Talk:Guy Standing (economist)/Archive 1

Proposed deletion
I'm pretty surprised by the proposal for deletion of this article.

Seriously, a quick look at Standing's website will easily demonstrate that he regularly published books, papers, and wrote pieces and gave interview for many newspapers. Last year, he was invited to more than 100 times to make conferences about his last book (The Precariat).

Also, as a former researcher for the International Labor Organization, Standing helped the academists to measure better precariousness with the creation of new indexes (i found them mentioned on the french page for economic indexes here. You'll also find his name on the wikipedia page of the ILO. (will update the article about this in the future).

All in all, i reckon the current version of the article may be too short and not sourced enough. But please, instead of deleting it, help me improve it! Let me know what you think is missing? What is unclear? not enough sourced? and so on. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanjourdan (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015
Guy Standing sitting

137.43.188.253 (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Terribly witty I'm sure, but not an actual request. Please reopen this request by changing answered=yes to answered=no and providing your request in the form of "Please change X to Y" providing any necessary sources. Thanks, Nici  Vampire  Heart  12:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy Standing to Guy sitting
Guy standing to sitting, in Ottobrunn (Germany), attending the BIEN Congress in 2012. Because you are wrong guys. He's sitting.

SwegBEFMN (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

❌ - but almost funny ;-) - Arjayay (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Spelling
I've just changed the "organization" in the template to "organisation" (i.e. ) to match the "globalisation" in the article but then I look at the books the bloke has written and wonder whether it should have gone the other way around. Jimp 08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The spelling used in his books isn't relevant here as far as I can see. Many British publishers prefer -ise spellings, but not all. Oxford University Press (and Oxford Style Guide, widely used) prefers -ize. I believe it's true to say that -ize spellings were previously standard in both UK and US English. If you look at old British books, they use the -ize spelling. Now, for some reason, this -ise thing has come in. I think perhaps the change began in the 1960s, I'm not sure. The only thing that matters in the article is that one or other spelling is used consistently throughout. Dubmill (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * True. I was just thinking that if the subject of the article has a preference, it would be worth adopting.  Jimp 15:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While it's possible he may have a preference, I think it's pretty certain that the spelling used in the books reflects the publisher's preference, not the author's. Dubmill (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's most probably the case. We can't take these titles as strong evidence of the author's preference.  Jimp 08:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016
Guy Standing was an attendee at the secretive Bilderberg conference in 2016 [ ] where his specialism, the Precariat, was on the agenda [ ] 92.1.178.125 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. -- Dane 2007  talk 21:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Guy Standing sitting in..."
Please put some form of edit protection. People keep vandalizing the page with "Guy Standing sitting" (see edit history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.146.223 (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's accurate, though. The photo is of Guy Standing, sitting, so it isn't really vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4401:5FAD:B578:DD86:2D32:3DEA (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's still just a pointless joke. There's no actual reason for it really being there. I suggest changing the picture to him not sitting. --71.185.50.111 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason for his picture to be of him pointing with both hands at a computer monitor, looking like a computer-befuddled godfather, either. Not only is it utterly harmless to have his picture be of him sitting, but the sitting picture is finely posed as an introductory photo of him - actually choosing a poorer-posed photo just to avoid the joke actually draws attention to it. HaniiPuppy (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not only is the original image a good image, with a clearer picture of Guy, but it makes people laugh. Some people just have no sense of humour on Wikipedia. Zolstijers (talk), innit brah!? 18:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a stupid joke. Back to /r/me_irl with your perennial reposts, folks. 108.2.58.56 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We can keep the picture without stating the joke and people will see it anyways. They will see a guy sitting and read the name Standing and maybe chuckle a bit. There's no need to write the joke if people don't want it and there are plenty of editors ready to take away the word sitting.

Reinstate the sitting photo, it is both factual and amusing. Humor in education is a well known and endorsed method of increasing learning, arguably the mission of Wikipedia is improved by a factual play on words which does not detract at all from the topic. http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/learning.aspx for instance or many other papers would back up the inclusion of Guy Standing, sitting as a positive enhancement to this article.


