User talk:Jimbo Wales

Just wanted to say thanks

Hello Mr. Jimmy Wales. I just wanted to say thank you for creating Wikipedia. It is one of the greatest ideas of all time. And thanks to all the administrators, editors, and contributors who keep it all going. Have a nice day. LearnMore (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The royal powers, stops here.

Queen Elizabeth II, may well have bestowed the title of Duke of Sussex upon her grandson Harry/Henry, thus making his wife Duchess of Sussex. But she has no such powers on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I must say that it has been quite some time since I've seen nearly so much climbing of the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote that in gentler days. I wish we could get back to that kind of sense of perspective. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia don't, however, have the power to unmake her the Duchess of Sussex. Bizarre an episode as I have seen on the site. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, nothing done with our article title makes or unmakes her, anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, but then she does not have the power to demand we call her Queen Elizabeth II, so why do we (in fact why do we call anyone by a name or title, they have no legal authority, why not call Barak Obama "jug ears" Or Barry, after all his name is not legally binding).Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Private Eye calls her Brenda (after one of the better known lookalikes), but our article is actually Elizabeth II, in keeping with the classical mononymic style of monarchs. Perhaps it should have of England appended, per Elizabeth I of England or Beatrix of the Netherlands. Some of us are not exactly enthralled by the prospect of monarchy, but in the current political climate it does look more attractive than it used to. Imagine President BoJo. But nobody would elect a wild-haired narcissistic philandering clown to high office, so this may be a weak argument. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Would be a popular move with Leanne Wood, amongst many others. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But we still (in essence) user he title. I wonder if Harry ever become king will we have this debate about his wife being called Queen Megan? Indeed her husband is called Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, it seems very very odd that some many people are opposed to her be given the same honourific.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The title Duke of Sussex, has also been forbidden from Harry's article name. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, surely of the UK not England, since 1603. Slatersteven, the debate will be about Queen Camilla. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

neither IS Canada. You mean Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, nope not seeing any debate about her royal status.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I doubt Camilla will ever be queen, Charles is divisive enough - the firm will be hoping to get Wills and Kate on the throne ASAP to keep the republicans from the gates. RichardWeiss, I find the term "United Kingdom" hard to use these days, since (a) there's no king and (b) there's no unity :-) Guy (Help!) 09:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I should be more careful - my son is doing an apprenticeship in the family firm. They are his bosses. Guy (Help!) 07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: You mean since 1800, right? England and Scotland were separate kingdoms with a common monarch until the Acts of Union 1707/1708, then the Kingdom of Great Britain until the 1800 Acts of Union establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. GoldenRing (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Eventually, Prince Harry & Meghan Markle will be moved (successfully) to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as they should be. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Come the revolution mate, they'll be moved again, don't worry. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, in the meantime, perhaps some retail therapy for me, like these Meghan Markle sandals [1], lovely, and perhaps we'll even forget who that is while wearing them, although they do not seem useful for climbing. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

...The Reichstag dressed up...  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

To address the substantive issue, it is long-settled policy (though somewhat imperfectly practised) that for royals and peers, the articles tend to be at a more formal name than COMMONNAME would seem to suggest. There are good reasons for this, and COMMONNAME is not a first principle of Wikipedia, never has been. It's one of the things that we consider in article naming conventions and in most cases, it's the only thing we consider because it's the only thing meaningfully worth considering.

One of the worst misconceptions of COMMONNAME, though, is that we have to wait until the "Google count" of mentions shifts, rather than accepting that someone's name has changed. I remember a bit of a silly dustup around Chelsea Manning's name that was related to this.

Just to give one example where we've got it right, despite a "Google count" approach suggesting another answer, is Diana, Princess of Wales. Go to Google and see how many news sources call her "Princess Diana". And not just American ones, who could be forgiven for getting it wrong. We don't bow down to tabloids who can't get a basic name and title combination right, even while we do look at COMMONNAME as a factor.

Let me pick a random peer (and a big sad face to anyone who makes any drama at her page!). I chose her by looking down an alphabetical list of peers at the House of Lords website and finding one I hadn't personally ever heard of: Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St Johns. COMMONANME would suggest, I think, after only a brief investigation of news sources, that we should call her "Baroness Joyce Anelay" - but this would be inconsistent with how we name other peers, and so we don't. We use the slightly more formal format which is also technically more correct, since the "of St Johns" in her case forms an integral part of her actual legal name and serves, by design, as a disambiguator in case there is ever a different title Anelay.

