Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope/Archive 3

definite article or possessive pronouns?
I don't think your edits here (or to Wikipedia) are useful. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 13:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Overzealous archiving
User:Beeblebrox, please do not archive so as to leave zero threads. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's a rule, it's not one I've ever heard of. The most recent talk thread was over three years old, I don't see anything overzealous about archiving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a rule. In fact, it is common for obscure essays and other pages like this to be empty to discourage me-too forum comments. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, Johnuniq. I am aware of the argument that article talk pages should not be emptied because it discourages new talk page posts.  Old talk sections provide an encouraging example for newcomer editors in posting a talk thread.  I hadn't considered that it might be a good idea to discourage newcomers from posting on essay talk pages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the fear of me-too forums is unfounded. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of "Hangman" graphic
Good morning all.

I removed the "Hangman" graphic primarily because of the racist connotation to lynchings in the southern United States. Other editors might disagree, but I was also motivated by the fact that the graphic [which] precisely does not illustrate the topic: "Give 'em enough rope" - since the point of the graphic is to illustrate someone being hung; and the point of the topic is to encourage people being allowed to (metaphorically) hang themselves. My edit was reverted so I have brought it here. If the graphic is relevant to the topic and adds value to the article then of course it should stay. Views please. Regards and respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The graphic is clearly a reference to Hangman (game). Something that I played at school as a child. I don't think that it has any specfic connations to "lynching". Hanging via a rope has been a very common method of execution since the middle ages, and has no strong connotations particular to "lynchings in the southern United States" over any other usage of hanging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This. It's a kids game. It does not depict a lynching. It's perhaps a bit grim for a children's activity but I've never seen any evidence that it is supposed to depict a lynching as opposed to the literally hundreds of other scenarios in which people were hung. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I note that there is not a consensus that it constitutes a racist meme and have struck through the point above. Any views on the relevance issue (imposed v self-inflicted death) please? Springnuts (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The stick man is a rather lonely figure. He has no lynchers. He has no visible hangman. It's somewhat unclear if he's black or white. In fact he has no skin. The only crime or non-crime he ever commits is invented by the players who allow him to be created. But it seems to me that anyone who's already at the noose, and has to have each of his (or her) limbs created and attached, one by one, is hardy likely to be in charge of the rope. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for late homework - there is some relevant discussion here [] and here []. Springnuts (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And in the two move discussions,all of which are linked at the top of the page. I get it though,people tend to scroll right past that stuff. The graphic obviously does not literally show someone being given a rope,rather it shows a player on the brink of losing a game of hangman, similar to a user who, having been unblocked, starts back up the same behavior that led to the block, one wrong move, and they are done, as the caption says. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well fair enough. And I guess there's a sprinkling of I just don't like it involved, which is of no weight whatsoever of course.  I will have a look for something more relevant and suitable, and if I can find it, will perhaps give it a whirl.  Respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Trying a photo showing the creation of a noose. Springnuts (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not see that as an improvement. Where before we had an image of a children's game, there is now an actual noose. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think these are all efforts at making superficial improvements on a what is the fundamentally unavoidable core metaphor of this essay, as it is written. We need to address the core problem here. Some effort were made in 2015 and 2016, but they met with strong opposition, which even spilled out into a successful effort to quash the alternative essay that spelt out the same principle with more decency. Five years have passed now, and I would like to think the community will have grown up in the meantime. Maybe it's time to show we're ready to start treating people with the sensitivity they deserve? – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to say what I say every time this comes up: if you think a different metaphor would be better write that essay. If it's better, it will supplant this one. I agree that times can change, essays like WP:BALLS used to be commonly cited in conversations, but not so much anymore, not because they were watered down but because they were replaced with better essays. Anyone is perfectly free to write such an essay, and I encourage them to link it here in the "see also" section. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Good photo, thanks. Springnuts (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Call for voluntary userfication
Hi User:Beeblebrox. As the original writer of this page, I'm calling on you to userfy it, thanks. Since you've in the past demonstrated a high standard for what sorts of essays are proper for Wikispace and which are proper for userspace instead (and fine, as long as one is consistent), and since this page is controversial, I'm confident you'll do the right thing here.

