[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:AC Transit bus fight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion of deletion discussion

[edit]

The factual accuracy of this article is in dispute; see the AFD page for details. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this noteworthy? It's barely news. Perhaps it should be moved to the list of internet memes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.184.41.8 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's noteworthy but I don't think it merits its own article. But it has made national news, covered by CBS and NBC among several newspapers. Moving it a list of Internet memes is probably the thing to do. Chavando (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This event and the guy "EBM" is becoming huge, and there are other videoed incidents. I think we should consider this article as we've given articles to less, let's see if it becomes more popular before deleting it. TheJoak (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This happening was posted on Youtube 2 days ago. See how many additions this article has, one of the videos now has more than a half million views! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.233.179 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments directly above. This is certainly noteworthy enough for its own article and has been appropriately written and sourced. It could do with some expansion, although no doubt as the incident spreads, more details will emerge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.176.167 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet phenomena come and go as time passes. I agree that you should wait and see if this incident will in time merit its own article. Otherwise, merging would be the best thing to do.70.191.209.102 (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Let's delete Chocolate Rain and Star Wars Kid too. Maybe we should delete Wikipedia as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.97.75 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's as noteworthy as the Dont tase me bro incident. And certainly has enough coverage and debate for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is no reason to delete it really. What it needs is more sources and to be rewritten better. 204.52.215.135 (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the comments above. We should wait for the event and more details to unfold. Do not delete this article, simply because we have not let the information to have its chance to be recognized yet. Evolver42 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it should stay, for the same reason that Dont tase me bro and the hamster dance are here -- it marks a small but defining moment in the history of American popular culture. Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is culturally relevant, I think it should stay. Aspects of the incident have become internet memes, relevant pop culture. --Theo10011 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a heading so that this discussion can be followed more easily if the article remains and other discussions develop. This story just could be notable, but the reason why Wikipedia is not news is because you can't tell which big stories are going to become notable unless you have a crystal ball. If someone created this article in six months or a year, the incident might be looked back upon as, I don't know, being the watershed moment for the outlawing of cameras on buses, to name a ridiculous possibility. The thing is, this is news, but not all news matters in the future. Will history judge this as a significant event or just a fight that happened somewhere it could be recorded? Until we know that, there's no place for an article.--otherlleft 16:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like this shit isn't getting deleted. ----->Encyclopedia Dramatica Ticklemygrits (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ with the editor above, the story has proven to be relevant already, many news sources have picked up on it. Like some editors already pointed out, the article is pretty same as dont tase me bro, star wars kids and chocolate rain memes. With all the hundreds and thousands of article about characters from TV shows and individual episode guides, a single page about the incident shouldn't be the priority to remove irrelevant articles. Its part of pop culture trivia now, if you want you can put the deletion up for a vote, but the comments already on the page should give you an idea how other editors feel. if you want to remove all the irrelevant, quasi-noteworthy article you can start elsewhere, there is no shortage of those, a single page about the incident is not going to tarnish Wikipedia.--Theo10011 (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's already up for deletion Theo. The incident is trivial, a fight on a bus of which there would be thousands a day around the world. It's not notable at all. The reaction on the internet is basically some demotivational posters about ambulamps, which are amusing but also not notable. I like this sort of ephemera on wikipedia but after everyone has had a chuckle about it will fade into internet history. It belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica, not Wikipedia.Ticklemygrits (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're looking at the incident only as news, I agree that the incident itself is trivial. I was trying to differentiate it as a part of pop culture. I would put it in the same category as Leeroy jenkins, would you delete that too? its a video game character that would fit in "Encyclopedia Dramatica", but consider the impact it had on pop culture, there is an entire episode of southpark based around leeroy, its referred to in a toyota commercial, its been cited in journals even a court case and not to mention several movies. Its an internet meme now, and it will remain that for all the annals of history, Quasi-relevant- maybe, not for you to judge. Leeroy thing is close to 4-5 years old, has it been deleted, the memes may fade in time but their relevance to that time remains, its a part of history now, a trend or an incident like this or dont tase me bro were relevant at a time. Have a look here [1] -90% of the articles in internet phenomena page have their own pages, this fits in exactly on that list, they all should be deleted if this is. Not to mention, that most of the comments above favor not deleting the article.--Theo10011 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course any of the editors discussing here can participate in the deletion debate; that's what it's for. You may disagree with my assessment, but the closing administrator is expected to weigh policy-based arguments more heavily. I absolutely agree that if and when this video influences a South Park episode, is discussed in journals, is referred to in a Toyota commercial, and appears in several movies that it will be notable and should be included - but that hasn't happened yet, and we're not in the position to make guesses. If you can demonstrate that this video has any of those types of sources, by all means add them to the article and participate in the deletion debate - I stand ready to change my position as soon as I see evidence like that.