Talk:86 (term)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Origin of term

The origin of the term 86 is from Hollywood movies. Not surprising that a TV show would use it for Agent 86. The film camera, to balance the colour for film would use an 85 filter. It has a dark amber clour. When this filter wasn't needed (for example for use indoors) it was said to be the 86 filter. In other words nothing. It then became an expression on all movie sets, that when something needed to be removed it was to be eighty sixed.

There are may theories of where the term 86ed has originated, and most do point to NYC being the place. Time and actual conception are yet to be set in stone.

It is possible the origin of 86'd came from the ANSI standard numbers where "86" refers to a lockout.

Please suggest any theories and I will personally properly research it (User:Jjozoko) just remember:

YahooAnswers referencing Ask.com referencing WikiAnswers referencing UrbanDictionary referencing back to YahooAnswers has no place on Wikipedia.

Thanks,

So far, the following examples have been nothing more than bunk:

• Article 86 of the New York State Liquor Code: Currently there is no such thing, the NY Liquor code only has 11 articles, if someone has access to an old code, please come forward.

• The phrase; "80 miles out and 6 feet under" has yet to be properly referenced.

• The whole 86 Bedford Steet/Chumley's theory has never been properly referenced.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjozoko (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Uniform Code of Military Justice

Even though, UCMJ "Article 86 - Absence without Leave" is far more popularly known as AWOL versus 86, it should still be noted as another viable source of the term 86. When the U.S. Congress passed the Uniform Code of Military Justice; Sub Chapters One through Twelve, including Articles 1 through 146, in 1950, and signed into law by President Truman in 1951. Article 86: Absence without leave, or more commonly known as AWOL, came into existence;

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority–

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; (2) goes from that place; or (3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjozoko (talk • contribs) 02:40, September 7, 2010

References

86 also directly corresponding to the letters W and O on a telephone

This needs further explanation. I can't puzzle out what this has to do with anything. How does this relate to anything else on the page? The author should either tell us what he is on about, or the entry should be deleted. Walk Out? Work Out? Whoa? 68.80.249.86 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Quba Osman

 Done Was it even fully accurate? I'm in Europe and on my phone W is a 9. In any case hardly relevant as given. Not even a sentence. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Birdy Reference

The song is not actually her's. It was released by Francis and the Lights. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdy_%28Birdy_album%29) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.217.8 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Visit to a Small Planet

This entire paragraph reads like opinion and/or original research. How is this relevant to the origin of the term? Where is the proof, or source, that verifies this, or makes this particular play so important that it's listed in the "Etymology" section rather than in the "Popular Culture" section? RhCordoba (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agent 86

My following edit under pop culture were removed being deemed: not relevant to "86" used as a term.

• Don Adams' character Maxwell Smart in the television series Get Smart (1965-69) (and later Steve Carell's in a movie version) was known as Agent 86.

I have to disagree with this assessment, as he is a failure as an agent. Anyone having seen the show can see his agent identification is not by accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.241.159 (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

-Response: And that is, exactly, why I coined the term. Agent 86 meant "this is a failure" (because he was a failure as an agent) and at the same time conveyed to my staff the message to "get smart". I believe I first used the term in about 1909 when I was working as a junior at Kentucky Fried Chicken.

-Response:

I do agree there is always relevancy behind naming a character, but find where it is noted that "86" as it pertains to Get Smart, is in fact, because of how the term is used in American pop culture. You can not site it, just because your gut tells you so. That was the problem with this page 6-month age. Find an interview with the creators, or the original screen play, something... Good luck.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjozoko (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am adding this obviously relevant item again, though reworded to fit in better. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As shown: "In 1965, the spy spoof TV series Get Smart chose 86 as the number of it's bumbling agent protagonist, thus the missions he worked on were "86'd"." . Without a reference, this is just speculation. Plus, as I recall, most/all of Maxwell Smart's missions were successfull.Flight Risk (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I watched Get Smart in the 1960s and met the son of one of the crew members in the 1980s. When the son told me his dad had worked on the show, I replied that it was a show I had watched (and I met his dad and have seen his dad's name in the credits on TV). The son said to me "You know why Maxwell Smart is called Agent 86, don't you? Because he 86'd everything." It was a revelation to hear that. "Of course," I thought, "that makes total sense." Max might have been a success as an agent, but it was often because of luck - and he did "86" things (break things or make a mess of things) along the way in each episode, there's no denying that. I doubt a script could be found that spells this out, but someone out there in Wiki-land hopefully can ask Buck Henry or Mel Brooks about whether this is true or not (unless those two prefer it to remain an "inside joke", if that's what it is, such that people who are savvy to the term "86" get their own satisfaction from making the connection). It would be nice to know from a historical perspective though if this is true or not, such that "Agent 86" can be added to the "Term 86" list, if it is true. Jay-Dee-07 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

list

The list of uses of the term is getting a bit ridiculous. I don't think we need to document every single time anyone has ever said this term in front of a microphone or a camera. I would like to discuss severely reducing the list to a few representative examples that are properly verified. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

origin of "86"

When I started to work as a cook in California restaurants in 1944 the term was already in use for several years to denote "we're all out". The usage was " 86 on the pot roast" or "86 on the sirloin tips" when the last order was plated to announce to the wait staff in general so they would stop taking orders for the item. Or if the waitress didn't know the item was no longer available and called in an order,we would say "We're 86 on that,Sally".

About that time a similar expression was in use in bars to shut off service to a drunken customer, "You're 86, Charlie" meaning "No more for you now". This was more polite than telling him he was too drunk to serve. The culprit might subsequently complain, " The SOB 86'd me"

The theory of a reference to to a paragraph in the liquor regulation seems most probable. Bear in mind that when prohibition ended in 1933 there was a profusion of new laws on the part of cities and states relating to the sale of alcohol.By now most of those early statutes have probably been revised or replaced and renumbered. Research on the early regulations could be expected to unearth a long forgotten paragraph #86.

<Alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition; Harry G Levine and Craig Reinarman, 2004> ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by California jim (talk • contribs) 04:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Etymology Section

There seems to be a rather large contradiction in the Etymology section. The first line cites 1959 as the first use of the term. The subsequent paragraph goes on to describe the possible use of the term as early as 1955? Maybe both dates can stay, but the section simply needs some clarification, perhaps around how exactly the terms were used at these times? ETomeny (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In "Cue Ball Cat", a 1950 episode of "Tom and Jerry", Jerry bats two pool balls into Tom's eye sockets, these balls are numbered 8 and 6. 86.178.24.48 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares.

The Cafe Hon episode of Kitchen Nightmares also had a lot of references to the term '86' as well. - (124.197.51.229 (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC))

86 - slang ?

1. Wikipedia could do with just regular (conventional) spoken, written language. Why slang, vulgar, obscene etc. etc... ?

2.Would it be possible for wikipedia to do some research and include a page giving data on the number of people - countrywise, worldwide - that lived to an age in each of a series of age groups, such as 100 -110, 110 -20, 90 -100 ... ?