[Ugh, since the discussion was closed early (tsk) I had to go into the history to retrieve it, and I clicked on and read the wrong MfD, the first one from some years back rather than the current one. This makes a dog's breakfast of a lot of what I wrote so I'm redacting as confusing and not germane (it's in the history). Sorry about that. The request remains and the text I left still applies.] Herostratus (talk) (later)

We know it's controversial because it's been nominated for deletion three times and surely will be again. Which stands to reason because it's not a good page for Wikispace.

I mean the point of this page is legitimate: accept a blocked editor at her word, but recognize that there're all kinds of people out there, and she may fall short of her promise, or even be devious, in which case sadly we must require her to apply her talents elsewhere. That's pretty obvious, but it's OK to say it. But not like this, that's all we're saying. (This is also why the usual relief of writing and linking to a refuting essay isn't on the table -- we agree with the point, it's the existence of the wording we're not so sure about.)

We know all this was written (and written well) in good faith, there's no hint of accusation there. It's just that some of us have different experiences in life, and here, and so we don't agree with the terminology, and we think that ascribing this to the original author alone would be in order here.

So, in addition to your no-doubt desire to be consistent and fair-minded on these matters, I'm sure you want to avoid more time and energy wasting fuddle-do-do of more worrying over the page, so, thanking you in advance for your understanding, Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Handy link to see the community consensus: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (3rd nomination). Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. I had looked at the wrong close, the one for the first nomination some years back. Sorry, and the points re the discussion and close don't apply nearly so strongly and are not germane. The rest stands as this isn't about any votes but about the best thing to do in this difficult situation. (As to consensus, these things are not a vote, and if you disregard the "this doesn't bother me, so it couldn't bother anyone else and even if it did who cares" type arguments (which would maybe be justifiable I think) I'm not sure there would be a clear consensus either way; no way to know since the close was more on procedural and deportment grounds rather than the merits it looks like). Herostratus (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You should know that the "original writer" of a page doesn't get any special authority over it, especially once there are other contributors. — xaosflux  Talk 10:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Depends on the circumstances. This is rather a special case I think and this is the best way forward, so per WP:1Q we can find precedents I'm confident. Herostratus (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Echoing Xaosflux, this article is collectively owned by Wikipedia, we have had the discussion three times now, and the consensus is to keep the article. You can't go around consensus process by asking one random editor to do something for you. MarshallKe (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record: no. Per everything that has already been said. There's actually been five discussions if you include the move discussions in the archives here, and the result has been the same every single time, so I rather think the parties that need to just accept the situation are the ones who keep trying to remove it totally rewrite this instead of trying to replace it with a new, better essay. We've got at least two new attempt to do that going already, and as I've said all along, if that happens, I'm totally fine with it and this will end up marked "historical" at some point down the road when it isn't commonly cited anymore, as it is now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally, until today I never had any impression about who this essay's ultimate authors were or what kind of procedural history it might have, but I will say this: it's used with some fair ubiquity in multiple community/behavioural review spaces, and I've never once before heard it said that it was controversial. It's clearly just a rule of thumb principle that some people want quick reference to in a community discussion, without needing to spell that well-known practical argument out.  Needless to say, there is no absolute consensus that it is a winning argument (in particular cases or generally), but...that's why it's an WP:ESSAY...  Essays are by definition perspectives on policy and process which have not gone through the WP:PROPOSAL process, and may at times be minority positions (and in fact, if polled, I doubt the average veteran editor would agree that using "WP:ROPE" in a discussion isn't at least occasionally useful.


 * Essays are typically only userfied if they blatantly conflict with some well-established principle of community consensus and the number of supporters for the essay are extremely low in numbers. Neither seems to be the case here and I'm not sure what the "controversy" here could even be: if an editor doesn't believe rope should be given in a particular case, they can...just not use the link?  On the other hand, what could possibly be gained by prohibiting those users who do support the principle of extending rope in a particular community discussion from alluding to it with a link, as opposed to express it at length in the discussion.  The proposal seems like a solution in search of a problem, if I am blunt. Beyond that, I think this is clearly a WP:SNOWBALL matter: I don't see an endorsement of this request as at all likely to issue from the community at large. SnowRise let's rap 03:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, looking at the previous MfDs (which to be fair, I should have done before the previous comment), I now see the nexus of the previous complaints. Actually, even as I was opening the links, I was speculating if this might have something to do with the imagery of hanging in general. Nevertheless, my stance on userfying remains unchanged.  Putting aside the standing consensus and multiple recent discussions, and the general principle of abiding by consensus here, I also find the reasoning advanced in those discussions as problematic in the extreme.  I can appreciate that certain people have strong, even visceral, reactions to the concept of hanging, but we're talking about an idiom that is many hundreds of years old as a functional colloquialism, based on a metaphor that goes back even farther.  It's origins have nothing to do with the phenomena of lynch mobs which it is emotionally being associated with in this instance--nor do I believe that the average person who uses it for illustrative purposes in a rhetorical exchange is likely to perceive of it in that way.


