template), I protested but Gorilla Warfare and Valeree agreed that Drmies indeed did not violate 1rr - the template says "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page" NedFausa also objected to the Drmies edit and pointed to the language in the template, but Drmies commented "silly season indeed" ...and then the two administrators used verbal gymnastics to contort the language in the template to protect Drmies edit, Valeree stated "my feeling is that of course it doesn't apply retroactively". Gorilla Warfare quickly agreed "appreciate the second opinion; I was surprised it wasn't mentioned at WP:1RR but perhaps it is so obvious to others that it hasn't been mentioned for that reason". I then asked, since I had not reverted since the template was placed, could I revert the edit of Drmies? Gorilla Warfare said she was "close to fully protecting the article" "...discuss the contested text".

I was simultaneously carrying on a talk page discussion with Drmies asking him to self revert and Drmies began to get angry: he began revealing his bias telling me "stop fucking caring about a trivial thing, and care more, maybe, about Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot" - I called this a false equivalence and shared it here with other two administrators along with another comment revelaing bias, "It's just kind of hilarious to see the entire right wing clutching their pearls over that little thingy". The other two administrators did not blink. Instead they continued to insist that editors participate in the talk page discussion based on their discovery of that humorous essay which was hidden in the computer code of some long forgotten Wikipedia server.

I conclude with helpful advice from 154.5.84.161 about "transparently conflicted editing... "Even if you stand for this editor's politics you must resist this abuse of our shared commons". Indeed. Thanks 154.5.84.161 for your contribution to the discourse and I will examine my own biases as a result. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've made the observation that this a "bureaucrat dispute" above before this... Sometimes, a so-called sense of procedural correctness is characterized by misuse, intentional or unintentional, that is detrimental to the process and has become the primary concern over anything else, which eventually leads to a NOTWP:LIVING MAN TO BE DECLARED DEAD (I felt like memeing back). --Cold Season (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been blocked from editing my userpage where I was adding details about this so I suppose it's likely I'll be blocked here as well soon. Thanks Anastrophe and Lightburst for the kind words. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Even if you stand for this editor's politics you must resist this abuse of our shared commons" The editor's politics stand explicitly for abusing our shared commons. Our shared commons is oppressive and must be destroyed. Haven't you realised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.170.165 (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

8645

Resolved. Content restored with sourcing.

The current edit war about slogan "8645" which was asserted by the Trump campaign to mean "Kill Trump. "8645" was listed in the article recently, but was removed. I think it's notable. It wasn't just invented this week. A USA Today story from Nov. 28, 2018: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/11/28/anti-trump-t-shirts/2136882002/ "T-shirts that it says advocated impeaching President Donald Trump. Wendy Carr, owner of Amigos in Westerly, says the business sold shirts with the logo, “86 45,” " You can find dozens of sites selling "8645" T-shirts, etc, described as "anti-Trump". I can't see any that say "murder Trump", though maybe the Trump War Room will create some to back up their claim. From https://www.distractify.com/p/what-does-864511320-mean (dated 2020-07-09) "Why Do People Keep Posting This 9-Digit "Secret Code" on Twitter?".... “86” means to cancel or nix something. In restaurants, it’s used to say they have run out of a certain item, but in general parlance, it basically means “get rid of.” “45” is used to refer to Donald Trump, the 45th president “11320” ... Election Day! -- also, excuse the OR, but the date makes the form of "86ing" obviously by voting out, rather than assassinating. You can argue that the campaign was using the definition in poor faith, and that they're making false allegations. But you can't claim that '86' could not mean 'kill', only that it didn't mean 'kill' in this usage. This slang has been around for years and its removal and absence from both wikipedia and wikitionary is incredibly telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.15.234.185 (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC) So, now that "Kill" has been put back in the article, without any explanation or context, why is "86 45" not listed in the "Popular Culture" section? 123.208.236.48 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Actually, the addition was made by a user who is a supporter of Donald Trump - I know because I traced them. Even if the addition was by a Trump supporter, how is that relevant when it was added long before any of this? Did they read the future? It was already on the page on May 10th. Matirion (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Of course, there are fellow DJT supporters on here that are going all out to both keep it and hide the truth of why it was added in the first place. 97.107.46.157 (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC) There are plenty of euphemisms for "kill", used either as a joke or to avoid liability. Can say that it's not what most people understand by "86", and that this "kill" meaning is not in any academic dictionary but not that no one ever used it like that. However, in the specific usage "86 45" there is plenty of documentation, as the USA Today story above, that it means "vote out", not "murder" and that should be added to the article. 123.208.236.48 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The Trump Team claim lacks context in our article

