Entertainment desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 18

Question about Jimmy Wales

How much money does Jimmy Wales make from his speaking engagements and does he donate the proceeds back to Wikipedia? Ferdy789 (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask him: User talk:Jimbo Wales is his talk page, and he does check in from time to time. --Jayron32 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask, it was removed by an admin as impertinent. Ferdy789 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it is kind of a nosy question. However, if he has e-mail activated, you could send him an e-mail, and get back to us on what he had to say in response to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad form to ask how much people make, whether in person or through a user talk page. --Kvasir (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even when that money is primarily made because of Jimbo's founder status of Wikipedia. Surely if he makes this money directly from his Wikipedia connection it is wholly pertinent and reasonable to ask how much, and whether he donates any of it back to the project. Ferdy789 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could always ask Jimbo via e-mail. Or you could ask the admin why he thinks it's impertinent, and make your case as you're doing here. Or, ask the admin to come here and explain his actions. Does Wales have a "regular job", or does all of his income come from wikipedia and its auxiliaries? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in addition to labeling it "impertinent", Rodhullandemu said (paradoxically enough) that it was "already answered elsewhere." So maybe you need to ask the admin "Where?" because i'm not seeing it offhand.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia publish any sort of annual report? The remuneration of its directors would be something that would normally appear in such a publication. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does (it's all on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org ). However, as with any other charity, the directors don't receive any renumerations beyond their actual expenses (which Jimmy doesn't claim anyway). Jimmy's income from Wikipedia comes from speaking engagements and product endorsements, not directly from the Foundation. --Tango (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made a total of five edits, all today, and all focused on this question, so I will add another question: How should Jimmy Wales provide an income for himself given that he works full time promoting Wikimedia Foundation projects? Suggestions that he should also donate fees earned when engaged as a speaker are absurd. Re the question on a report: yes, of course, see the above link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 2007 990 form (page 29), Jimbo is payed nothing as a board member of Wikimedia foundation. I too am curious as to where the money he makes from speaking engagements is listed, as asserted by Johnuniq and user:Rodhullandemu, because I don't see anything in the annual report or financial statements. Buddy431 (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be listed on his personal tax return, I'm sure, but that isn't public. The Foundation isn't involved (other than when he donates some of the fees to it). --Tango (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy doesn't work on Wikipedia stuff full-time (although it seems to be quite a lot of time). He also spends time on Wikia, his commercial project. --Tango (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question was re-asked, and responded to, at Jimbo's talk page. I've copied the exchange below.

How much money do you make from your speaking engagements and do you donate the proceeds back to Wikipedia? Ferdy789 (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't answer questions about my personal finances. I do donate significant amounts of time and expenses to the Foundation - for example, I never get reimbursed for unpaid travel that I do on behalf of the Foundation, not even to board meetings. I pay my own flights and hotels. When I go to New York to meet with potential donors - as I did recently - I fly at my own expense, I pay for my own hotel, etc. An alternative approach, which I have considered but rejected for a number of reasons, would be for me to file my expenses with the Foundation and then when they reimburse me, simply donate that money back. The main reason not to do this is that it would be a useless accounting exercise, and it's been much simpler for me to simply make sure that no money ever flows from the Foundation to me. In addition to my fund-raising activities on behalf of the Foundation - activities which bring in many times my personal income from all activities in my life, I also have at times directed revenue from things that I am doing into the Foundation. I will continue to support the Foundation with my money and time as much as I can. I will also make no apologies for having a successful career outside the Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the heck do you find time to sleep?Thelmadatter (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question made me laugh out loud, thank you. The reason is that just after I posted the answer above, I took a nap. I'm in London and a bit jetlagged. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we won't find out how much he makes from speaking engagements (at least from him, and I doubt that that information is available elsewhere) Buddy431 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm puzzled as to why the OP thinks it's a "wholly pertinent and reasonable question" for us to consider. The only reasonable question for Wikipedia donors is whether any assets they have donated flow directly from WMF's coffers to those of Mr Wales, reducing the value of the gift. Since he and the Foundation's records both agree that they don't, then whatever he earns by his own efforts elsewhere is between him and his accountant. His public profile as a WMF founder is irrelevant unless you think one should be forbidden to benefit from anything by association, in which case past presidents of the USA or retired British prime ministers should be forced to donate their public speaking income to repay the National Debt. Donating a blanket to the Dogs' Home does not give you a right to pry into the private lives of the volunteers there, provided they can demonstrate that they haven't taken your gift home for their granny. Ka renjc 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, unless the OP is himself donating money to the Foundation, it's mostly none of his business. It might be the IRS's business, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This is discouraging. The answers are well-known. Just the facts: Jimmy Wales's currently asking price for a speaking engagement is "50.0k to 75.0k". He is also represented by the "Harry Walker Agency", which is a speaker's agency which deals in high-priced clients. He keeps all the money, having stated on the matter "I have for a very long time now stressed to everyone who invites me to speak that they are inviting me in my personal capacity". His appearances for Wikipedia are also often used to promote his for-profit venture capital funded start-up Wikia, characterized in Trader Monthly (not me!) as "... his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it.". I recommend my article "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Jimmy Wales says", which collects all this information in a reliable source. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where "50.0k to 75.0k" means 50 000 to 75 000 USD. That's pretty sweet, actually; I wish I could pull in that type of money by giving a speech. Does anyone have a list of the speaking engagements that Mr. Wales has had in, say, the last three years? Buddy431 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! Touchy, much? The OP asked a legitimate factual question about a public person. The answer is either known or unknown, but in any case is not an invitation for RD people to express how indignant they are. Here's the question: "How much money does [public figure XYZ] make from his speaking engagements and does he donate the proceeds back to [the organization at the root of his public recognition]?" There is NOTHING there to justify an indignant reply. Again: WOW. Seriously, RD, your sycophancy is showing. 63.17.86.9 (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was Marylin Manson Named Priest of the Satanic Church by Anton LaVey?