 * I can get behind pro-active censorship of some language for the sake of inclusion and sensitivity, particularly on this project, which requires balancing a lot of social and community factors. But in this case, with the argument for proscription based so entirely upon a combination of both false etymology and etymological fallacy, I think it's just a problematic road to go down. So much of the functional strength of English is associated with idioms, and if we begin to hedge in our expression on this project based on every case of offense caused by a faulty (but sincerely believed) analysis of the commonly understood underlying meaning and origin of a term or phrase, we're going to find ourselves in a difficult place fast.  There needs to be more meat on the bones of the latent offense imbued by a term (rather than just a feeling of offense amongst those who decided to draw a conclusion without doing their etiological homework) before we can legitimize a statement as problematic in and of itself. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 03:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Forgive the multiple posts in a row and the verbosity here, but just as one final comment: I would certainly endorse a change to the policy to remove the imagery to hanging, but not because I necessarily think the offense taken is necessarily reasonable. Rather, I've always found the metaphor just does not work very well for what it is functionally describing when the essay is invoked in discussion.  In the case of problematic editors being given additional shots to redeem their conduct, there's really no vested interest for the community in letting someone get themselves in trouble.  So the use of the idiom here kind of clashes with the historical meaning of this phrase (which is to say, enabling someone you want to see fail by giving them every chance to bring themselves down).


 * For this reason, in my mind, I think when I invoke "WP:ROPE", I am thinking of it more in the sense of repelling, spelunking, or mountaineering: i.e. something you may want to lend someone but for which there will be a finite supply. This meaning also seems to be implicit in most of the cases where I've seen others utilize the pipe: people often say in this context something along the lines of "Extend User:Is mostly helpful, but needs to get a clue in this case some WP:ROPE, but with the clear understanding that community tolerance for WP:Policy issue they can't seem to internalize is running out."  In other words, we are sharing a resource (community patience), but there is a limit that is about to be reached.  Perhaps the essay could be re-tooled in that fashion and thus retain it's general meaning and function as it is usually deployed here, while also losing the hanging imagery that a few find problematic.  But Beebleborx and others above are correct when they say that, given there is a clear and recent consensus to keep the essay, even as written, the onus is on those who would like to see it go away to propose an alternative that might gain some consensus. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 04:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove text that refers to or implies death
The following text, which makes reference to or implies death by hanging, should be removed or rephrased:





There's no good reason for an essay to be this inflammatory. These three phrases provide no additional information of value whatsoever. The only purpose they serve is to crassly allude to suicide. The phrases can be easily reworded as follows:
 * 1. Give 'em enough rope for their last chance.
 * This makes more sense in the context of the article. The rope is given to them for one last chance, not for the assumption that they will need to blocked yet again, though that may be present.
 * 2. The second one can just be removed. It adds nothing of value and is already preceded with "they've already gotten all the rope they need."
 * 3. Little do they know they have used up all their rope.