This seems resolved with murder content added to the article

Our quote about the Trump team lacks context and makes them seem crazy. But the Trump team said it was a call for assassination based on the text of own article - right here before an IP editor on October 18, 2020, removed the part about "killing" with a misleading edit summary "fixed typo". Our page called it killing as early as May 2020. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Please, what change are you requesting? NedFausa (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Other items in our article also used to suggest the term meant killing. 1, 2, and many more. I am saying exactly what I am saying. The article provides no context for the claim. It is hanging out there like a Matzah ball. The efforts of our editors to strip out killing as one of the terms possible meanings is real. Lightburst (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry. Call me one of the kids in the short bus, if you like. But I honestly don't understand. So let me ask again. Please, what change are you suggesting to our article? NedFausa (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC) The Trump team made the claim that 86 means killing. They cited two things: this Wikipedia article (an old version of it) and Urban Dictionary. I assume that Lightburst wants to make a mention of it. --Cold Season (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Yes Cold Season- that would include context and be less political. (edit conflict) At this point I am not calling for anything other than following the second of the five pillars. WP:5P2. Since Trump has become involved in the debate about the meaning of 86'd there is an effort to excise all references to killing and insert text like "right wing media" in order to make the claim seem crazy. We saw it playing out yesterday with the support of three administrators. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Oh, I agree that the admins fucked this up royally. But the phrase "right wing media" has been 86′d from our article, and I see no reason to keep harping on it. NedFausa (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Please cite the reliable sources and proposed wording for any addition. Gleeanon 21:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC) A good place to start is what Cold Season just pointed out. When I ask my Alexa a question she quotes Wikipedia. look at the page views on October 18 22,000+ - then on the 19th 50,000+. We told people it meant killing until October 18. Now we just look goofy and political. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I guess at this point at least somebody should mention Wikipedia:Navel-gazing. NedFausa (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC) We can already guess your political affiliation and it should stay out of your editing. Funny term though. Lightburst (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I restored killing as a meaning once I found reliable sources to do so. Enough complaining already, is there any actual change your proposing? And using what reliable sourcing? Gleeanon 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Your point about connecting "killing" to reliable sources deserves elaboration. We don't know why Special:Contributions/2001:569:7425:2200:1577:A74B:FEF7:DEE0 removed "killing someone" from the lead at 18:52, 18 October 2020 because their deceptive edit summary said only "fixed typo." A different IP user restored it at 19:46, 18 October 2020 with no edit summary whatever. But when I removed it at 19:59, 18 October 2020, my edit summary stated: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I explicitly did not remove "killing someone" for political reasons. It was solely due to the absence of WP:RS anywhere in the article at that time to support such a claim.(Snopes was cited only in reference to the John Barrymore anecdote.) I wasn't trying to make the Trump team look bad. They don't need my help for that. But I was trying to make Wikipedia look responsible in adhering to one of its core content policies: Verifiability. NedFausa (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC) "...wasn't trying to make the Trump team look bad. They don't need my help for that". careful about showing your bias Yet you did make them look bad since they quoted our own article. The line was there in the intro for 6 months and other content also alluded to killing. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC) You are mistaken. Here is a link to the page as it existed immediately before I removed "killing someone." No other content alluded to killing. NedFausa (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Agreed. There is no sourced reference to support this having the meaning of killing anywhere in the article. This seems to have been pure disinformation. This Wired story provides some background on why these edits may be happening just now. -- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The 2004 Red Sox 86ed the Curse