 * It makes me sad about humankind to learn that people keep removing the picture of Guy Standing sitting. Can we at least have a labelled photo of Guy Standing standing if you're that determined not to have him sitting? --Oolong (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Why didn't this page just remove the word "sitting" from the caption and keep the photo? It's extraneous for the caption and pushes the joke too hard, without that one word it's "encyclopedic" but still funny.-- occono (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016
Dragon95 (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Guy_Standing.jpeg/1280px-Guy_Standing.jpeg guy standing sitting


 * I have cropped File:Guy Standing.jpeg and the result, File:Guy Standing (cropped).jpeg, is in my opinion a better picture than File:Guy Standing (12957386475).jpg. Feel free to revert and discuss. The humorous, oxymoronic caption "Guy Standing sitting" while innocuous, is in my opinion not befitting. — Sam Sailor 13:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016
Change the Caption of The photo for Guy Standing (Economist) from Guy Standing in 2012, to Guy Standing Sitting in 2012

50.206.10.134 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ - unoriginal - see "Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015", "Guy Standing to Guy sitting" and "Guy Standing sitting in..." sections above - Arjayay (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Origin of vandalism
9GAG of course Triplecaña (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal against vandalism
Instead of constantly fighting vandals who alter the description of the picture, wouldn't it be simpler to change the picture to one less fitting for such jokes? 94.189.234.208 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"Standing in 2012"
Just noticed this says "Standing in 2012" when in the full, uncropped image he is sitting. Please correct this heinous error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyStanding (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018
make the image of guy standing the one where hes sitting cowards. the fact that its a joke doesn't change anything about the article 2001:1C04:2B04:F300:C5D4:CA6B:98E6:FFBC (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The intention is to restore the original "Guy Standing sitting" image. Sample here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.37.123 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Professorships
According to 1 he "has held chairs at the Universities of Bath and Monash (Australia)". Should we not add this to the article to clarify these were full professorships? --Pontificalibus 08:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2018
Replace the picture of the article from "Guy_Standing_(cropped).jpeg" to "Guy_Standing.jpeg". Replace the caption from "Standing in 2012" to "Guy Standing sitting at the BIEN Congress in 2012."

Thanks. --Hewlett Zeus (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Image arguments
Congrats to all the die-hard opponents of any form of humor, you've inspired one of the most popular humor sites on the web to make fun of your pedantic frustration, and thereby ensure that this article is subject to regular vandalism for at least the next month. Good job. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  15:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The picture caption says "Standing in 2012" but we now know he is sitting in 2012, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be factually accurate, how could you miss such a thing for 6 years?--51.179.97.17 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Standing in 2012?
Was this guy standing during all of 2012? Or was 2012 the only year in which he was standing? Why is his position important to note at all? The information given under the opening is vague and confusing. Wikipedia should know better than to give vague and confusing information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA1:1617:D7D6:2DF3:7B86:3949:D3D6 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Who knows? There is a large debate in some communities whether or not he is sitting or standing or is Guy Standing sitting. I think he is still sitting if I had to be honest. Ed6767 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's standing?
The caption underneath the photo reads "Standing in 2012". I believe we should add "Guy" to remove ambiguity as to who's standing in the photo Gregolego (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Add section on the "Guy Standing sitting" meme to article
The "Guy Standing sitting" meme has become established in popular culture as a result of the edits made to this page. Guy Standing is widely known because of this and it is likely the cause of a significant portion of traffic to this article. Regardless of whether the picture and caption includes the joke or not, a section should be added to the article to inform those seeking this information. Stinkybifta (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there any news articles talking about it? It would have to be notable to include it in the article, not just popular. OmegaFallon (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There's the cracked article for one, but it's wrong to only use news as a metric for significance, because memes are primarily subject to social media, not news. This whole "Guy Standing sitting" war has become a thing on its own, so it deserves a mention here, if not as its own article with a link as a related article. Some social media mentions: tweet,reddit 1, reddit 2reddit 3, reddit 4. And finally, this talk section in itself is a conundrum Lolawl 17:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Why can’t we make the joke
The joke is funny. It’s harmless and I doubt you’re gonna be offending Standing himself by making it. What’s with the fuckin Nazis of Wikipedia removing the ‘Guy Standing sitting’ caption any time it’s posted. It’s inoffensive and it’s funny. I don’t expect all of you to just let it be changed, but at least explain why you won’t let the joke stand. Majabu (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide comprehensive information that is presented neutrally, fairly, and accurately. Wikipedia is meant to be formal and factual, not funny or opinionated. Landfish7 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it IS factual. It's MORE factual than the current revision, because the man is in fact sitting. You have to go out of your way (cropping the picture and continually reverting the edits) to try and hide the fact that he's sitting so the joke can't stand. The mere fact that a piece of information is funny is not a valid reason to exclude it from an encylopedia. Next you'll start removing quotes from people's pages that are deemed to be too humorous. 46.226.188.108 (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. We don't caption the lead image on Stephen Hawking "Hawking sitting in the 1980's" because that would be stupid. Sro23 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Boomers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:27FD:400:D58D:44DD:8C7F:874C (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't, because Stephen Hawking was pretty much always sitting. Guy Standing, on the other hand...Jthistle38 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is nowhere else on Wikipedia do we specify in the captions of images of people if they're sitting, standing, or whatever. I'm ready to put this stupid debate to bed. Per WP:CAP, a good caption "clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious". Sro23 (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there is no policy or consensus actually outlawing (or condoning) humor in articles, see WP:JOKESauzer (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's just dumb that we can't makee that joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.180.92 (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I came here for the joke and I am sad it is not allowed. It is harmless and indeed funny.109.173.8.100 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to see the joke. If everything is robotic and unfunny, no one will have fun. Please change to the uncropped image with the "Guy Standing sitting in 2012" caption, thanks. 173.76.92.175 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I came here for Guy Standing sitting. It's factual! RoelRoel (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I know a lot of you came for the joke because it blew up on twitter, but its settled now. However, I ask people to please hide your IPs or create an account since a lot of people have exposed their IPs because of this. Wkc19 :) (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"Guy standing sitting" is objectively funny and not explicitly banned from Wikipedia, there's no reason it shouldn't stay. --Colin dm (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * For those of you who like the memorialized version you can always look at this version in the history. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean its a popular demand that we should put back GS sitting. Why cant we do this? Its general consensus and everytime someone says no its because "no", while the porposals in favor of GS sitting have a varied array of reasons, including academically cited ones. I'm changing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernilandia (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better if this is put to vote.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