Thank you !  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.96.228 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Origin referring to the sack of Athens and Piraeus in 86 BC has no citation, and seems ludicrously unlikely

In the Etymology section, there is a reference to the Romans sacking the above two cities in a particularly brutal manner, as a possible source of the term 'to 86'. In addition to lacking citations, this seems highly unlikely. The 'Anno Domini' page of Wikipedia lists 'AD' as not becoming prominent until the 9th century, with 'BC' coming much later, with their earliest reference being in 1474. Thus, anyone inventing this term by this etymology would have to do it many centuries after the events which it supposedly refers to, which seems unlikely. --2601:19B:101:C6AD:7C25:BBF3:333B:1E30 (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Actual Origin of "86" aka "AT-6"

In the U.S. Navy, there is an Allowance Type (AT) coding system used for logistic purposes. The Allowance Type (AT) Code is a single digit numeric code which identifies the reason material is being carried in stock. Throughout the life-cycle of a warship, many pieces of equipment will be upgraded or replaced, requiring the allowance of onboard spare parts associated to the obsolete equipment to be disposed of. The AT code assigned to parts designated for disposition is AT-6. Following WWII, there were a great number of warships being decommissioned, sold, scrapped, or deactivated and placed in reserve (commonly referred to as "mothballed"). During this process, labor workers would bring spare parts up from the storerooms and the Lead Supply Clerk would inform them what the disposition of their parts were by part number. Anything referred to as AT-6 (or by similar phonetic, eighty-six), was to be disposed of in the dumpster. This is where the term became synonomous with throwing something away.

This would get my vote for probable origin of 86. I had always assumed it had military roots. Flight Risk (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors's opinions about such things are irrelevant. This section is awful; there is far better info at http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/86.asp -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In case the cited material ceases to be available on-line, I am reproducing the relevant text from page 369 of the PDF (p A9-5):

Part C: ALLOWANCE TYPE CODES
1. GENERAL. The Allowance Type (AT) Code is a single digit numeric code which identifies the reason material is being carried in stock.
Code Description
1 COSAL item.
2 Load List item, applicable to load carrying ships only.
3 Load and Allowance List item, applicable to load carrying ships only.
4 Non-COSAL item that is stocked based solely on demand.
5 Non-COSAL authorized add item based on specific TYCOM authority.
6 Non-COSAL excess item that does not have sufficient demand to maintain. The item is to be offloaded and deleted.
7 Economic retention. Excess item that, because of low unit cost (normally under $100.00), is authorized for retention until the next ILO/ReAVCAL. The exact amount may be specified by each
TYCOM.
8 Non-COSAL item that is established for demand recording only. It will be changed to AT code 4 if demand reaches established criteria, otherwise it will be deleted after 24 months with no demand.
9 Assigned to a substitute item which is not stocked as a primary number.

My concern about it disappearing as an off-line source is based on the fact that it is deeply embedded in a far more voluminous coding system, and there is at present only one authoritative, on-line source for the information: NAVSUP P-485 Volume II (PDF). Defense Logistics Agency. p. 369. Brian Hill (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Ref template removed

I removed the references template and am asking anyone who feels something specific needs a citation to put an inline tag there. The article in general is sufficiently referenced by a number of media quotes. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop major editing back and forth on this article without discussing your issues here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, but DKqwerty is not willing to be civil, and myself and many others have worked hard to establish validity to this article, which is viewed by well over 100 times a day. And, he just comes in and wipes out 6 month of research in one swing. It appears that he is a self proclaimed WikiBot, and I do not know protocol in this situation. If you have a better solution to stop the madness. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjozoko (talk • contribs) 21:19, August 18, 2010

I have not taken sides in whatever personal thing there may be going on here, and I am reluctant to, unless it gets out of hand. But an article should always be discussed on the talk page if such major changes are made to it back and forth. That's how we are supposed to behave and cooperate here, as I see it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: Hey. I'd like to help, but I'm not sure what's really going on. Is this about DKqwerty's removal of content? To be completely honest, I'm not completely opposed to what they were doing, even if it did seem rather bold. The Usage of 86 section is largely trivia and really should be trimmed down a bit. There are also issues of sourcing here; the Youtube links as references are inappropriate, and IMDb should not be used as it is now. But if I can help out any more than this, I'll keep an eye on the conversation. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to toot my own horn, but I have created many articles, and cleaned up many more including my favorite - Box hockey. When I stumbled upon box hockey, the "history" only went back as far as 1970's and everyone thought it was created in their own town's rec department. But after countless hours of research, including physically going to the local library, you see the results; I have made Box Hockey the premiere source for that subject. I even found a picture from 1935 with black kids playing box hockey in Miami, who knew? But now, everyone does, and I apply the same effort towards all my editing. I realize that it appears that 86(term) has too many examples, but it is just like the CDC trying to find the source of a new strain, I am trying to show a clear linear popular use of the term over time, and right now that has gone back as far a 1968. Over time, little by little info will come forward and I have taken the initiative to filter the edits here. Just like when, SergeWoodzing added "Agent 86" I asked him to find the source. We worked on it, and now it is a strong possibility that Mel Brooks from NYC saw Visit to a Small Planet and adopted the term 86 as the name for Agent 86, But, we keep our eyes open for an interview of that silver bullet. And I do agree, Youtube movie clips, and IMDb are middle level sources at best, but we are getting their.-Jjozoko —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, August 19, 2010.

There are still rules in place. For one, there's a fair amount of original research going on here. For the text "may have been influenced by the slang use", you cite an IMDb page that shows only that there was a character with that name. It's your own take on it when you say, "Well, Mel Brooks was born in NY, and he may have used the term when coming up with the character's name." Without an actual source to back a claim like that up, it really shouldn't be in the article. I'm not going to deal with your box hockey article, as that's beyond the scope here (and it may have its own issues).

But beyond that, this page isn't supposed to have every time "86" has ever been used in some form of mass media. Just because 86 is mentioned in a newspaper once doesn't mean that it should be included here. Some of them are completely unimportant. Consider "In a July 31, 1998 Los Angeles Times article by Jennifer Hamm, the title reads; "Trouble-Plagued Bar Is 86'd From Neighborhood". So? There's nothing special about that article that deems it worthy of inclusion. There are 25,000 articles that mention "86-ed", but obviously we're not going to list them here.

One solution I can see here is to categorize this and clean it up. For example, mentioning the first time 86 is used would be worthy of inclusion. And maybe a few times when it's used in films or otherwise particularly interesting or important places. But overt speculation or insignificant mentions really shouldn't be included. As such, I'm going to attempt a cleanup of the list. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I've readded the refimprove and OR tags. The refimprove is not so much to show that there are missing citations, but because the ones on here - namely the two YouTube links - are inappropriate as references. The OR is for the issues I've described above. Please don't remove the tags until the article is fixed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I concur. This article was just that, a few significant examples of the use "86ed" a NYtimes article, a LAtimes article, an Alaskan Bar sign example and a motion picture example.; but DKqwerty wiped everything out and left just the NYtimes articles. The reason for each example is to establish that the term is used across the country in many different settings and as far back as 1968. (and not 25,000, closer to 500. After spending many hours reading them, I will say a lot of those article do not have anything to do with 86 as it is defined here, and remove the random ones written in since 2000, and you are left with just a handful. It is a work in progress, and granted this has come a long way from October '09 when it was worse than Ask.com with nothing but people's guesses posted. But, we keep digging and keep editing - thanks for your assistance, and with well over 100 hits a day, I see this as a prime example of why the world needs Wikipedia articles to have integrity.