Missing Entertainment Reference: On October 27th, 2004, the Boston Red Sox won their first World Series in 86 years, one week after completing a 0-3 ALCS comeback against the New York Yankees. Among sports culture (and especially the Boston Sports scene), this has become widely referred to in 86ing the Curse of the Bambino. Phillipr360 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We need reliable sourcing to add this, I’m not seeing any so far. Glee^anon 17:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

86 in "The Witches" by Roald Dahl

I'd like to add under the entertainment section of this article:

• In the 1983 children's novel "The Witches" by Roald Dahl, the magic formula designed by the Grand High Witch to transform children into mice, thus removing children from the world, is called "Formula 86 Delayed-Action Mouse-Maker."

Unfortunately the article is locked for editing so I'm unable to add this. Zeke613 (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m not convinced it belongs but let’s look at your sourcing for it. Glee^anon 03:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Source #1, the author's website: https://www.roalddahl.com/blog/2015/october/secret-plans-of-the-grand-high-witch .

Source #2, the Wikipedia page for the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witches_(novel) (search for "86")

I think it belongs in this article because this reference to 86 is from a classic children's novel that has been made into two movies and, according to the Wikipedia article for the book, in November 2019, the BBC listed The Witches on its list of the 100 most influential novels. It is also unique because 86 is not usually referenced in children's media. Zeke613 (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I’m working on it. Glee^anon 06:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Content added, thank you for your suggestion! Glee^anon 07:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed this, I'm afraid, because without a secondary source connecting the number to its slang meaning, this is just trivia/coincidence. We do not have room or reason to mention all instances in fiction in which the number "86" was randomly chosen. The rest of the entertainment items (so far as I checked) connect the usage of the term to its primary associations, making them more appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I support removal for now. Roald Dahl was a British writer who married an American and seems to have lived in New York City during the 1950s and '60s. It's reasonable to infer that he would have been familiar with the American English slang term 86. He may even have known of the term's expansion during the 1970s to murder. As such, it's probably more than a coincidence that he chose 86 when naming his magic potion devised to trick adults into killing children. However, this is all surmise. Until we can cite a reliable source that explicitly tells us Dahl numbered his potion in honor of the American slang term, The Witches does not belong in this article. NedFausa (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I also support removal. If there was a secondary source discussing how the number was meaningful and a reference to this usage then I'd have no problem including it. But we don't need to go find every use of the number 86 and add it to this article–that's bordering on WP:TRIVIA and implies a connection to the term's slang use that isn't supported by sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I'm watching Gov. Whitmer on TV right now, and there's a green vase over there on the left. I wonder what it means? I think it is a clear reference to Greek antiquity, and that she is suggesting that the president should be overrun by Antifa like the Greeks were by the Persians at Thermopylae. Prove me wrong. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

How is this snark in any way constructive? To me, it seems completely irresponsible. NedFausa (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

86th Street station

The claim that the term may have originated on the Chicago L doesn't hold water; without going too far into original research, I think it should be removed from the article. There has never been an 86th Street station on the L, and the system did not go past 69th Street until midcentury. The only two elevated 86th Street stations that ever existed were in New York City, and neither was ever a terminal. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Lacking objection, I have removed it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Mafia Useage

I have read the term 86 to come from the roaring 20s mafia as a term to get rid of a rat "8 miles out, 6 feet down," but am finding it difficult to come up with a good reference. 2600:100E:B1DC:EE6B:BD26:6FFF:2FC2:BA11 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Slang term “86”

Has anyone ever commented about the strange coincidence (?) that the first brand name of mifepristone (an FDA approved medication for the medical termination of pregnancy) was RU486 - “Are you for eighty-six?” 72.74.213.31 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Deep six alternative?

Deep six In the sense that someone is killed and buried six feet underground. The standard internal coffin size may have been about 80". So, instead of saying put someone or something in a coffin and bury the person or thing, one could just say 80-6 the person or thing. That matches the way the term is used these days. Aouie (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Missing a stage play and movie

Visit to a small planet. 2603:7081:4600:7EBE:A136:3597:13EF:50A6 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

How is this specifically a notable usage of this term? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)