Anyway, I can bore on for hours, but the point is: a lot of thought has been put into the matter by people who have considered many angles, and policy has been settled for a long time that COMMONNAME is not a writ from heaven.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hours? Yoo hoo. But, it appears you mis-remember Chelsea Manning: the admin who jumped out ahead in the move was disciplined and the rule adopted was to wait for the change in RS. (And I supported Chelsea in both discussions with RS for "Chelsea Manning", so bring the RS). This peerage thing (in article title) is apparently really important to you (so important you can't let people even discuss it through, first), but can't you understand why it's not that important (enough to cut-off discussion first) to many, many, many other editors and readers? And perhaps you can find your way to acknowledge the fact that no, Wikipedia does not title all such articles that way? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what you are saying here. Wikipedia does title articles in the way that I described. (Check the listings for the members of the House of Lords - almost all of them are titled according to their actual title, and I think that's a good thing.) When you say it's apparently really important to me, I think you're mistaken. It isn't. And I certainly don't think cutting off discussion of it is a good idea, and I'm not sure why you came the conclusion that I would think that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Because that is what you did, a discussion was opened by editors on the talk page of the article, move protection was requested and granted, so the discussion could go through to the end before the move, but you using admin powers edited to your preferred content through admin protection (you even said that is what you were doing, although you rather dismissively and disrespectfully called discussion 'hand wringing', so it's plain that you were openly disrespecting those who requested having the discussion first, and any discussion at all). As for your inability to acknowledge that there are royal wives article titles, who don't follow that form, that's just unfortunate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood a fair bit of this. I didn't call the discussion prior to the move "hand wringing", but all the drama afterwards absolutely has been hand wringing of a top notch quality. I was so excited to try to have a bit of fun that I didn't actually notice the protection, and there was absolutely no disrespect at all involved in the move. As to other articles which are titled differently (either for a good reason in that particular case, or for bad reasons), I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's totally irrelevant. There is a strong consensus that this particular article should be where I moved it to, and I believe an emerging consensus that people should relax and have fun and not be pedantic about what, after all, is a very very minor question in the grand scheme of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted to show respect to other editors, you would have made yourself aware of what they discussed and decided on move protection, and you would also have made yourself aware that moving articles regularly creates issues for editors, requiring a discussion seen through to the end before the move. You would also have moved back, as soon as you were made aware that other editors had already discussed and decided they wanted the discussion first, especially since it's a 'minor question'. (As for the rest, at least you now acknowledge there are other models and your otherstuff, only goes so far.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy, that would be a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion that was ongoing at the time of your move and I'm sure it would have been welcomed. But surely you could see that one editor swooping in and moving the article unilaterally (much less an admin editing through protection; much less you, the founder, who simultaneously enjoys no special status and every special status) was only going to cause unnecessary drama? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should have a lot less drama about such things. People should be bold and do the right thing, and people should not tie themselves in knots over it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So would you have any objection to another admin being bold and doing the right thing in their opinion, which would be to revert your move? What about if another admin just did the right thing and reverted the reversion? And then another reverted the reversion of the reversion? I think you might find the knots after all... SnowFire (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, because being bold is less than nothing, without quick reversion and then discussion -- that is why 'bold' is found in WP:BRD. The problem here was that there was move protection, and failure to self-revert - B without RD, which is not how it works. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The 'Harry' & 'Meghan' articles are two cases of WP:COMMONNAME going 'too far'. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Speaking generally, Jimbo is incorrect in saying editors will 'wait until the "Google count" of mentions shifts'. From the move discussions I've read over the years, editors are well aware of the WP:NAMECHANGES policy which states, "...we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that people wait until the Google count of mentions shifts. Sorry if I was unclear. I was making the point that the argument does surface fairly regularly and it isn't consistent with policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Some editors do pay attention to the extra weight bit but I've seen many in discussions stubbornly point to the general Google count. (I would pull an example from a discussion I've been in this very week but it's in an open RM so better to wait for that to close.) I also think there's a slight problem with NAMECHANGES in that it seems to have been written with pre Wikipedia name changes in mind (in particularly a lot of the place name changes that came in the 1990s) rather than changes that occur when the subject already has an article. Many name changes go through fairly quickly without any fuss - here for example is the current Lord Snowdon (the Queen's nephew) being moved on the day he inherited the Earldon: [2] and in turn his son's article being moved to add the courtesy title [3]. Or for a higher profile case, here's Prince William being moved when he received the Dukedom: [4]. Timrollpickering 13:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an odd relationship with royal names. In 2008, Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster was moved to Big Ben which is, of course, the bell, not the tower - but was also deemed the common name of the tower itself. In 2012 the tower was officially (re)named Elizabeth Tower, but attempts to move the article about the tower to its new official name were thwarted because the article was now deemed to be about the bell and not the tower at all. Six years on and apparently we still don't have an article about one of London's most famous landmarks (as opposed to the bell inside it). Such is life on Wikipedia. WaggersTALK 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waggers: Big Ben is actually a nickname for the bell and for the tower. Officially, the bell is named the Great Bell. If we moved the tower to "Elizabeth Tower" then we'd also have to move the bell to "Great Bell". Luckily, both share a common name, Big Ben... Firebrace (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The person who pushed that change hardest has since been sitebanned for tendentious name warring. Make of that what you will. No, we would not have to have separate articles. We would (and indeed should) have an article at Elizabeth Tower, a section at Great Bell, and a section redirect. We can do that because redirects are cheap, and the advantage would be that we would be accurate, instead of reinforcing common misconceptions. And incidentally English people are mainly well aware of the difference, so most of the confusion comes from people who read about it in a tourist guide, not from serious scholarly sources. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses commonly recognisable names because it is for general public consumption and is not the preserve of academics. We do not emulate scholarly sources, whose audience is completely different. In February 91.6% were against a proposed move to Elizabeth Tower. Firebrace (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We have ample precedent for ignoring a supermajority of people when they are objectively wrong. Do read the article: the vast majority of it is about the tower and the clock. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Content about the bell was only added/expanded after the move from Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster to Big Ben; the article was originally only about the tower. Arguably both are sufficiently notable for separate articles to exist. "Luckily, both share a common name, Big Ben..." - I'm not sure what's so lucky about that, it means disambiguation is required - Big Ben (bell) and Big Ben (tower) if we're not going to use their official names. But Jimbo's talk page isn't the right place for that discussion.