Committed an edit in this direction; hope y'all will tolerate it. The historical / provenance question seems different than the prominent uses in pop culture, so I'm trying to split them apart accordingly.ArtDent (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

86 as an ANSI numbering standard

Without any literature to back up the claim, I'm not going to put it in the page without other contributor input. I'm surprised it hasn't already been suggested, but a very likely source for the term is the ANSI device numbering scheme, as adopted in 1928 from American Institute of Electrical Engineers Standard No. 26. It is unclear when the term would have originated other than it would have occurred prior to 1928 when adopted by ANSI (and during or after 1884 when the American Institute of Electrical Engineers was first established), meaning the timeframe is appropriate. 86 in the ANSI numbering scheme is a "Locking-Out Relay." This cuts power to a circuit making it not available. A breaker with an "86 lockout," for example, would be used to make sure it is not turned on during servicing and electrocuting the maintenance technician. The parallel to the slang use is apparent in that if equipment is 86 locked out, it is unavailable for use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malevole (talk • contribs) 22:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Although Device 86 seems like a plausible origin and AIEE Standard 26 existed early enough, this paper by John Tengdin (chair of the working group that developed C37.2-2008) suggests that Device 86 did not exist in the initial version of the standard. (It does not state when Device 86 was added): The 2008 Revision of IEEE C37.2 Standard Electrical Power System Device Function Numbers, Acronyms and Contact Designations —Theodore Kloba (☎) 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Key & Peele - Obama's Anger Translator - Meet Luther - Uncensored

I found an instance of it being used here (which is what prompted me to look up what it meant and read about it on this page). I may return to add it to the instances of usage (if nobody else decides to add it first). I thought I should make a note here, so I don't forget to add it. TheBankery (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Plan to Resist Election Day Misinformation

Is 86 (term) part of a plan by Wikipedia administrators to "watch over" political articles? That's the message of an October 26, 2020 story in Wired. It reports that our article "was immediately revisited once it was used to bolster the Trump campaign's case against" Michigan's Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer. As one of the editors involved in that revisiting (39 edits since October 18), I must state for the record that I was unaware of any such plan and wish to formally dissociate myself from it. The whole idea gives me the creeps. Editors do not need admins preemptively looking over our shoulders to enforce their idea of political correctness. NedFausa (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• All recent US politics is subject to a special adminstrative regime, as explained above, "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson: thank you for reminding me. But I don't think that's what the Wired story is about. It focuses on the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and never mentions post-1932 politics broadly. And more concerning (to me at least), it describes a subset of admins who have apparently appointed themselves to aggressively "keep away bad actors as well as overly exuberant editors" from updating pages about the people and processes involved in this election. As I read it, Wired paints a picture where Trump is the Evil One and a handful of admins are Saviors in Shining Armor. The potential for partisan abuse is obvious. NedFausa (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, based on the article, I think the Wired reporter has an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia. It says "Wikipedia administrators will rely on a watchlist of 'articles on all the elections in all the states, the congressional districts, and on a large number of names of people involved one way or another,' wrote Drmies, an administrator who helps watch over political articles." That just sounds like the normal watchlisting any editor does. —valereee (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's normal, it does not merit a 1,187-word story in which three admins are quoted to justify Wired′s report that it's not business as usual at the site where "moving slowly has been a super-power," but a do-or-die, just-in-time struggle to maintain our status "as one of the last objective places on the internet." NedFausa (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, reporters decide what to report on, and they contact people for quotes. Wired may think this is something unusual; that doesn't actually make it anything unusual. —valereee (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Too bad the three admins interviewed could not have simply explained to the reporter that there was nothing to see here—just move along. Everything is functioning within normal parameters. NedFausa (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Since this really isn't the right place for such a discussion, I've left a note for NedFausa on his talkpage, describing what normally happens on election nights. Reports on what admins actually do in the news almost always inflates the role of admins far out of resemblance to reality. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly the right place for such a discussion, which is about how to best improve the page 86 (term). NedFausa (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

So, what would you like to change/add/revise? Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like admins to take a step back and let us revise 86 (term) as we see fit without the overhanging prospect of being treated as "bad actors" or "overly exuberant editors." Do I have your assurance that will happen? NedFausa (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm advocating moving slowly like we always do, despite what a flood of new editors on eventful days might demand. This isn't new, please see what I wrote on your talkpage. This appears to be your first rodeo - it is not ours, and you appear to be more fearful than is warranted. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, you've certainly got my assurance that being ready for disruption is nothing unusual, and that admins won't be doing anything to prevent constructive editing on a high-change, contentious article, but let's ping GorillaWarfare and Muboshgu, who along with Drmies were also quoted, and maybe that'll reassure you that nothing is happening out of the ordinary. Also you do understand that most admins actually do edit articles, so asking them to "stand back and stand by" is absurd? Admins will edit as they see fit, just as every other editor does. —valereee (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee: Since you mention Drmies among the administrators interviewed by Wired, let's recall for newly arrived users that, thanks to Drmies, something "out of the ordinary" has already happened here. I previously discussed Drmies's 19 October 2020 edit warring to restore the unsupported phrase "which right-wing media claimed." That phrase was ultimately expunged from 86 (term), but only after the admin's obstinacy had caused considerable disruption. I submit that "overly exuberant" admins should not get a free pass. Anyhow, I'm pleased that you rejoined us after having declared here, also on 19 October 2020, I don't really care about the discussion. May we now assume that you care? NedFausa (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in content disputes, and frankly I think I'm done trying to convince you that there's no grand conspiracy here among admins to make sure Wikipedia adheres to our secret plan. —valereee (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I have not had involvement in this article prior, and it's still not on my watchlist because I think the Whitmer kerfuffle has come and gone. NedFausa, we admins are around, but we're not acting proactively to protect pages. I took the author's description of what happened here to merely mean that more attention was paid to the term "86" because of its prominence in the news cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation of that article is a very odd one, NedFausa. No one is "enforcing their idea of political correctness". As with any major event (anything from elections to the Super Bowl to the finale of some TV shows), there will be an uptick in editing related to the presidential election as well as the various Senate races. And it is important that the information that is introduced as a result is verifiable, NPOV, etc. Some editors, all the way from admins and functionaries to those with no permissions at all, intend to try to keep an eye on these politics-related articles that night and in the weeks surrounding to ensure accuracy. If people are persistent in adding unsourced information, protection will certainly be applied, as it is with any other article on this project (though valereee is correct in pointing out that ARBAP does allow greater leeway in what admins can do to address disruption). My comment about "overly exuberant editors" was referring to people who feel the need to introduce breaking news before adequate sourcing is available, which I would imagine you would agree is an important thing for any Wikipedia to avoid.

