Talk:86 (term)#%22Allusion%22
{{Talk header}}
{{calm}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=19 October 2020 |result=keep |page=86 (term)}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}
}}
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|ap}}
{{Press
| author = Noam Cohen
| title = Wikipedia's Plan to Resist Election Day Misinformation
| org = Wired
| url = https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-plan-to-resist-election-day-misinformation/
| date = October 26, 2020
}}
{{annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(120d)
| archive = Talk:86 (term)/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 120K
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 2
}}
Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2025
{{edit semi-protected|86 (term)|answered=yes}}
2600:8801:119B:8F00:447F:A5AC:CB09:9DAE (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
To 86 someone came straight from vegas. it was what the mafia did before the police came to help out. the mafia would have graves ready to go. then they would take you 8 miles out away from the casino and bury you 8 ft under. thats where it came from. then when the mafia died out it just meant to get kicked out or tresspassed.
: Who are you talking to specifically when you say "you"? Are we "pronominally challenged"? 71.246.145.21 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:It might be better to just drop the "According to Cassell's Dictionary of Slang" paragraph. It's based on arguably dubious sources (the Snopes one doesn't even really talk about the claim it's placed next to). And it's also using a definition not found in Wiktionary or any "real" modern dictionary. 84.35.99.94 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Not clear what specific change you want made. Please follow the instructions in the edit request. As you were instructed previously, provide sources to back up your claim. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2025 (2)
{{edit semi-protected|86 (term)|answered=yes}}
The article suggests that the term, “86” began in the service industry. However, it began with the US military.
The term 86 originated with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These are the laws that govern military behavior in the US. In the US Military, if you go missing, or leave your assigned place of duty, you can be charged with Article 86: Absent Without Leave. To 86 someone or something, meant to make that person or thing disappear.208.189.219.139 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion 208.189.219.139 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:I was able to verify from your source Desertion only that Article 86 of the ucmj indeed covers AWOL, apparently since at least 1958. No source that this is the origin of the term, or that it predates the earliest attestation in 1933. 71.246.145.21 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{not done}} It looks like Article 86 dates to May 5, 1950. https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=64&page=135 The article currently has sources before 1950 stating that "86" was soda jerk slang in 1947 and 1933. So, no, unless a source earlier than 1933 can be provided, there is no source that suggests this slang term originated in the military. EdgierEdgar (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- :I can confirm as a veteran that the term "86" is absolutely not used this way, nor has it ever been a euphemism for AWOL, in the U.S. military. This is just a nonsense old salt's tale. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|86 (term)|answered=yes}}
"Many of the Republicans who were enraged by use of 86 used it themselves" sic is incorrect.
The following lines of text succeeding this claim contained only two examples. Two is not 'many'. I suggest that the text above be amended to read more correctly as 'A few Republicans'... 2600:1702:6B48:B920:2C52:AD12:8E4D:8531 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{not done}} The cited reliable source says "MAGA world erupted ... many of the same people raging that this was a call for assassination had previously used the same term to refer to their political opponents." EdgierEdgar (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- :That 'quote' is nowhere in the Independent story. Besides, that statement is hyperbole, and hyperbole should never be used in Wikipedia. Your quote says many of the same people referred to the political opponent(s) plural. The only one mentioned in 8646 was Biden. That's not a plural. That's a singular. 86 was used in '8646' to mean: fire, replace, not assassination. In the same vein, the same logic can NOT be used to say that 'Maga' people wanted an assassination of Joe Biden. This whole paragraph in Wiki needs to be rewritten. One cannot use a specific line of logic one way, and have it mean another elsewhere. 2600:1702:6B48:B920:2C52:AD12:8E4D:8531 (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::This has already been answered. The last sentence of the third paragraph of the source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/james-comey-86-gaetz-maga-b2752452.html reads "... many of the same people raging that this was a call for assassination had previously used the same term to refer to their political opponents ..." EdgierEdgar (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::::It seems highly inappropriate to use Wikipedia to redefine the definition of phrase in common use to advocate for trumps removal from office as advocation for his assassination. Motives for the change seem dubious given public use of this tactic to silence dissenting voices. 2600:100A:B02C:4658:4F9:2347:24CA:E210 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)