Even though I !voted for Meghan Markle per WP:COMMONNAME, Jimbo makes an excellent point above: "COMMONNAME is not a first principle of Wikipedia, never has been...One of the worst misconceptions of COMMONNAME, though, is that we have to wait until the 'Google count' of mentions shifts, rather than accepting that someone's name has changed." Every single !vote opposing the move from Big Ben to Elizabeth Tower in February this year seems to have been based on that misconception.

More generally, we it seems clear we need to consider how much weight COMMONNAME carries in move discussions when there's a clear, unambiguous official name. Personally I sit on both sides of the fence: I think Big Ben should be at Elizabeth Tower but I think Rose Bowl, Hampshire should stay where it is and not move to Ageas Bowl (the difference being one is a permanent name change while the other is a temporary "naming rights" sponsored name). WaggersTALK 15:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"The Jimbo fun-bolt strikes again"

The best name for the tower is "The Tower", according to The Dakota pattern. Using the Elizabeth Tower would create a temptation for an unknown Shakespeare to write a tragedy describing how the name of the tower could evolve into the Meghan Tower. Pldx1 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Or even the Shakespeare Tower. But perhaps less chance of any confusion then? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No confusion possible ! The Tower© is guarded by ravens and Beef eaters, while Big Ben Tower is guarded by some Mouse eaters. Pldx1 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the two towers. 16:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Idea

I've been an administrator, mediator and bureaucrat here for over a decade and I don't think I've ever written on Jimbo's talk page (maybe once or twice). Anyway, I've just gotten my first topic ban from Donald Trump. Sure, I deserved it, but there are about 10 more editors violating policies and having conflicts of interest routinely in order to whitewash the article of seemingly anti-Trump material. The admins presiding over the pages aren't doing anything about it. Since you recently stepped in to unilaterally move Meghan Markle, what about swinging by the American politics pages and doing a bunch of drive-by banning/blocking? Andrevan@ 18:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom could pass a motion on imposing general sanctions on pages related to Trump. Count Iblis (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Err...they could also pass a motion preventing JW from doing anything "drive-by" :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to cause any dustup in the case of Meghan Markle - just to do the right thing as a bit of fun. I remember when it used to be ok to do the right thing at Wikipedia and have some fun with it.  :-) Now, as to the Trump situation, I think I'll steer very far from it for now. Happy to have a long read at some point to see what I think, but.... I generally believe that editors should mostly stay away from situations or topics that are very emotional for them, and I can get quite emotional about Donald Trump. It would be a lot of work for me personally to write in a neutral way about him, because he upsets me so much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for replying! I have contributed my time and money to Wikipedia for many years and intend to continue to do so, and I support breaking things like Markle from time to time. Maybe you yourself would be topic banned from Trump as I have :-) I also miss the days when WP:IAR could be used when appropriate to improve the encyclopedia despite some technical issues, ie the spirit and not the letter of policy. There's a difference between cowboy adminning and knowing when to break the rules for the spirit of Wiki, NPOV, verifiability, freedom, the wisdom of crowds, democracy, and so on. Anyway, as I said, the topic ban is totally justified, but I haven't seen enough of a boomerang for issues like this [5][6] not to single anyone out, but if there's anything that upsets me more about users trying to censor Trump's shameful past and his pending investigations, it's people attacking the consensus system that has brought us the amazing things that the community has done, and you and I helped with in whatever large or small way. So -- I do urge you to review some of what's gone on despite the strong emotional feelings there for all of our sakes, but I totally understand why you may not, and I thank you again for many productive and happy years here. Andrevan@ 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Btw, since we can fast-forward Markle's Google trend into the future, can we extrapolate Trump RS post-impeachment? ;-) Andrevan@ 20:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For someone who has been topic banned from editing Trump related things you sure are still talking about him everywhere. Just saying. --Tarage (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The one-time "appeal to Jimbo" and the "appeal to blocking admin" are valid exceptions to a blanket topic ban, and valid surrealist techniques. I wasn't even asking the topic ban be lifted off myself. As Jimbo says, I was doing what I thought was the right thing and focusing on the basics, like a simple discussion about a policy instead of filling out an appeal form or filing a case with clerks etc. As I said, the topic ban can stand and is justified, I've unwatched the articles and related articles' talk pages. Andrevan@ 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Already covered by American politics. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, You are lucky that you didn't get desysopped after accusing several veteran editors of being paid Russian trolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That, and attempted outing of editors - not just in-Wikipedia but outside Wikipedia at an anti-Wikipedia site.[7], [8]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Diffs:[9][10], [11][12][13][14]