As for your concerns about this specific article, while I'm sure there will be eyes on it, most of the hullabaloo around the term has died down as the news cycle moved on. I personally doubt there will be much disruption on it and that any additional admin measures will be taken. I don't know exactly what you're hoping to see happen when you say I would like admins to take a step back and let us revise 86 (term) as we see fit without the overhanging prospect of being treated as "bad actors" or "overly exuberant editors." Every admin on this project keeps an eye out for vandals and others who are not following policy, and this page is no exception. Please remember that admins are editors too, and there is not some sort of divide in responsibilities where non-admins are the only ones who can do content editing, and where admins are the only ones who can help prevent/address disruption. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I don't rightly understand what your complaint is. I'm in agreement with GorillaWarfare's comments here; they describe the regular practices of not just administrators but also Recent changes patrolers. We all know that Sundays in the US are NFL days and lots of editors edit NFL articles--including a lot of people who want to whine about decisions by referees and coaches, and about players' actions. Saturdays it's college football. Three or more nights a week it's rasslin'. Now I happen to know that other editors use watchlists (I don't), and that some of my admin colleagues are keeping a closer eye on election-related articles--which is perfectly reasonable given how much disruption we've already seen in those articles. That has nothing to do with POV (BTW I haven't read the Wired article yet; I was asked whether there were any specific plans in place to prevent disruption, for instance, and I said that I am not aware of any plans set up by cabals or ArbCom or whatever), but everything with just ensuring that good-faith editors get to improve articles. I think you think that I'm some partisan hack, but I have not, as far as I'm aware, acted administratively in relation to this article, and if you could see my log you would see that my blocks and revdeletions are, I believe, in line with NPOV: I block Trump-hating vandals as fast as I block all the editors, and I have revdeleted my fair share of awful comments pointed at Trump and his family.

But since we're here on this talk page, it's worthwhile looking at the article again, and that ridiculous passing mention. Note that our article says the little sign is an allusion to blah blah, and I repeat that an allusion is only an allusion in the eye of the beholder. Note that two sources are cited: one the hyper-partisan and unreliable Washington Examiner, and the other the Detroit News--and what does that latter source say? "an apparent anti-Trump message": NOT an explicit and intentional allusion. So if you want to complain about something, complain about that: our article states something as a fact which is explicitly NOT stated as a fact by the reliable source. Now how, you think, I should appreciate a couple of editors fighting hard to keep this POV-ish original research in our article? Drmies (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You're an administrator. If an allusion to the term and the 45th US President (Trump) is unsupported by WP:RS, you should remove it immediately, or at least place a {Better source} tag following the references you dispute. Or is that not part of your Plan to Resist Election Day Misinformation? NedFausa (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You were so excited about picking a fight with me over one little phrase but couldn't be bothered to make it right? OK--I'll "deal with it". What a nice collaborative comment. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I find NedFausa‘s hyper-dramatics, and as seen here, conspiracy theories of cabals, exhausting, and disruptive. Glee^anon 18:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by Themaster debator

Issue has been resolved. User is blocked.

As shown here, then here, next here, and again here, Themaster debator is edit warring. I have warned him at his user talk page. NedFausa (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC) He's edit warring? what have you been doing for the past few hours then?--AlucardNoir (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC) I don't think themaster debator edits in good faith, but you've reverted an edit that was made under "misleading edit summary disguises vandalism" ("Fixed typo"), yet how is my edit reverting an edit with the same misleading summary ("Fixed typo") done by an anon not acceptable???? 47.148.108.245 (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Considering NedFausa doesn't seem able to go to the relevant Snopes page, press crt+f, type 'kill' and read the literally first paragraph of the Snopes article, I don't think either of them are acting in good faith. This started with politically motivated vandalism and now NedFausa is apparently defending said politically motivated vandalism--AlucardNoir (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC) The addition of KILLING was made by a user who has been traced back and identified as a supporter of Donald Trump. What that means is that the addition is politically motivated. It's important to note that the edit was made years before Donald Trump became a candidate for POTUS? That shows that this is correlation, not causation. Therefore the addition was *not* politically motivated. (rather, the removal of this definition is politically motivated, since it was only removed after Gov. Whitmer had "86 45" displayed on a video stream today) 24.16.28.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 97.107.46.157 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"The most likely origin"? Sez who?

There are various theories as to the origin of this phrase, but the one I see most frequently is rhyming slang (OED, Merriam Webster, and American Heritage all give some variant). Some sources suggest some technical standard, such as IEEE, as a possible source, but this hardly seems "[the] most likely origin", as far as I can ascertain. Cnilep (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020 (2)

Change this back to the original definition instead of some non-sense about the food service industry. You guys are allowing biased dis-ingenuous definitions and it should not be tolerated. Whoever changed it to it's current definition should be permabanned from making edits because the current definition is complete false and even injects the writer's political opinion.

Here is the original. Please fix it. "Eighty-six, eighty-sixed, , 86ed, or 86'd is American English slang for canceling something, killing someone, getting rid of something (by burying it), ejecting someone, or refusing service." 2601:403:C380:F2F0:59B0:4463:154A:62FE (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute to the discussions above that are currently in progress. Edit requests are not a way to circumvent discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

1RR

I have placed this article under 1RR for a period of one month due to the recent warring over the politics-related usages of the term. Please discuss first, then make any edits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I'm trying to find a 1RR template for the talk page...is there one? I'm probably being stupid for not being able to find it. —valereee (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just added {{Ds/talk notice}}. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew there was something I just wasn't recalling :) —valereee (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request (Hendrickson) on 19 October 2020

Resolved. Murder content added.