So what happened in the vote. Oh wait! i already know.. 950CMR (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't be killjoys, it's a good joke and doesn't compromise the integrity of the wiki FAISSALOO(talk) 13:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

April Fool subtle jokes are allowed... Nusent (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirm protection too much?
While yes the frequent editing over the image caption can be a problem, is it really that much of an issue to such a scale that we need to prevent a majority of Wikipedians from editing the article, it's just for a simple cheap joke, sure there could be overspecification within the caption, but a normal reader would understand quite fine, and I really doubt there would be much of any confusion at all.

What I recommend is to drop the protection to at least Autoconfirmed users and change the caption to "Guy Standing sitting at the 14th BIEN Congress in 2012" (and perhaps change to the original image, maybe slightly crop the right side), because:
 * 1) It's accurate, the information is from the description of the file.
 * 2) It makes sense and doesn't cause any confusion. Overspecification isn't a problem when it's only one word, and even then that one word doesn't seem problematic to me, and probably won't seem problematic to others.
 * 3) It satisfies the editors who keep changing the caption to "Guy Standing sitting..." most "vandalism" that is occurring are only those who just keep changing the image caption.
 * 4) Finally and most importantly, it allows people to edit, someone who is new to Wikipedia might visit the article, hell maybe even for the cheap joke, but that person might read the article and get interested, then he/she might research more and collect further information that would actually improve the article. With the 30/500 protection, the article pretty much is dead in edit activity, with no content improvement, and very little interest.

I don't understand the need of preventing an edit that just incorporates a small bit of humour and doesn't disrupt or ruin the article in any way, because this is just making an entirely bigger and overly-dramatic situation for something that should be just small and simple. Sure, it's a cheap joke, but will the average reader notice and be angry about it? I don't think so. Will the average reader get confused over it? I don't think so, as long as we say "Guy Standing sitting ..." and not "Standing sitting ..." then everything should be fine.