Thread:[15]

Quotes:

• "Wikipedia is under attack by Russian/GOP agents and partisans. [redacted] is probably one of them, and I would not assume that just because there is a lengthy history going back years that the user cannot also be a paid editor. We know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later." _{-- posted by Andrevan on 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}

• "I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps. [...] I may have given up my impartiality to engage on the page over the last few days, but I submit I was doing so in the interest of ultimately making progress in the dispute. I won't hide my own POV about Mr. Trump" _{-- posted by Andrevan on 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}

• "...which supports the idea of [redacted] being a Russian agent..." _{--posted by Andrevan on 05:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}

The sanction Andrevan is complaining about ("You are topic banned for three months from editing any page related to Donald Trump, broadly construed. This includes all talk pages") was incredibly lenient. I think that as a minimum he should have been infinitely topic banned from all articles involving post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, with the option of appealing the topic ban after 6 months if and only if he showed an understanding of what he did wrong and a commitment to never again call anyone a Russian agent without solid proof -- and I don't consider disagreeing with him in a content dispute to be "proof". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And not all the eds on those pages were long term users. These were PA's yes, but lets not pretend he had the decency to make it clear who he was among those comnents at.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he may be on to something or on something or something.--MONGO 11:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears from the above comment that Slatersteven still does not understand what he did wrong. We aren't allowed to call anyone -- new user or long term user -- a Russian agent without at the same time providing solid evidence. Again, he should be topic banned or indeffed until he "gets it". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Which part of "These were PA's yes" displays a lack of understanding they were PA's?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What was the point of writing the words "And not all the eds on those pages were long term users" if not to imply that at least some of the short term users are Russian agents? I keep seeing you Andrevan saying "yes, it was a PA" but I haven't seen you Andrevan say "and I was wrong. I have zero evidence that 'Wikipedia is under attack by Russian/GOP agents', I have zero evidence that 'we know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later', or I have zero evidence that 'at least some of these users [are] paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents'. I am not seeing you Andrevan stating "I have decided to not hold opinions that are not backed up by evidence". Instead, it sound a lot like you are Andrevan is agreeing not to name individual editors as being Russian agents while holding on to your his batshit insane conspiracy theory that Wikipedia is infiltrated by Russian agents and that somehow this has something to do with the GOP and the NRA. Andrevan, feel free to correct me if I am wrong and plainly state that you no longer believe those things.

You Andrevan already freely admitted "I may have given up my impartiality" and "I won't hide my own POV about Mr. Trump." above, Jimbo says "I generally believe that editors should mostly stay away from situations or topics that are very emotional for them, and I can get quite emotional about Donald Trump. It would be a lot of work for me personally to write in a neutral way about him, because he upsets me so much". That's good advice. I would also mention that I generally avoid the political pages for the same reason (the difference being that I have equal disdain for both sides while existing in in a sea of POV-pushing editors who think that their side are angels while the other side are devils). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, you seem to be confusing me with Slatersteven. Aside from that, I said that the topic ban is justified, and I wasn't asking Jimbo to find otherwise. I just asked if he would go and find some deserving editors on the other side and ban them as well. Andrevan@ 03:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I struck out the error and corrected it above. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

To point out your statement he made it about long term eds was not correct (well not from what I saw). I have no issue with condemning bad behavior, as long as we condemn it for the right reasons. But if we condemn it for the wrong reasons we give an impression that maybe it was not as bad as we make it our to be. Nothing is going to get this overturned quicker then the accused being able to say "but look he does not even know who said what about whomever".Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is it not considered poor form for a topic banned editor to come here asking for other editors to get banned from the same topic? Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• It seems like a fair question if indeed the other editors exhibited behavior that is the same or worse than the topic-banned editor. The problem is that [A] most people who have looked at the page don't agree about other's behavior being worse, and [B] Jimbos's talk page is not the right place place to ask for someone to be topic banned. Claiming that "the one-time 'appeal to Jimbo' and the 'appeal to blocking admin' are valid exceptions to a blanket topic ban" while at the same time saying "I wasn't even asking the topic ban be lifted off myself" and instead asking for other users to be topic banned is really stretching the meaning of the word "appeal". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Feel free to continue to discuss here, but what's done is done. You apparently didn't read my various statements because you prejudge them to not contain anything useful. You even just apparently confused me with a different user. I have let the matter and the appeal, as it were, lie. Like I said, I didn't contest the topic ban, it was following policy, and I walked directly up to the line before stepping over it. My entire endeavor on the articles I've been banned from was to draw attention to a problematic whitewashing campaign on them, and I would gladly ignore the articles if they were being properly watched over. I am entitled to appeal discussion around the ban itself even if I use that space and time to instead call for the cartel of editors trying to downplay Roseanne's racism, or whatever it is, to be properly dealt with. It isn't that hard to recognize policy violating POV pushers who constantly repeat arguments like "that's an opinion," "you haven't given me proof," "give me one piece of evidence," "that's OR/SYNTH," "the sources don't say that," when every source you have says Roseanne's tweets about Soros and calling Valerie Jarrett an ape are racist. Doesn't matter if Sputnik or Breitbart thought Roseanne was fine and Bill Maher is the real problem. Organized, socking POV pushers should be dealt with with extreme prejudice, and it's not that hard to spot. You don't AGF when people aren't being honest and you can't reason with them. Andrevan@ 05:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet again you remain blind to the reasons you were TBANned. There is no "whitewashing campaign", there are no "Russian/GOP/NRA" paid trolls. Your behavior is particularly strange as you claimed being a veteran "rouge admin"; surely you remember that There is no cabal. For your own good, please stop your RGW crusade; you are only damaging your own reputation, possibly beyond repair. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would hardly call the above a good reason for you to stay an admin, if you are not capable of obeying policy because you are going to oppose "problematic whitewashing campaign"s (battleground if ever I saw it) then In think you should not be an admin, it is clear that your politics is getting in the way of your neutrality.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search-engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that's not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [...] Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them."
Source: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Because Andrevan can no longer reply (See User talk:Andrevan#Blocked for topic ban violations) the above will be my last comment on this subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As another editor topic banned due to a POV-pushing tag-team, I applaud Andrevan's behavior as exemplary, and condemn the collaborators acting against both him and the quality of the encyclopedia in the strongest possible terms.