These phrases capture 100 percent of the original meaning without implying death by hanging. –– FormalDude  talk  05:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This is extremely tiresome. We've had three deletion discussions, two requested moves, and the attempt to force userfication just above, and the result has been the same every single time. If you would prefer a different essay write one yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While "Give 'em enough rope ..." is an idiom, it's meaning—If you give people the opportunity to do something wrong or detrimental to themselves, they will usually do it; one does not need to interfere to bring about someone's downfall.—goes against the guideline WP:AGF. In life, there will always be some group that wants to hold on to "history". Independent of the outcome here, people can choose to cite alternatives, like WP:LASTCHANCE, that are more aligned with AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beeblebrox that this is getting tiresome (although I appreciate that this proposal is well-intentioned). We already have an alternatively-worded essay, and that should be enough. As I've said in earlier discussions, I believe that the concerns here are overly sensitive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the community prefers to keep allusions to death by hanging when they are absolutely not needed, so be it. I just figured I'd bring it up one last time though in a manner that actually keeps the article the same rather than all the previous proposals calling for moves, deletions, or userfication. –– FormalDude  talk  21:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I really do appreciate that this proposal comes from a good place. It seems to me, however, that to rewrite it by keeping "rope" while pretending that readers will not not see the connection between "rope" and "hanging" is overthinking it. I'm very sensitive to the importance of "first, do no harm" with matters of suicide, but I believe that readers know a metaphor when they see one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This has all been discussed at very great length before. Many people believed the metaphor was harmful, and many believed it wasn't. How do we reconcile the two positions? By looking at what is at stake: the costs versus the benefits. What do we gain by keeping the current metaphor? Nothing really, as it doesn't matter for the essay's point which metaphor is used, or if a metaphor is used at all. And what is the cost of keeping it? The risk of causing harm. Now, we may disagree about the magnitude of that risk – we can argue whether the probability of any one instance of the use of this metaphor causing harm is 0.1% or 0.001% – but I really don't see scope for disagreeing on the fact that the risk exists (no rational person will claim that the above probability equals absolute zero). If we tried to pragmatically decide on the outcome that's best for Wikipedia (rather than the outcome that best aligns with one's preferred symbolism or stance in the culture wars), then I think the solution is obvious. – Uanfala (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we certainly agree that it has all been discussed before. This isn't the kind of thing where either of us can prove a percentage likelihood, and I recognize that those who disagree with me about this are doing so with the best of intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of rewriting it and keeping "rope" is because there are multiple analogies that can be used for rope, many of which do not include suicide (sailing, rock climbing, lassoing, etc.) A lot of people have argued that the phrase is not even about suicide originally, which may well be true. In my opinion, rewording it to be open to multiple interpretations is much better than keeping it in its current form which specifically implies hanging. –– FormalDude  talk  03:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the essay should be rewritten to keep the rope metaphor but get rid of the allusions to hanging. See for example Wikipedia talk:One last chance and Wikipedia talk:One last chance. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But let's remember that the point here is to remind readers that there are consequences to actions. Removing language that, in your mind, intones hanging would only harmfully soften the message. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if references to suicide are so beneficial, then why do we only have them here, in this little out-of-the-way essay? Why don't we start inserting them into our guidelines and policies. Imagine how much stronger their messages would then become. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Uanfala here. I don't see how removing the language in question harmfully softens the message, I think it makes it stronger. Maybe can elaborate on what they mean there. In my eyes, considering we're an online encyclopedia, the comparison of blocking to death seems hyperbolic to say the least. As a reader I see these allusions and think less of the essay for strutting informal exaggerations. It should be kept realistic. Of course blocking policy is vital to the project, but Wikipedia isn't life or death, and we don't need to use controversial wording to show importance. –– FormalDude   talk  00:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, there are a lot of people here whose opinions I very greatly respect and to whom I look for leadership in sensible ways on sensible matters. Sigh. So, given it's a drag and all, and tiresome, and what have you, I do want to just in passing throw my weight (which is considerable in real life but, yes I know, utterly negligible here in the world of WikiPowerBroking&trade;) behind those saying lose the references to death by hanging. To be honest (never a good idea here) I do think it is repulsive and grossly inappropriate, especially given the well-known figure of precisely 85.27 per cent of all our editors having some sort of mental health or self-esteem issue or both on Thursdays. And we will never, ever, ever agree on this, so one person's feeling that the concerns here are overly sensitive is totally valid as is mine that the concerns may not be sensitive enough. But, yes, I think there is greater potential for harm from underreacting, and allowing our text to go on invoking suicide/lynching/whatever in a cheerfully casual way, than in overreacting and getting rid of the references. By this is just my 1.2 new pence worth and yes you have all chased round the topic many times, so I will bid you a fond goodnight, and thanks for listening. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How far does concern about language go—what about, say, nigger toes? Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this a serious comment? –– FormalDude  talk  06:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: I suspect one problem here is that relatively few of us really really know the potential for damage: how great or little it is, all the rest. I certainly don't – it is just my personal feelings. Why not ask someone with expertise, such as the Samaritans? They seem not to be shy about suggesting/commenting on policy and approaches, but also reasonably calm and not given to wild flights of accusation etc. If someone asked them about the page and they said "Nah, it's not a problem", I would be quite happy to accept it. Much more happy than accepting my own expertise, or lack thereof. (Or do they maybe have an FAQ or something?) Just a suggestion, and I am planning to stfu again for as long as possible. I know no-one wants to keep this dragging on for decades more. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Now that's a good idea. I've emailed the Samaritans. –– FormalDude  talk  08:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: A representative from the Samaritans has informed me via email that they are working on their advisement for us. –– FormalDude  talk  04:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the book An Asperger Dictionary of Everyday Expressions, the rope metaphor is the "argument that some individuals given sufficient opportunity will bring harm on themselves"..—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion is getting increasingly bizarre with each post. Flailing around looking for someone outside the Wikipedia community to magically tell us the essay must be rewritten is not an idea I've seen before.... This all seems rather desperate, and is certainly not how we make decisions about the content of project-space essays for which we already have had six discussions and the result has been clear every time. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bizarre, desperate, flailing? Could you at least pretend to assume some good faith? This proposal is extremely modest in comparison to the other discussions you referenced. –– FormalDude  talk  07:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to see what they suggest, purely as a matter of information, but I would not be willing to substitute their views for editor consensus here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: There's a related discussion going on now at WT:MEDMOS, where there seems to me to be a leaning away from being too strict about language. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Beeblebrox hits it right on the head: this is a political stunt by a certain clientele whom have already decided that this page will be moved, renamed, hidden, and deleted regardless of the community's stated consensus to keep as-is because, without true religious belief, this sort of slacktivism turns into a "for appearances only" moral crusade. I am opposed to this effort and anyone with the tiniest bit of spine would oppose it, too. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the last discussion there was only consensus against deletion, not for keeping it as is. The proposals for rewriting the essay or for marking it as historical both received traction, which was reflected in the closing statement. I dislike the crusade aspect too. But there's no good reason why this should be happening. An issue was identified in one essay, we could have addressed it with a minor tweak and without loss of function – just like we do with everything else on Wikipedia. But no, some people have apparently taken this small change to the phrasing to be a gross injustice and a violation of their human rights, and have turned this into a hill worth dying on. – Uanfala (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see it the other way, some people didn't get what they wanted from the previous discussions, so they are going for a back-door deletion, and to try and make it stick are going to absurd lengths like consulting outside groups (without sharing the text of their request here, so who knows what they said) and using, if I understand it right, a dictionary for mildly autistic people to back their position. There's already at least two alternate versions of this essay that don't use the same metaphor. I feel that these folks, instead of using these odd tactics and endless discussions one right after another, would be doing everyone a favor if they instead focused their efforts ont hose other essays, improving them and getting them into common parlance, as ROPE is now. That is the way to accomplish their goal, not WP:BLUDGEONing for all eternity here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when we give them too much rope. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not use a dictionary for mildly autistic people to back my position, and I don't think 's mention of one weakens my argument.
 * I've had little to no participation in this essay's previous discussions. My intentions with this proposal are purely good faith, and is certainly not a back-door deletion attempt. If this essay wants to stay common parlance (which I think would be good) it should have its redundant controversial wording rephrased. –– FormalDude  talk  04:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, here's a copy of every correspondence I've had thus far with the Samaritans: User:FormalDude/EmailCorrespondence. –– FormalDude  talk  05:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly does having a spine have to do with keeping this wording in Wikipedia? We're an online encyclopedia, not a gladiator game–we need to lose the death threats. –– FormalDude  talk  05:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would anyone capable of being a useful editor regard the essay as a death threat? On a comprehension scale, that would be a nonsensical reading. Are you saying that certain mistaken people with certain problems might so interpret it? Is there any evidence for that? Meanwhile, I have no idea why you dismissed my earlier comment when I pointed to something that is really offensive (and which was being discussed for deletion at the time of my post). Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's not a death threat it's at least an allusion to death. Still not needed, for the same reason. The essay can be just as meaningful without referring to hanging three times.
 * And I dismissed your earlier comment because it was a major detractor. This isn't a discussion about Wikipedia's tolerance for offensiveness. WP:NOTCENSORED is not even applicable here, as "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content. But really, I saw your comment as just stirring the pot (it certainly wasn't a constructive comment pointing out any relation to this discussion). If you wanted to discuss that deletion you should have done so at its RfD. –– FormalDude  talk  06:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You do not unilaterally decide what "we need to lose" and I find your efforts to alter this essay wrong-headed. If more editors were willing to condemn your behavior in this regard you wouldn't feel so brave as to tilt at this windmill. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the problem was that people didn't have enough spine. Now it turns out the problem is people are too brave :) – Uanfala (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)