Change "Eighty-six or 86 is American slang used in food and drink services to indicate that an item is no longer available or that a customer should be ejected.[1] Outside this context, the term is generally used with the meaning to 'get rid of' someone or something.[1] There are many theories about the origin of the term but none are certain. It seems to have originated in the 1920s or 1930s." to "eighty-six. To murder someone or put an end to something, as in "Eighty-six him, I don't want to see him again." The expression derives from restaurant waiter slang term eighty-six, which, among other things, means to "deny an unwelcome customer service" or to "cancel an order" (eighty-six the eggs!), or which directs the cashier's attention to a customer trying to leave a lunchroom without paying his check. The codeword has been used in restaurants and bars since the 1920s, but the extended use of eighty-six have only been around for half as long. Its origin is unknown. Eighty-seven and a half is slang used by waiters to indicate that an attractive woman is approaching." The source is from Robert Hendrickson, The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, Fourth Edition, p. 276. The original publishing was 1933 and held in the Library of Congress. Halxvector (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Feel free to contribute to the discussions above that are currently in progress. Edit requests are not a way to circumvent discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Ak-chually they are. When the discussion is an improper use of the deletion mechanism backed by a circular argument that the page is useless now that 'to kill' has been edited out, and gaming what a proper source is on a per-article basis. This page (and all like it) is intended to be a faithful representation of information in the sources. One side in the argument clearly (in their own words) isn't interested in facts, but in who references those facts and what political points they may be making. The entire discussion should be moved off onto a separate talk page where people can rant about politics, away from 'the button' of political censorship. If an edit request to insert a well-sourced fact would bypass a discussion thread then it should. Don't lose sight - the discussions serve Wikipedia, and where they become political grandstanding that purpose isn't being solved even if process is being followed. Be bold, add a well-sourced fact. Bypass the disingenuous. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Plenty of people have tried to "be bold" on this page in the past few days, which is why it is now protected from editing except for by experienced editors and there are restrictions on reverts. The time for being bold has passed, and it is now time to discuss. Feel free to join. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I have joined in the discussion and you deleted it. (See my talk page for a reminder.) Apparently discussion is only discussion as long as it pretends against all reason that both sides are equally sincere. I got here from following the delete threads and this is clearly a political battle, not normal encyclopedic maintenance. The facts aren't in dispute, nor really are the sources, only the public's right to read. You've picked the worst solution, allowing the vandalism (the dishonest edit) to stand while ignoring the *stated* motives of the editor. It must be intentional that by the time your edit protection ends the now factually disemboweled page will have stood through the US election. Your posts here are normalizing these concern-troll edits. (Literally, "I didn't like that Trump's team was using Wikipedia [to reference facts]") by using assume good intentions to mean ignore all evidence to the contrary 154.5.84.161 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I’ve requested a copy to see if this leads anywhere. If we have reliable sourcing that 86 can mean killing someone I think it should be acknowledged in a NPOV manner. Not sure where it would fit in. Gleeanon 21:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC) References

Needless duplication

Issue remains unresolved but new section has been opened.

With these edits, Gleeanon409 needlessly duplicated content, copying and pasting the lead into the Etymology section. I request that these edits be reverted in their entirety. NedFausa (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC) That’s done per WP:Lead, content should be summarized in the lead, but the article body is where it should be introduced. Gleeanon 23:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Gleeanon409 also introduced a Cite error: The named reference "dun-upl" was defined multiple times with different content. I request that this likewise be reverted. NedFausa (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC) That’s a simple error to fix. Again, no reason to undue constructive work. Gleeanon 23:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted text and reference

Resolved.

Why? "even though the common usage is to the contrary." Representatives of the 2020 Trump presidential campaign interpreted it as encouragement for the assassination of Trump. A spokesperson for Whitmer stated in response, "The silly season is officially here. It's pretty clear nobody in the Trump campaign has ever worked a food service job." @GorillaWarfare: and NedFausa (talk) I had put in two edit, and was in the process of correcting the unintended citation errors I caused. There was an edit conflict. There is no disruption. I put in a citation and a clarification, since you got rid of the note I put in. Please discuss it here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC) References It’s been restored but the sourcing has to be looked at. Gleeanon 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Disputed reference to Newsweek

Issue has been resolved. Disputed source replaced.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Newsweek′s post-2013 articles "are not generally reliable." I request that the reference, which appears three times, be removed. NedFausa (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I object. Please show how this particular article is not reliable. Your scrubbing is in danger of fulfilling the Streisand effect Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I’ve replaced it, easy fix. Gleeanon 18:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Disputed edit by User:Gleeanon409

Issue has been resolved. Disputed source replaced.

I cannot revert it due to the 1RR limit imposed by GorillaWarfare, but I dispute this edit by Gleeanon409. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. I request that his edit be removed. NedFausa (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Again, this is not a factual dispute as your inline dispute tag would have us believe, but a sourcing quality concern. As multiple reliable sources have also covered this material I’ve updated the source. Gleeanon 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Undue "Notes" section

Issue has been resolved. Disputed section removed.

The "Notes" section consists of a single-sentence: A Trump spokesperson claimed that the sign was a call for an assassination ('kill') of the president, even though the common usage is to the contrary. Except for editorializing about "common usage to the contrary," that adds nothing to the preceding sentence in text, which states: Representatives of the 2020 Trump presidential campaign interpreted it as encouragement for the assassination of Trump. I request that this superfluous section be removed as WP:UNDUE. NedFausa (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Oppose for now. I want hear from the OP why it seemed needed. NedFausa seems way too eager to remove content and sourcing of which they disapprove that is shown to be accurate and informative. My hunch is that it’s a footnote to avoid being undue, but maybe just converting it to prose is best. Gleeanon 19:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I thought explicit was better. We could have put in line citations for all those sources that opined on common usage (not 'editorializing' IMO), and provided definitions. The International Business Times article was clear on the point. And putting it in a note put it in perspective. But it is not a deal breaker for me. Edits are just there until they are removed; the collaborative process is ugly at times. Someone once said that 'a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Given the OP's response, I have removed the disputed section. NedFausa (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

86 referring to killing someone

Resolved with the re-adding killing content with sourcing.