Jimbo, yes it's emotional. Would you have asked Martin Luther King to avoid speaking and acting on controversial topics because he was too emotionally involved? I agree, you should step in and stop the organized whitewashing. History is watching. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is satire.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Right.--MONGO 17:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

...because not being allowed to discuss the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors[16] is soooo hard on EllenCT. Perhaps we should go back to the well and ask for an additional topic ban prohibiting her complaining about her topic ban other than at the normal places where one makes an appeal to have a topic ban lifted? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps need guideline wp:TYPICAL to allow progress

Jimbo, thank you for taking time to explain peerage naming versus wp:COMMONNAME. Although I've been editing WP for 17 years, as IP address, I had never read about the peerage-naming issues. I'm thinking now we need a guideline (as "wp:TYPICAL") to encourage users to work on pages as per typical procedures, and not bolster any "prior restraint" attitudes, where a small consensus would attempt to delay actions in famous events where later consensus would be much broader once the actual events unfold. I think many people would agree how a consensus discussion held after a major event occurs is likely to be many times the size of a pre-event discussion, and hence "prior restraint" would almost certainly lead to a false, local consensus trying to pre-empt the actions decided by the later, larger broad consensus.

This royal wedding would be good evidence to compare the number of users involved in the pre-event versus post-event discussions, to highlight the danger of do-not-edit orders imposed by a local consensus before a major event occurs. Instead, users should work as wp:TYPICAL, naming pages as typical, and then later reach a broad consensus to act otherwise, not claim a local-consensus power to halt typical work until a larger discussion allows the community to return to typical work procedures. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Better to educate those with advanced permissions about about what they are doing (although they should have educated themselves) on what is expected of them, see WP:RM#CM the "typical procedure" is not to move a page around before a discussion on the matter concludes (see also no deadline). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Better to have one at WP:INEVITABLE, see also WP:MOLEHILL. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Better WP:ACTUAL/EDITING/OF/ARTICLES/IS/FUN/SO/DO/THAT/INSTEAD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A great idea

This relates to the section above User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Create copies of Wikipedia operating under slightly different rules and policies

A for-profit company, Wikisoft will be starting a "Wikipedia" for businesses Wikisoft Corp is Launching New “Wikipedia” for Business and Business Professionals (sorry this is a PR announcement, but I couldn't find a reliable source). They promise 200 million articles on businesses, execs, product lines, brands, etc., at the site www.wikiprofile.com by mid-August.

I'm not sure about their business model - it could be supported by advertising, but I suspect they'll be taking payments from the companies who want a "profile" posted. Others have tried something like this, but this company looks at least minimally competent - they can put together a press release.

Why is this a great idea? Well the folks who want to advertise on-Wiki now have a place to go and not bother us anymore. We won't have to deal anymore with biased articles on food trucks, real estate companies in Singapore known for their beautiful websites, or financial scammers. Wikiprofile might even put a few paid editing companies out of business. Of course there will be some businesses who would want to get a freebie here, rather than a paid-for profile there, but at this point is should be obvious to everybody that they are just trying to take something from an educational charity that they can properly pay for elsewhere.

Could we perhaps do something to encourage Wikiprofile? Maybe steer a few potential customers their way? Congratulate them in the press for their wonderful idea? Post their contact info at WP:Paid?

There is one question I do think they'll have to answer before the site becomes successful - why would any readers go to a site consisting of 200 million adverts?