Was Marylin Manson Named Priest of the Satanic Church by Anton LaVey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanket hogger (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be of your interest: [2]: "Over the years, LaVey attracted a number of notable allies and associates, including celebrities such as Jayne Mansfield, Sammy Davis Jr., King Diamond, Robert Fuest, Jacques Vallee, Marc Almond, Aime Michel, Boyd Rice, and Marilyn Manson, who is an honorary reverend for the Church of Satan."
And also [3]: "Since then, they've released three CDs- Portrait Of An American Family, Smells Like Children, and their latest dark vision, Antichrist Superstar. It should come as no surprise that Mr. Manson is a reverend in the Church of Satan appointed by Anton LaVey himself." --151.51.62.111 (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the above links are to a wiki about Marilyn Manson, and are not a WP:RELIABLE source. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Priest - Some Heads Are Gonna Roll

What exactly is this song about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.40.117 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having googled the lyrics, it seems to me that it's about people who can't handle the power they've got and misuse it. Someone obviously upset the man who wrote it! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution. Juliankaufman (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain vs. chorus - what about Love at First Sight?

Refrain#In popular music states that "a refrain musically and lyrically resolves a verse and therefore ends it, whereas a chorus begins a distinctively new music section of at least eight bars." Now trying to attribute this distinction to a few songs, I face a problem with Love at First Sight (Youtube, Lyrics). From my point of view, if we want to apply these categories, it has both a long 4-line refrain (italic) and a short 3-line chorus (bold).

Thought that I was going crazy

Just having one those days yeah

Didn't know what to do

Then there was you

And everything went from wrong to right

And the stars came out to fill up the sky

The music you were playing really blew my mind

It was love at first sight

Cause

Baby when I heard you

For the first time I knew

We were meant to be as one...

Right or wrong? --KnightMove (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting distinction that I hadn't consciously thought of, but it makes sense. I always thought a chorus and a refrain were the same thing. But when the "chorus" varies from verse to verse, then it probably doesn't count as a "chorus". The song America the Beautiful comes to mind as another example as having a "refrain" instead of a "chorus". By contrast, "The Yankee Doodle Boy" has 2 verses and a chorus that's identical for both verses. Furthermore, the "chorus" part of an old song is often the part that's remembered by everyone, because it's the part that's "universally" applicable, as opposed to the verse which tends to be very specific to a particular context. Another example, then, would be "Take Me Out to the Ball Game", whose verses are very specific to one circumstance, and whose chorus is much more general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I realize that doesn't really answer your question, so let me pose this followup to the music experts: Is there any "rule" that says you can't have both a refrain and a chorus in the same song? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know; I think in those situations, the term "prechorus" is sometimes used instead of "refrain", but there are many different variations on song structure. In fact, the article we have there treats the chorus and refrain as synonyms, which would indicate that in popular music there is no distinction between the two terms. --Jayron32 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which accounts for my own confusion on the matter. It starts to get into technicalities, like the way people misuse the term "font". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final seven lines posted are probably best thought of as the chorus, which for the sake of variety is repeated in halves later in the song. A refrain is simpler and briefer: see Bob Dylan's Black Diamond Bay, where every verse ends with "something something something Black Diamond Bay." Dylan varies the lyrics, but the refrain is the line with the words "Black Diamond Bay" in it. (Classically, the refrain-line would have no variation, but that limits the lyricist's options.) Generally, songs with a refrain don't have a chorus, because the refrain closes out the verse and allows the next verse to begin, whereas a chorus is a separate unit placed between whole verses which lack refrains. 63.17.86.9 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

movie

what was the movie called about armenian genocide i think it sounded like syndome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I know about is Atom Egoyan's Ararat. And, yes, I realize that the film's title sounds nothing like "syndrome" (or "syndome", for that matter). Bielle (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Armenian Genocide article has a films section, although none of them look like "syndrome". Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the pathological extremes to which the Turkish government has gone to deny the genocide (up to arresting anyone who mentions it) could be called a "syndrome" ? StuRat (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

song

whats the song in this http://www.mmamania.com/2010/3/17/1377338/miguel-torres-plastic-surgery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's "One Man Army" by The Prodigy & Tom Morello (see Spawn). I'm not sure though because your link plays the music in a very chopped up fashion on my computer. Difficult to listen to. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comic of the man from nowhere

I am trying to track down a webcomic I read some time ago. The plot was similar to that of Brian Wood's The Tourist; a stranger comes to town who is not what he seems. He is on the run, posing as a painter and has moved into a house in a quiet neighbourhood. He has left his job after becoming embroiled in a scam his boss was trying to pull; the opening episodes are of him in an airport on the phone to the boss who is very angry that the man has inadvertently made off with his money. The artwork reminded me of A Lesson is Learned But the Damage is Irreversible. There are only a few dozen episodes I would say. I may have found it through WarrenEllis.com but I tried searching there earlier and came up with nothing. Any ideas? Skomorokh 21:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cole For Mayor

[4] Was this ad put on television? Or just on the website? (I need a citation, if possible.) Thanks, —C Teng ^(talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]