I want to bring attention to the notion that 86 is referred to killing someone. This referral has been on this page for a long time, but it was today removed under an edit falsely marked as "fixing a typo", which made me question the honesty of the edit. Anyhow, I tried to look up the accuracy of the edit, and I came across a snopes page that showed an email circulating that at least somewhat verifies that 86 refers to killing someone. I believe the initial removal was in light to a tweet by @TrumpWarRoom that was baselessly claiming that Gretchen Whitmer was advocating killing Donald Trump and it's been reported in The Detroit News. I hope some confusion surrounding these edits are cleared but it was the false documentation of the edit that made me initially suspicious. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC) I dispute your characterization that the February 2009 email at Snopes "at least somewhat verifies that 86 refers to killing someone." It does not. Additionally, The Detroit News reports that only "Trump's campaign" has argued that "86 can be shorthand for killing someone." I remind you that encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Until WP:RS confirm this eccentric definition of 86, it must be excluded from the list of meanings in the lead of our Wikipedia article. NedFausa (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC) The snopes ref used elsewhere in the article verifies the usage. I have added the cite to the lead, so that hopefully this doesn't become an endless back and forth. The snopes example shouldn't be particularly controversial. The term has been used that way in countless 'mob' movies as well. Anastrophe (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC) I reiterate: Snopes does not verify this oddball definition as being commonplace or generally accepted. Please await consensus before caving to today's self-serving misrepresentation by the Trump campaign. NedFausa (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Please don't impute motive where none has been tendered. In other words, please be civil. Anastrophe (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Indeed, while I believe the Trump campaign has misused the term (86 can mean "get Trump out of office" though the campaign is perhaps stretching semantics to mean "kill Trump"), my confusion stems from reviewing the initial edit removing "to kill someone" being falsely marked as "fixed typo" as well as removing content on a page that was present for years well before the edit. I reverted initially because I was questioning the motive of the removal of long-standing text. I do not know how Snopes does not verify the definition. If it is circulated enough in email for Snopes to respond, as well as seeing use in mob movies, then I believe there is credibility to that claim. It may not be solid verification given that I cannot find more sources reinforcing usage of the term of 86 (though sharing lines from mob movies, if common in mob movies helps with the verification), but I believe it's still used enough to have the Trump campaign claim such things, be significant enough for Snopes to respond to, and be used in mob movies. Even so, that the Trump campaign has tried to appropriate the extreme version of the term in the first place, this implies the 86 term is defined that way in some contexts and I believe leaving that potential definition out of 86 all together is problematic. i.e. even the term 86 is technically not verified as "to kill", we should have documentation of a reported campaign using that definition of the term, and then a response from Wikipedia of "this is not verified". 47.148.108.245 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Please clarify your assertion that this claim has been "circulated enough in email for Snopes to respond." The Snopes article has, on a line by itself: Example: [Collected via e-mail, February 2009] However, this is not hyperlinked to an example. Instead, it is followed by text in a box with yellow shaded background that says nothing about killing. Where is this email that confirms the meaning that you and the Trump campaign embrace? NedFausa (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Please CEASE imputing motive. Civility is a core tenet of Wikipedia. None here have suggested that they are pawn or agents of 'the Trump campaign'. You seem to have missed that the inclusion in this article of 'to kill someone' long predates this recent kerfuffle, which should clear any suggestion that those discussing inclusion are somehow responding strictly to this recent idiocy. Anastrophe (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) I did not say I "embrace" the definition nor it is my intent to convey such a thing. I feel what I'm arguing is clear: while Snopes spends more time discussing the etymology of 86, I am assuming they chose this email passage as a representative example to lead into their article. I must also reiterate my motives for my actions on the page: false documentation of an edit from an anon, content being removed just today was present in a page for years. My motives are trying to understand the definition of a term, and I will reiterate that I agree, contrary to these implications that I'm supportive of the Trump campaign, that the Trump campaign is misrepresenting the use of the 86. Rather than adhering to a common use of 86, that is legal removal of Trump, the campaign is attempting to argue those saying "86" want to kill him. In other words, the phrase "Get rid of Trump" is not being interpreted as "legally remove Trump" but as a bad faith interpretation as "Kill Trump". Nevertheless, that the Trump campaign is attempting to misrepresent that to mean something else, as well as mention that there is use of 86 meaning "to kill" in mob movies, and there is a likely representative email Snopes uses to discuss the etymology of 86, I believe the "to kill" aspect of 86 should at least be mentioned and responded to, just as how Wikipedia mentions and discusses the false etymology of picnic in the picnic article, that's the minimum should happen even if we cannot establish verification whatsoever for that context of use of 86. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC) I will ask you again. What email passage chosen by Snopes do you mean? The text in a box with yellow shaded background says: To 86 someone is to bar them off your property. The term is mostly used in bars throughout the U.S. There has been lots of speculation as to where the term originated but the most plausible is Article 86 of the New York liquor code which gives the reasons a person may be removed from a bar. It does not mention killing. Please just take a moment to copy and paste the text you are relying on so the rest of us can see it. NedFausa (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/86/ I may have misread, apologies. There's an opening paragraph from Snopes, however, that mentions killing and has an example of a mob boss. It's probably not a specific example because I assume many, many movies do this and it might be just such generally accepted lexicon that it doesn't need to be supported by example nor was it controversial when it was in this page up until today. One of the many oddball terms that has crept into the English language in the past century is a peculiarly inexplicable one: the verbal shortform of ’86’ to mean ‘to dismiss or quash,’ ‘to bar entry or further service to,’ and even ‘to kill.’ While its uses have come to be widespread (one can say that the bank 86’d your scheme to have it underwrite the start-up costs of your business venture, or that a friend who made a spectacle of himself in a bar was 86’d from the place, or that a Mob boss had a particularly troublesome competitor 86’d), the origin of this now omnibus term remains obscure: 47.148.108.245 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Snopes's formatting is shitty. The way the text is presented, it can appear that the text above the yellow box is the email. As best I can tell, the email is indeed the yellow boxed text. However, the introductory text, regarding the origin, specifically notes "to kill", and since the Snopes article was published in 2009, and there's no evidence it has been recently updated, that attribution should be adequate, unless Snopes is no longer considered a reliable source for a relatively mundane bit of american slang that was utterly un-newsworthy but a few days ago? Anastrophe (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC) We are no longer at "a few days ago." Today's hijacking of Wikipedia by the Trump campaign to discredit one of its most outspoken opponents changes the playing field. To protect this encyclopedia's reputation for verifiability, we must now insist on a more rigorous source than a single article from 2009. We have already been embarrassed by the editor who originally added "killing someone" in May 2020 without citing a source. Let's not compound his mistake by merely resurrecting it. NedFausa (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC) I'm not part of the Trump campaign nor am I here to disrupt editing patterns. I have made edits, had my edits reverted, I explained my revert, got reverted again, and then I brought up discussion in talk page trying my best to explain why I did certain edits. Please stop insisting bad faith on my end especially after I have explained my reasons behind my edit as well as fairly conceding any points you have made. The initial edit was not a hijack and was not my edit, but removal of uncontroversial content with a false "fixed typo" documentation, which I have linked in my first post. Additionally, I do not see evidence that user Mnewhous is part of a bad-faith "hijack" as they have been editing other articles in what seems like good faith. I do not see any reason for a call for an arbitrary change in standards and I am not pleased by the insistence of bad faith put on me. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC) By Today's hijacking of Wikipedia by the Trump campaign to discredit one of its most outspoken opponents, I was alluding to the tweet that you cited in the opening paragraph of this section. In its follow-on tweet in that thread, the Trump campaign included a screenshot of Wikipedia to bolster its outrageous accusation that Michigan's governor Gretchen Whitmer "is encouraging assassination attempts against President Trump." That's the bad faith here, and it must be denounced. NedFausa (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ? I don't follow the Twitter. What happened was someone shared a link of Twitter from a unhinged pro-Trump handle showing how crazy conspiracy theorists believe that Gretchen Whitmer was plotting to kill Trump, and then someone noted that an editor in Wikipedia quickly removed "to kill" part under "fixed typo" edit summary which is false. I reverted the edit mainly because the documentation was false and casted doubt on the anonymous editor's motives. This is basically what I repeated several times. I only provided the link to be transparent and show you the potential background for what's going on, just so I make myself more clear where I'm coming from? Everything else about my motives is not true. I wasn't really aware of the follow-up screenshot, but now I see it, I don't believe the response to this is to remove the definition all together. That's weak capitulation to try to discredit what they're saying (this is where I think the original motives for removing the "to kill" content lie though under a "fixed typo" edit summary?? I wouldn't have made that edit summary; the initial edit reminds me of this edit where, regardless of party affiliation, should've been reverted). Instead, we should be, as I suggested, include the reporting on the terms and then discuss that the definition the Trump campaign use is not supported by context. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC) No, the hijacking is by Democrats, please stop gaslighting. You're all too happy to change definitions to make your opponents look bad and yourselves look good. You're hurting the integrity of wikipedia (though it has been shit for awhile now). This is a fascist site, run by a bunch of fascist editors, pushing their ideology above all else. You're a fucking joke, Ned. KRLA18 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC) None of this is true either. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Sounds like some of you are incapable of strawmaning the Trump campaign. Saying that 86'ing CAN lead one to believe they're invoking murder (illegal means) does not mean that the Trump campaign are suggesting that that was what it ONLY meant. If it has various meanings (legal/illegal means) then its POSSIBLE that it can be either and not necessarily JUST one or the other. JON (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.48.70 (talk) The pro-Trump Twitter handle, reported in Detroit News, accused Gretchen Whitmer of wanting to kill Trump. Explicitly as well. "Whitmer is encouraging assassination attempts against President Trump just weeks after someone sent a ricin-laced package to the White House." That's an interpretation of "86" as "to kill", which I think the interpretation is a complete stretch as well as factoring in the overall lack of credibility pro-Trump Twitter handles tend to have. There are no ambiguous semantics. However, 86 does mean to kill in some contexts (I reiterate, this particular accusation on Gretchen Whitemer is not supported by context). It's the same as how "get rid of this person" can take multiple forms depending on context. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC) While the specific use of the term for this example is debatable, the definition unambiguous means "to kill" in popular culture, movies, and colloquially. Denying this as a valid definition is incorrect at best, and conspiratorial at worst. Especially doing so based on a particular even is likely to cause more heat than light, and should be reverted and instead clarified. Shinymetalcrow (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Urban_Dictionary: Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely of user-generated content. Likewise, funtrivia.com is not WP:RS and for the same reason. NedFausa (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC) I'm not saying they are reliable sources for a definition, I'm saying they represent a common societal consensus. Removing one of the definitions that is widely accepted, and has proof of it's acceptable, isn't correct. The sources may be unreliable, but the pattern and use of the term across them isn't. Wikipedia definitions should reflect common use, not ideal or what should be used. ;Shinymetalcrow (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Please stop being a hack. Either remove the Snopes link and all content related to it under the guise that Snopes isn't relevant, or let 'to kill' be in the definition. Just removing the politically inconvenient part because it's politically inconvenient only make it look like you're vandalizing. Either you accept what Snope says, which has already been quoted to you, or you actually attack the reliability of Snopes and remove everything based on it.--AlucardNoir (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC) NedFausa is a partisan hack and his reverts to an altered page changed to suit today's political battle should be reverted. It's ironic that he says that people are editting the article to fit their agenda, when he keeps reverting to the first edit of today, that was edited to pretend the Trump campaign made up that 86 means killing someone (a widely accepted interpretation of, "get rid of"). If NedFausa wasn't such a partisan hack, and wanted to avoid having a politicized edit up, then it would be logic to revert to the October 10th edit, which DOES say it means to kill--- a widely accept definition of 86 PRIOR to the political events of October 18th, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.99.14 (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC) +1 to the common definition referring to "to kill". We don't have an official poll of it, but i knew this definition for years, and i request anyone else who also did add a +1 to this comment. Shinymetalcrow (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC) This isn't and shouldn't be controversial. What should've been the discussion is if the pro-Trump handle accurately/rightfully accused Gretchen Whitmer of wanting to kill Trump and if this should even be mentioned in the article. I have doubts this will retain relevancy long after the fact. NedFausa keeps missing the part where I said no, the context doesn't support the accusation, that the very first edit was made under a false edit summary (again, removing content shouldn't be documented as "correcting typo") and the Twitter handle is stretching definition of 86, but 86 can refer to killing someone, supported by colloquial experience and pop culture. It's frustrating that NedFausa repeatedly accuses me of bad faith without addressing any of my points being made. That there's a flood of much more explicitly motivated users posting here after I raised a discussion probably won't help NedFausa at least try to listen to my claims. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Note From Some Guy In Texas : I talk to people on the street and when we use the term "86" it definitely involves removing someone from their mortal coil by violent means. Don't kid yourselves. You might lie to yourselves and say that what you're doing is right. But in all honesty you act like the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell's 1984. Or the KGB in the USSR. Or the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment. The timing isn't a coincidence. And we're not stupid enough to believe the lies you tell yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alielbaryeshua (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC) @NedFausa: It’s clear from the Snopes article that the author understood this term to mean “to kill”, in terms of getting rid of something or someone. WP:SNOPES suggests that Snopes is a good source, and I would be okay with attributing the claim to Snopes if you need. The Trump campaign did not invent this definition of the term. Although I understand that you are worried about its interpretation in regards to Gretchen Whitmer, I have heard this usage long before the incident. If you feel that the application is a stretch, that’s fine. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC) I would like to publicly thank NedFausa for adding the definition back, but marking it as disputed. I think this is the right move for the moment, and appreciate you for taking the correct action under stress. Shinymetalcrow (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC) The addition of KILLING was made by a user who has been traced back and identified as a supporter of Donald Trump. What that means is that the addition is politically motivated. 97.107.46.157 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 1. where is the source it is a trump supporter? 2. how does that make it politically motivated? explain. -Cdjknu (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Cdjknu, Unfortunately I can't post the evidence to prove it - every time I do, NedFausa deletes it. 97.107.46.157 (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 97.107.46.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I really don't give a damn who inserts or removes information or on what grounds. The only "support" that means anything at all is the support by secondary sources. Snopes is not a really good source on etymology in the first place, and I don't understand why no one took the trouble to cite a real authority, which is what I am about to do. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC) If we look back at the revisions of this page from 2010, it clearly states that the term is generally used for removal, but has roots in mob slang to refer to killing. This predates the Trump campaign by 5 years, and any suggestion that a person was politically motivated is bad faith and extreme bias. We should defer to the older revisions, rather than warring about who said what or disputing a slang term that has evidence of being widely accepted to mean "Removal, killing" since 2007 with origins dating back to the 1930's, before President Trump was born. Katacles (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Katacles, it may well have been in here, but not correctly so. See below. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC) This edit added mention of killing. This occured in May of this year, well before the current controversy around the term. I think it is unlikely to have been politically motivated. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Discussion on the dispute It is very clear that the definition of "to kill" has been around for over a decade. The top (i.e. most widely recognised) definition in urban dictionary, the number one location for definitions of slang, says it means "to kill someone" (published in 2007). I acknowledge there seems to be no "official dictionary" that has to definition "to kill", but again, we're talking about slang, not words used in everyday language for the majority of english speakers. the slang term "simp" for instance has absolutely no reference to the slang definition on merrium-webster. To further bolster the idea that this definition of "to kill" is common, here is a large list of sources to pages that say one meaning of the word is "to kill". https://lasvegasweekly.com/ae/fine-art/2015/jun/17/miguel-rodriguez-artist-mural-nevada-humanities/ https://nextimpulsesports.com/2013/01/02/stuff-you-didnt-know-why-do-we-say-86d/ https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2016/06/orlando-86d-httpi3.html https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Phrases-and-Sayings/Question76923.html https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080622165246AA3cqWg https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080803135143AABAmIA https://www.answerbag.com/q_view/75550 https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081202100441AAjQ80D Having said all of this, I don't see why this article about the definition of a term should even exist on wikipedia. Move/merge it to wiktionary. -Cdjknu (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Cdjknu, I don't know why we'd look at urbandictionary. The OED is quite clear: "killing" is not part of it. You seem to think that slang words are somehow not found in the dictionary, but that is incorrect, and I just added the OED definition to the article. That's not to say I don't support moving it, by the way. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Seems like the mother of all descriptivist/prescriptivist edit wars. Prescriptivists say that it only has the definition in the dictionary, descriptivists say it has any meaning that is in real-world use. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Hardly the mother of anything. The problem here is that we are in an encyclopedia where we have to work with reliable sources--and urbandictionary is not one of those, and Snopes is not one I would accept for etymology. BTW the OED is decidedly not prescriptive: it is a usage dictionary. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Drmies, actually according to WP:RSP Snopes is "generally reliable" and can be used as a source and I see no reason to question their research in this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49, I will accept their judgment on memes and lies and things like that, but not here. Note that the Merriam-Webster definition also doesn't have "kill". So, if it's between one of the best usage dictionaries of English in the world, and one of the most-used dictionaries of American English, versus a website that does memes and politics, we should accept the two dictionaries. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC) The idea that Snopes would have an in-depth exploration of how a word has been used - correctly or not - on the Internet strikes me as 100% with-in its realm of expertise. We do, of course, need to take a look at reliable sources as a whole in making editorial decisions which in this case would include, for me, Snopes in addition to MW and OED. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC) merrium-webster is not the authorty on language though. "ubiquitination" isn't in the merrium webster, nor is "simp" (as stated before). does that mean we should remove every reference to those words & their definitions on wikipedia? no it does not. - Cdjknu (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC) the source of urban dictionary or snopes is merely an instance in the world that shows a definition is widely accepted. wiktionary (where this article should really be) clearly states a word only needs to be cited 3 times to qualify for acceptance. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Attestation If dictionaries (e.g. wiktionary) were only ever allowed to reference dictionaries for their definitions, dictionaries wouldn't exist. - Cdjknu (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC) The topic and content of this article is not contentious. The horseshit outside of wikipedia is what is contentious. As a non-controversial content article, snopes, which is explicitly listed as reliable within wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources - and in particular for this non-controversial topic and content, the snopes reference is entirely adequate. The attribution to 'killing' long precedes this week's latest flaming shitstorm on the internet. It's important that we not step in the horseshit when evaluating the content that exists here within the encyclopedia, sourced, uncontroversial, for a decade before this week. If this was controversial content, that would be another matter. It isn't. Anastrophe (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Correction, i was basing the 'for a decade' on another editor's comments, but I'm not seeing clear evidence that the particular usage was noted in the article except off and on over time. And at this point, it looks like the decision is to strip the article down to nothing, and use that as justification for just deleting it. Which is pretty stupid in my opinion, but - as non-controversial subject and content - who cares? The latest daily outrage will begin with something else tomorrow, and we can forget this matter ever came up. Anastrophe (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC) This page should be reverted to a pre-october 18th and locked. It was edited in bad faith to try and discredit the political campaign off the incumbent president who is currently running for reelection. I urge the site moderators to do this for it is absolutely crucial to the sites future credibility. I have been a long time editor, reader, and donor; I am proud of this site and what it has achieved. I beg of you to consider this recommendation. Adam B Davis (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Please focus discussion on the article content and what is supported by reliable sources. Personal attacks against editors will not be tolerated, and this rhetoric about censorship and bookburning is unproductive and unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Yes, revert it and lock. Or wikipedia goes down the drain along with tw@tter and other censorious scum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.82.135.53 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC) @NedFausa - Your behavior here is absolutely abhorent, acting as if burning documents can ever result in more truth. As a worker on a project of enlightenment you should be absolutely ashamed of your disingenious explanations. Regardless of your view of the politician in question, the Snopes articles discussing the etymology of 86 - a term it says can mean 'to kill' from 2009 is proof, save the existense of a time-machine that this meaning predated its use in the numerical display in question in today's ideological signalling game. @Drmies - You as well bend credulity beyond the limit in pretending to fail to understand how Urban Dictionary's article - reliable or not - is proof of the term's usage as far back as 2007. Your position would only be excusable if you were claiming you believed the publication date to be a forgery. Both of your actions here should taint everyone's view of you and your work going forward. And into the past. Possibly, perhaps probably, you've performed similarly ideologically driven vandalism before. Hopefully your edits are perused more carefully in respect of this. I see no indication from you that you understand the value of Wikipedia or your role in harming it. You're an anathema to librarians and knowledge-workers everywhere. Please stop. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Oh, wow. Mirriam Webster made the news after it changed the definition of "sexual preference" for political reasons. I wonder if we'll see Wikipedia in the news in a couple days. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC) WTF is wrong with you people? 86 has meant to kill someone for as long as I can remember. THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE of any native English speaker. It is disgraceful that you try to erase the meaning of a word for political purposed. I am not American. I don't care abouyt your stupid politics. You people blow my mind. 141.168.170.165 (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC) "eighty-six. To murder someone or put an end to something, as in "Eighty-six him, I don't want to see him again." The expression derives from restaurant waiter slang term eighty-six, which, among other things, means to "deny an unwelcome customer service" or to "cancel an order" (eighty-six the eggs!), or which directs the cashier's attention to a customer trying to leave a lunchroom without paying his check. The codeword has been used in restaurants and bars since the 1920s, but the extended use of eighty-six have only been around for half as long. Its origin is unknown. Eighty-seven and a half is slang used by waiters to indicate that an attractive woman is approaching." The source is from Robert Hendrickson, The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, Fourth Edition, p. 276. The original publishing was 1933 and held in the Library of Congress. Halxvector (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC) References "eight-six" has been a slang term and included in text as long as I remember. Wikipedia should not be politicized to accommodate any political party. To do so, means that Wikipedia can no longer be trusted or used to support conversations. " Jiminica (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Jiminica Jet I looked through the edit history, and killing someone has been on the page as far back as May of this year. To remove a relatively longstanding definition at this moment when it appears to be supported by popular media and several different sources comes across as more than just a little bit suspicious. It appears as if Whitmer is being protected and it comes across as an attempt to Gaslight people. I question the validity of leaving out the definition "kill someone" when it conveniently was removed the day that the controversy in question occurred. --96.35.60.159 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Good work everyone! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYQ57nUPYL0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7043:B800:A12C:36E3:E394:42D6 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I don't know why this silly issue is a source of debate. I have been using the term to mean "to kill" or to die for decades. I first heard the term in a song by the Circle Jerks, Red Blanket Room, which s clearly about dying. Red blanket room Tubes in your arms Where do they go? Tubes up the nostrils God only knows Evryone there Looks pathetic Life or death Only takes a minute I ate drano What did you do? He shot junk She drank glue How about you? Pills and booze Do it everytime Real smooth trip Suicide 86'd You've gone under Lights go out Things get darker https://genius.com/Circle-jerks-red-blanket-room-lyrics -Jpvoodoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.130.51 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I declined a request for third opinion, because more than two editors are involved in the discussion. For present-day political bias may influence editors' opinion on the issue, consider trying WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. Borsoka (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)