BTW - I'm not being paid by these guys (or anyone else) and I have no COI (except as explained above - I'd like them to take away some of our problem articles)

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless they're as heavily favoured by Google search results as Wikipedia is I expect that this will do virtually nothing to stop the shameless promoters from coming here. After all, the primary reason they come here is for (a) our Alexa ranking and (b) Google's putting it at the top of almost every relevant search. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Google's algorithms favor websites with (generally) informative and comprehensive original content such as Wikipedia, as opposed to rehashed spam like wikipromowhatever.com. Who will write these 200 million articles, and what will prevent this site from becoming a vast garbage dump? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Best guesses a) corporate PR folks, b) nothing. So there are a few kinks to work out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 08:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! I withdraw anything above that might seem like a recommendation or anything of the sort. There's an unusual IPO associated with this and I wouldn't want to say anything here that encourages (or otherwise) people to invest in that. I'll investigate further and be back. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There is lots to question here, especially with the IPO. First I'll say that I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving any advice, just exploring an unusual situation. Some basics

• Wikisoft's address is 315 Montgomery Street, 1600 San Francisco, CA a 4 minute walk from the WMF. It might be a mail box only type address (located on the 9th and 10th floors) because I don't think the building has 16 floors (though they might have just skipped a few floor numbers)
• The IPO is unusual in that
  • it is not open to US investors (unless they are accredited)
  • they have already set an issue price
  • they say the stock will be traded on "OTC Stock Market" (note the capital letters) which is not a proper noun and could refer to any of several "exchanges" including the pink sheets (unlisted market)
  • no investment banker is mentioned
  • they don't offer to send you a prospectus
  • information on one webpage contradicts info in the press release, e.g. one page says they (will?) have 328M+ searchable content pages vs. the 200 million stated in the press release.

There are more oddities, so I'll just say that I personally will stay as far away from this company as possible. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

yeah they are probably violating a few securities laws there. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I wonder if we should do a SPLIT of Wikipedia, between a) pop culture and b) everything else.

Wherein "pop culture" =

a) Any event in the last three years (!)

b) any company, product, or service created or published in the last three years

c) Sports

d) Television, movies, video, video games

Can you imagine how different NPP would be? How different ANI would be? Zowie. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Even a simple rule prohibiting anything less than seven days old would prevent a boatload of crap. If readers knew (from a notice on the front page) that everything on Wikipedia was at least a week out of date, they would go elsewhere to get their breaking news. Like maybe Wikinews or Wiki Tribune... :) You shouldn't expect an encyclopedia to cover something that happened yesterday. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle for freedom of speech re Roseanne