My main point is not to bring back the old jokes and images with the memes and stuff, those will die out eventually, my point is that we shouldn't stop a majority of editors from editing and potentially improving the article just to stop this simple and harmless joke. RandomEditorAAA (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Completely agree with everything RandomEditorAAA said. And, if by chance the unprotection causes an issue, we can always reprotect the article. Pinging the protecting admin to see what they think. –– FormalDude   talk  01:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ECP seems to be working. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way does it 'seem to be working' ? RandomEditorAAA makes a good argument to remove the ECP. Are you able to respond to any of his points? --Twozerooz (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Working in that it prevents vandalism, which is of course the ultimate goal of Wikipedia - to stop vandalism at any cost, especially when it requires preventing people from learning or god forbid, having fun.71.200.239.176 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically appeal to tradition. –– Formal  talk 10:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Semi protection also prevents 98% of the visitors to the site from editing the article. In the recent past, people who are barely semiconfirmed (10-15 edits) have made unhelpful edits. That's why I personally believe extended confirmed is regretfully needed. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the harm in unprotecting the article when we can always reprotect if it proves problematic? –– Formal  talk 10:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - as an extended-confirmed editor I agree that ECP is excessive, and the proposed caption balances both sides of this argument well. Rema goxer  (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - What if you tried using pending changes protection instead of ECP? And combine that with a hidden comment in the wikitext of the article (and/or the editnotice) warning editors that if they try to reinstate the meme, their edit won't even be publicly viewable (because of the PC protection), their account will likely be blocked for vandalism, and the page will eventually be more strongly protected again which will prevent most editors from editing it. If preventing the restoration of that meme is the only reason that the article is protected, I'd think that this would be enough to prevent most future occurrences, especially after the article has been under ECP for 1.5 years and the desire to restore the meme has likely faded significantly.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 00:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the proposal here by RandomEditor is to reinstate the meme since it is not harmful. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 00:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. I skimmed the proposal above and didn't quite catch that. I thought it was just a proposal to reduce the protection level and hope that no one comes back to restore the meme. In that case, I would oppose this proposal. There's no need for a caption on the photo, and no need to use the photo of him sitting at all. The current photo is a better photo to use, it's a tighter crop that shows Standing's face more clearly than the photo that is zoomed out to show that he is sitting. Just because it is "not harmful" to use that photo and caption doesn't mean that it's best for the article.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 00:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * These are very good points. I like the compromise you originally mentioned, minus the automatic block as a vandal for reinstating the joke (I think blocks should be decided case by case for this, taking into account their experience, etc.). –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 02:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will block anyone who, after a warning, misuses a WP:BLP for amusement. Please find something else to advocate for. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you'd rather prevent a majority of editors from editing and potentially improving the article just to stop this simple and harmless joke. Honestly what good does that do? Just getting your rocks off on the power you have to block indiscriminately? –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 02:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That last sentence is uncalled-for and I would encourage you to strike it. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment by Johnuniq appears to imply that a play on words is a misuse of WP:BLP that deserves a block for anyone who tries to reinstate it or some form of it. That's an incorrect characterization of blockable behavior that could result in the misuse of administrative tools. I'll strike my comment if they recant their generalization. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 04:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that their comment was over-the-top, and had the (I hope unintended) subtext of a threat to block those who support the proposal here. That is no justification, however, for a borderline personal attack with sexual connotations. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Curious why you think they deserve more WP:AGF than they are willing to extend themselves? –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 05:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because that's not how AGF works? But whatever. I've registered my objection. You know I like you, Formal, so I'm disappointed that you're choosing not to strike that. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 05:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there's no point in retaining it now that I've explained my greviences with 's comment. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 05:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Restore the original photo, have the caption be "Guy Standing at the 14th BIEN Congress in 2012" and leave it at that, with the humor implied but not stated. I feel this is a compromise everyone could get behind. In my opinion, the cropped photo is a little too zoomed in and a bit blurry. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this reasonable compromise (RandomEditor's suggestion) . I've read through this talk page before and I just... really don't get it. Reading some comments, you'd get the impression that Wikipedia has some strict "no funny things" policy. We don't! We have no policy nor guideline on the use of humor in mainspace. The closest we have is the essay Humor, which advises There is no clear consensus as to when and how humor should be included in articles. If humorous content is included in an article, it must be done in such a way as to meet all the usual article requirements. Even the unadulterated meme of "Guy standing sitting" would satisfy that, let alone this compromise. I'm curious what it is about this article in particular that draws out so many people who want to apply a nonexistent policy against humor. My signature is a reference to a subtle joke made at List of cetaceans; that joke has been discussed multiple times on talk, most recently in a thread I started, and there has always been consensus to retain it. There are a few other bits of wit scattered throughout mainspace. What's different here? That it's a BLP? There's nothing in the letter or spirit of BLP preventing making an accurate statement with a mildly amusing play on words. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC) ed. 05:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The humor essay quoted above is referring to Requests for comment/April Fools' which includes "There is consensus against automatically blocking users that do April Fools pranks." The point is that people can go a little crazy once a year without being automatically blocked. However, the implication is that such efforts at other times are subject to blocks. I wouldn't call "standing sitting" going crazy, but it is simply unacceptable in an encyclopedic article—try Uncyclopedia. Regarding the above supports, they are too confusing here because they mean something very different from other supports above. If someone has a suggestion for improving the article without a joke, please go ahead and make the edit. If a discussion on the edit is wanted, start a new section to reduce confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing about that essay limits its scope to April Fools. The "outside of articles" section definitely isn't just about April Fools, so I'm not sure why we should take the "in articles" section to be. The implied bit of the April Fools RfC (well, it isn't just implied, it's the sentence after that: Pranks in the mainspace are to be handled as vandalism is normally handled.) is about... pranks. A play on words is not a prank. As to "simply unacceptable", that's a very definitive statement to make when the Wikipedia community has at no point in 20 years sought fit to categorically prohibit light, policy-compliant humor, to the extent that we don't even have a guideline on it. We've written whole policies prohibiting all sorts of trivial things, but nothing about humor, for or against. (As to what I'm supporting, obviously the detailed proposal that started this thread.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC) ed. 05:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, on rereading the thread, I realized it's not as clear which I was supporting as I'd thought. Clarified, and sorry for the snarkiness of "obviously". --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 05:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ninja's protection was correct. Autoconfirmed users were being disruptive over the meme. It's a tired old meme anyway, stopped being funny years ago. Why would we want to open ourselves up to that again and the inevitable lame edit wars that are bound to follow by reducing the protection? We have enough lame edit wars as is. Yawn. Sro23 (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I came to this article because of the meme, yes, because it made me curious the current state of the article, I don't intend to make any edits to this article at all (even if I could) as there truly isn't anything I could contribute, but it does seem truly absurd that extended protection exists on this article. I'm going to bulletpoint a for/against just to explain why I think this:


 * Against extended protection:
 * 98% of wikipedia editors are unable to edit this article, which could well include a large number of people which may know something productive that is currently missing or incorrect in the article. Many edits across wikipedia are from even unregistered users, including many helpful edits.
 * A key concept behind wikipedia is that it is open, anyone can contribute. Yes that holds risks, but it's risks we choose to put up with to enable all people to contribute to collating the largest encyclopedia in the world. As per the Wikimedia Foundation's values page (https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/values/) We are in this together. Collaboration is not always easy. Sometimes we struggle. Working together is hard, but it’s worth it.
 * For extended protection:
 * You don't want a joke on an article.


 * We can always debate if the joke should or should not be present, and undoubtedly some people will continually protest whatever decision is present, but slapping extended confirmed protection (or hell, any protection) on this article for a single joke, one word in length, which honestly doesn't undermine the ability for the article to be understood, nor undermine the factual nature of the article, is absurd. We would be letting our desire to exclude humour from articles come before our desire to uphold the very principles wikipedia is built upon. 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:21 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose unprotection. Saw this at WP:CR. I'm suprised we have experienced editors supporting removal of protection from a BLP for such spurious reasons that would only lead to more issues to be raised in the future. There is clearly a lack of consensus on what should be written as the caption of the picture, and unprotecting would just lead to edit wars and reprotection. That editors would choose to give patrollers and admins extra work just for a joke is quite absurd. Isabelle 🔔 20:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Since when do we have full !voting discussions about whether or not to protect a page? It'd be one thing if this was a major article, but it's really not. We don't need to expend the energy to have a giant back and forth here; this should've just been sent to WP:RPP and dealt with through our normal process there. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was ECP protected on 13 March 2020 and a request to unprotect was made six weeks ago—that's where I noticed it. Someone else declined the request on 16 November 2021, see Requests for page protection/Archive/2021/11. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support pending changes protection per . Oppose suggested caption: it isn't obvious that he is sitting from the current picture and the picture should be chosen on the basis of more relevant factors than jokeability - the current picture is a better crop. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with something lighthearted like this in an article, but articles certainly shouldn't be altered merely to accommodate minor jokes. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support pending changes protection and oppose proposed caption. Saw a notice for this discussion at WT:LABOR. This is a discussion about restoring a joke caption to a WP:BLP with no aid to the reader? That's a non-starter. He's not sitting in the photo and there's no indication he's even at a conference. "Standing, 2012" would be a sufficient caption, to be aided by adding a hidden comment as Scottywong proposed above. Even better, set the caption by talk page consensus and refer to that in the comment. Mind that the caption used to be "Standing in 2012" which is also sufficient but lends to more disruption than the simple comma.
 * Changing the protection level to pending changes is even more lax than semi-protection (autoconfirmed), but honestly it sounds fine. If the page maintainers are getting barraged, update it to semi and call it a day. Honestly, if the caption was suitably addressed, the protection should be a more straightforward WP:RPP-solvable issue. The discussion should be separate to avoid this inevitable muddling. (not watching, please )  czar  18:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Making the caption useless in an attempt to destroy any attempt at "humor" is a waste of time and a disservice to readers. The present caption, "Guy Standing at the 14th BIEN conference in 2012" is fine, particularly because as Guy Standing is a co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network, that is salient information to mention in the caption. As the only editor to make a substantive addition to this article since 2018, I can assure you I am motivated by interest in improving this article, not the joke. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the caption has now been reverted, falsely claiming the issue of the caption has been settled already. This is disingenuous, a disservice to readers, and exactly the type of bureaucratic nonsense that is Wikipedia at its worse. There is no substantive reason that the article should have no caption at all. There is no ongoing disruption, and the caption that was unilaterally removed did not reference the joke that has previously caused problems. I am disappointed that editors are opposing efforts to actually improve the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It was "Standing in 2012" for years (at no loss to readers) before it was made captionless for all of 2021 until this BIEN caption addition last month (November). I've restored the captionless and there should be a specific discussion on the caption if its phrasing is controversial in this unhappy case. The only caption detail I could see "actually improving the article" is to mention the photograph's time frame, to which I gave my comma proposal above. The other proposed caption details are trivia. czar  18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Giving a basic description of a photograph is not "trivia", but you've clearly made up your mind on this issue. I spend much time removing trivia from train articles in the course of my regular editing, I know trivia when I see it. Typical of Wikipedia for something like a caption to be a point of dispute. Whatever, have it your way. I'm not going to turn this into a giant fight because that would waste everyone's time, though I strongly disagree with your rationale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This hand-wringing at typical Wikipedia bureaucracy rings hollow when followed by reverting an uncontroversial hidden comment as needing consensus czar  19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Protection for this page is completely unnecessary. The entire situation was the result of hand-wringing over a minor joke that only benefited the page as it gave people a reason to look at the page of some random British economist. Franz Kafka should write a book about this. Jon698 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2021
Guy standing is sitting the photo 212.129.73.93 (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Replace the picture of the article from "Guy_Standing_(cropped).jpeg" to "Guy_Standing.jpeg" . --Twozerooz (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. –– FormalDude   talk  15:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Podcast on Guy Standing sitting


Thanks for logging the press here. I am additionally making this post here for anyone to comment.

Reply All (podcast)
 * https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/wbhx32g/188-into-the-depths

Wikipedia's own community newsletter The Signpost always presents recent media. If anyone wants to write a few sentences for this podcast please submit to Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media by about 25 June.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  16:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Done! @FormalDude, I'm curious, how did they find you to interview, and how was the experience? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The producer who interviewed Guy Standing actually reached out to me on my talk page last month. She found me from my past participation on this talk page. She wanted to know more about Wikipedia before going to Guy with the interview. We talked for over an hour, it was great. –– FormalDude  talk  02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Guy Standing (sitting) featured in recent article on The Signpost
Recent Signpost article here: "Sit-down with Guy Standing for pod guys' last stand"

Nice one! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2022
The book A basic income grant for South Africa needs a title edit: Remove the text “, edited with Michael Sansom” which is not part of the title. Sansom is already credited as coauthor. Standing and Sansom are co-editors according to Worldcat. 2603:9004:A04:7C1D:A821:E738:5E26:12F0 (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 13:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)