In the U.S. there is a bizarre battle for freedom of speech over internet humor. The Caucasian actress Roseanne Barr tweeted a joke about The Planet of the Apes and evidently some people think the word "ape" is a code word for "negro" in reverse racism, and so she was labelled "racist" for her tweet, and her #1 scripted comedy show, Roseanne, starring mostly white people was cancelled by U.S. ABC Television, plus reruns of the orignal 1990s show also were cancelled in syndication. Many U.S. citizens did not know "ape" was a reverse code word for "negro" as if talking about "Whitey Bulger" would trigger reverse slur "whitey" as a demeaning insult to Caucasian people. Apparentky, talk about the recent film Battle for the Planet of the Apes would make some people cringe while others would be completely unaware of the reverse racism to claim people who talk about apes (or monkeys) are "racist bigots". I think this incident is huge, because it explains the need to protect freedom of speech, where one person's primate is another person's pejorative. Hence, WP policies should probably be expanded to protect freedom of speech, after this extremely public example of a teachable moment in human civil rights. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum: In the 1968 Planet film, the main ape characters were played by white actors and actresses. Without revealing plot details, the apes had both dark-skinned and light-skinned members. Upon 1968 release, it was a puzzle to reveal who were those famous ape actors, and in the 1960s became common knowledge. AFAICT, the only obvious black actors were among the human crowds, and there was no racism about skin color, but the tension was human race versus ape beings, and the film seemed to blow people's minds (in 1968) how human racism was completely irrelevant as the ape groups treated all humans as a set. To claim the film as racism would be like saying, "Isaac Newton hated mathematics" (not) or, "Queen Elizabeth is the top Catholic leader" (equally absurd as Planet of the Apes called racist); the film was unracist; instead it erased human racism against larger concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this defense of the joke makes no sense to me. It is a very well known racist slur to refer to dark skinned people as looking like or being like apes or monkeys, and there is very very little question that this is what Roseanne meant by it. Her comment/joke doesn't make sense if we try to interpret it as referring in some way to the anti-racist messages of the original Planet of the Apes film(s). Roseanne's apology specifically said "I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks." The politics part was referring to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the looks part was referring to the Planet of the Apes. Yes, Roseanne Barr does have the freedom of expression to say such a thing - and other people have every right to shun her, cancel her tv show, and call her out on her racism in return.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The Ape meme is an equal-opportunity caricature in U.S. politics, including white W. Bush (2001) and D. Trump (2017); see Google: Commander-in-Chimp Bush or "Trumpanzee: Commander-in-Chimp". I am horrified that some people identify black people as apes, but ignore Trumpanzee as if totally unrelated; there is a hideous stereotype being imagined, and that is deeply disturbing. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for speaking. It doesn't mean private companies (like American Broadcasting Company) and individuals can't decide that your speech is so racist and rancid that they no longer want to have anything to do with you. People think Roseanne is an asshole and they showed her the door. That's not a free speech issue, unless you think there's a constitutional right to have a television show. (Hint: There is not.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to freedom of speech as a civil right, as in Athens, Greece, upheld within a civil organization, as how some people think saying "planet..apes" is racist and must be suppressed, while others don't. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Freedom of speech (which pertains to government control over your speech) does not mean freedom from consequences. You are aware of this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of speech has meant much more than that in Greece, where it has been illegal to remove political posters, even illegal to trash posters dropped on the sidewalks at election time. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point. Re: "WP policies should probably be expanded to protect freedom of speech" what would Wikid77 have us do? Use our vast dictatorial powers to force a TV network to carry a show that they no longer wish to carry? If we have that power, we should resurrect Firefly first. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You've missed the point: use of the term "Planet of the Apes" was considered racist, against common use, and against the actual theme of the film, and condemned as unspeakable, which is a dangerous attitude to allow in a group. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather, you have missed the point, people are free to condemn it all they want, that's freedom -- you think freedom is dangerous, but that's just the standard autocrats appeal to control others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Cobblers. Wikipedia is not a debating forum it is an encyclopedia. And just as many encyclopedias do not allow you to have articles with titles like "why Trump is a wanker" or "why white people are all racist" we do not allow tings like that (try it). As a private institution it is not governed by the first, second or umpteenth amendment, it is governed by "my house my rules". As such you have as much right to edit here as anyone else, and that is mall you have a right to do. As to the rest, this is not a forum take it somewhere else.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And you have as much right to say "Mr Wales is a nerk" as I would to go round your house and shout "Wikid77 is a nerk", and that is the only free speech issue we have any control over, ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Damn the fact that I only have a phone for the next two weeks. As NBSB states, FoS relates to government action. One thing NBSB doesn't mention is that forcing ABC to reinstate the show would abridge their right to freedom of association which is also guaranteed by the first amendment. There is no guarantee of FoS on Wikipedia either, btw. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Another such case: "Florida police officer suspended after saying Parkland survivor should be run over". Count Iblis (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the only "teachable moment" possible here is that you don't protect freedom of speech by telling organizations what programs they have to carry, nor is freedom of speech involved in the situation, at all, nor is Wikipedia a free speech forum, and finally, fine you have an opinion about these tweets, well freedom means others will have different opinions about those tweets. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Anybody who genuinely thinks that freedom of speech should protect an entertainer from being fired by their employer for making racist statements in public, is not competent to comment on the matter. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This may be the dumbest thing I've read on this page since the last time I checked this page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, remember, many people do not know what Roseanne said is not racist, but rather was twisted by reverse racism to dogpile the "racist" claim against her. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Katie Rich didn't have her own tv-show, but there are similarities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I had forgotten how an unusual political joke can be used to eliminate the speaker. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Haha, many people don't know "ape" here was a slur for black people? Come on Wikid77--I know people like to make fun of Americans, but we're not THAT dumb. And reverse racism--OH SO THE ONES WHO SAID A RACIST COMMENT WAS RACIST ARE THE REAL RACISTS! Thanks for clearing that up. Ima call Becky and go polish my Iron Crosses. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Many white Americans are not really that racist, to worry if "Apes" is a vicious insult against black peiple; instead it is a code word in reverse racism to claim a person who says, "Apes" is a total racist bigot, rather than a person who mentioned primates. A similar code word is "boy" (versus "girl"), as a reference to any male servant as "boy" while talk of girls and boys is 99.99% the actual meaning in use. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am dumb, but I never realized that any mention of apes was insulting to black people. Sure, I can see how "black people are apes" would be just as insulting as "Italian people are apes" (they actually fight apes[17]), but just mentioning apes? Now that I know, I will be careful to avoid that word. Serious question: am I still allowed to discuss primates? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Your blacks and Italians comparison suggests you haven't been exposed to or come across the pseudoscientific theory that blacks are less evolved (hence, "apes") than other "races". You might want to have a look at Race, Evolution, and Behavior and Scientific racism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I have seen some stupid ideas in my time but that one is near the top of the list. It also flies in the face of science. See Ancient DNA Reveals Neandertals With Red Hair, Fair Complexions. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a remarkable example of how people who complain about infringements on freedom of speech are generally the ones who have the least understanding of what it actually means.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• You're just saying that cause you're a liberal/Canadian/administrator/racist/miner/human being/parent/etc. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I almost always vote conservative. But I am pragmatic, and able to read. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. This proposal would make Wikipedia fall to the level of 4Chan and all sane editors would retire. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The only part worth considering here is the resurrect Firefly bit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC))

• Wikid77, not to get all smart and all that here--but OK, if you really wish to argue that she may not have meant "blacks are apes" because, you know, for "most" people that's not what it means (let's play along now), then why can you say with a straight face that this is "internet humor"? That's original research, no? Or was it tagged with a smiley face? Anyway, I can't wait for the UN Court of Human Civil Rights to hear the Roseanna case. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

All I can repeat is that white Americans have really not been that racist (I've talked with hundreds of white Americans in private settings), and I can assure you they are not plotting the racial divide. In fact what seems the truth is that many whites and blacks grew up together, and whites were unaware how reverse racism was being planned by some black activists. In fact to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro, and a white man might have said about mowing and trimming hedges, "I'll be a yard nigger all morning today" with zero reference to black skin, just the work. Since the "N-word" has been banned, other words have been invented to refer to black people who are organizing against whites (say no more). Meanwhile, the reality continues, quietly, as police shoot more U.S. white men than other races (combined), and most Americans in poverty are whites "too proud" to accept handouts not earned by direct labor. In fact, I've met many white Americans who really could be called "apes" but general stereotypes should be avoided for all races, all people. Hopefully, by freedom of speech, the world will learn how American white people are just not that racist, in reality. Whites did not accidentally elect black President Obama twice, by mistake (as if oops, forgot to check skin color). -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy oh boy. You're complaining that you can't call black people the n-word. what.. I have no words. Every time I read this it becomes more racist (also, white Americans voted against Obama both elections) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually most of Obama's voters were white people (28% in 2012, as 39% of 72% white voters; see facts: [18]). Most white voters have voted Republican for 50 years, but if all whites voted by race, Obama would never have been President. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You should be banned per WP:COMPETENCE on the insanity of this statement alone. Gamaliel (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

People can and do lose their jobs/face backlash/are taken to the mattresses for things they say publically and social media is public in most cases. I find the comments made (and I will not utter them even in a highly modified form as all know now what was written) to be unspeakably ugly and racist and any entity that rightfully works to defend against such ignorance and hate should not continue any working relationship with anyone that publically states such nonsense. How is it even to be considered humor? Wikilawyering about how most of the cast members that wore ape suits and masks in the Planet of the Apes movies were white is absolutely besides the point. Anyone with more than 13 brain cells knows her comment was a racial slur and deserves condemnation.--MONGO 12:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

yep the whole thread from CHELSEA SOROS CLINTON onward was very typical alt right trolling, full of racist Dog-whistle politics/memes. This is how these crazy conspiracy theories get built - they are just meme-agglomerations. and btw the Obama (all of them) ape-images in the underbelly of the internet is one of the roots of the altright. (for a walk-through of the historical development of the ape meme, hereJytdog (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Many years before any Obama-monkey jokes, there was the 2001 Bush "Commander-in-Chimp" meme and "Hail to the chimp" jokes; don't claim Obama-monkey is racist but Bush-chimp is totally different. That's what freedom of speech reveals: white politicians have been compared to monkeys or chimps (scientists in 1968 Planet of the Apes). -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77, your post here is racist statement after racist statement. I have the freedom to tell you that. You damn "white" people with faint praise ('not all that racist', huh?), but most incredibly you go on and on about the n-word, how it has nothing to do with skin, and then you do an about face and say when it could no longer be used, you had to think up another word for "black people". There is so much sophistry in what you write, that it seems you won't understand (unintentionally or intentionally) anything people here have said to you. So I will just leave this, 'shame on you.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I can understand it's difficult to refute what I said, but resorting to ad hominem fallacy, claiming racism, is just a cop-out. When I explained how the N-word has multiple meanings (as a "hardworking servant"), you just ignored all alternative views and claimed, "racism" so it's probably just as well for you to exit until you can discuss issues, not disparage people. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not in the least difficult to refute what you said. But what you said is racism, that's not ad hominem, which just shows your sophistry -- that's just what you wrote in your talk about "white" people and "black" people - that is textual reading. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So is there an actual concrete proposal here?Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The proposal is to better protect freedom of speech on WP, where someone above even indicated this discussion should lead to a topic-ban! -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNJUsE7pEs4 Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither Rosie's tweets nor the NFL owners decision to ban anthem protests/not hire Kaepernik are free speech issues. The backlash and firings are rightly at the discretion of the employer. NYNNY (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, they are still free-speech issues, but those organizations chose to impose various restrictions, such as how players can protest issues around the U.S. national anthem, not kneeling. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not about any mention of apes. Context matters. When a known racist is deliberately trying to demean a black person who worked in the Obama administration by throwing ape and Muslim at them, the message is clearly racist and anti-Muslim xenophobia, possibly tinged with anti-Obama sentiments, since both slurs were often used about him by Trump supporters like Barr. It's pretty simple. The OP "happened" to leave out any of that context, so this thread has been baiting right from the start and should be closed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you really missed the whole point about other opinions; remember "Commander-in-Chimp" was the chimpanzee caricature used against President George W. Bush in 2001, along with "Hail to the chimp!" in January 2001. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in bringing this to wide attention in the community

This tweet leads you to information about an upcoming vote in the European Parliament which is very important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo Wales why are they choosing to police this now?--5 albert square (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright monopsonists. Europeans click here: https://saveyourinternet.eu EllenCT (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)