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had an edit conflict, but TPW has summed it up pretty well. I just don't think it is notable enough and the media coverage I get on Google News is all local. If it crosses over to the mainstream maybe it would gain some notability, but I just don't see it. Don't Tase Me Bro and Leroy have so I can see why they have an article. And from the list Theo has provided I think half of them should be deleted. I just saw Edgar's Fall for the first time and struggle to understand why a kid falling off a log has an article, even if it has gained a lot of coverage.Ticklemygrits (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, I have made my point. The story hasn't completely developed yet and I would like to clarify the impact of the incident not the incident itself, maybe there will be references to it in other TV shows or movies in a year or so, leeroy took close to 2. Its an internet meme that is undisputed, i have linked to the page with the list of all other similar memes, this might not be as notable (yet) but there are others there that are clearly even less notable. At the end of the day its only a single page with cited references and a story, you can remove it if you want but It would be better to have it and not preemptively delete it then not have it all. Also Ticklemygrits, you think that half of those should be deleted -Edgar's fall for example like you cited is part of wikiproject internet culture, it was nominated for deletion twice and survived both times. I think this story can be more notable than edgar's fall, just start a vote if you wanna find out what other think, with that said I think I have made my point, maybe another editor can step in and explain their position better. Happy editing to both you gentlemen. --Theo10011 (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be explained better, you did just fine with it. We have a difference of opinion that pits WP:NOTNEWS against WP:POTENTIAL. I don't recall if you weighed in at the debate, but I think you should, because your view is just a part of the consensus as mine.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 17:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should mention that he said How much you charge me for a spit shine. Linnea94 (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we are having this debate is because some overzealous, selfrighteous editor(s) immediately hit the delete button before allowing the event to congeal. This should not be acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Also, someone above stated that there are likely 1000s of fights on a bus every day in the world. That is a very outlandish claim that needs a citation. Further, even if a million fights occur in the developing world, a fight on an American bus (not to mention one that has become an internet meme) is most certainly notable. Metallurgist (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well from the looks of it, the article has an overwhelming support to be kept. --Theo10011 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily we don't just count votes, a good half of that "overwhelming support" was discounted by me when evaluating the AfD. Much of it was off-topic and/or did not use Wikipedia policies or editing guidelines to support their arguments. Unfortunately I felt I had no choice but to close it as no consensus, which means we are back to square one. And by the way, Metallurgist, I don't know what part of the States you live in, but fights on buses and trains are by no means a rare occurrence in major American cities, in fact I witnessed a few myself back when I used to ride the bus to work. It's just that in the past there weren't people with camera phones all over the place taping every tiny little thing. Think about it, if it weren't for the presence of a camera, would anyone who didn't know someone who was on this bus even know this had ever happened? Unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fights on buses may be a common occurrence. Fights on buses subsequently witnessed by 3.5 million people in a five-day period and covered by nationally-syndicated magazines and newspapers are not common occurrences. --Xaliqen (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They probably will be now. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I miss the days where someone could do something stupid like get in a pointless fight on a bus because of a slight misunderstanding combined with alcohol, and all that would happen is that all involved parties would be kicked off the bus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be interesting to see how this event is interpreted further down the line. Memes, as a developing avenue of social expression through media, may not be terribly appealing in their necessarily re-iterative propagation, but I suspect the overall effect of such phenomenon may develop into more positive social change. That's not to say that I think the whole 'epic beard man' thing in itself is positive, but, rather, that this particular meme merely represents a smaller part in a fundamental shift in the way people communicate. The way the AC transit incident represents how the local becomes notable and, even, national suggests the dynamism possible in current mass-recognition. None of this, of course, represents why the incident is currently notable, but, though it's impossible to predict, the reason for notability may change. Whereas current notability warrants an article primarily based around negative social commentary and voyeuristic tendencies, future notability may recognize elements of social change and more complex academic analysis. I'm merely mentioning this as a possibility and even a likely avenue for how positive analysis could manifest itself from this seemingly-negative situation. --Xaliqen (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked some of the comment above, Apparently Democracy doesn't matter anymore,"overwhelming support" is still support even if it doesn't cite policies and guidelines, So general consensus means nothing. Well Its a good thing we have admins who can always make those unbiased decisions for all of us and decide what counts and what doesn't.--Theo10011 (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The black guy is not 50 years old as the article states, this can obviously be seen in the video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.168.237 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How stupid is this article? Get rid of it. 10 years down the line will ANYONE need this information? Does anyone even need it now? Absolutely NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.216.234 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not, thankfully we have people like you who would rather delete everything that doesn't fit neatly into a particular category then wait to find out. What about all the tens of thousands of pages about Tv show episodes, anime characters, trivial news articles, etc..... etc. this one page is going to be the lightning rod for all of them. Start elsewhere, theres a list above of other internet memes, object, mark them for deletion, question all of them.--Theo10011 (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typical wikipedia editor nerd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.216.234 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be civil in the future. -Rrius (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is irrelevant. I don't like Wikipedia because of articles of this kind.--213.97.25.116 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you dislike all of Wikipedia because it contains articles or sections you dislike? Not a single article in the entire encyclopedia will be useful to all people everywhere, much as we might wish it to be so. --Xaliqen (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

50 years old

[edit]

I don't know if this is important, but in case further dispute arises, in the interview Michael states again that he's 50, so there should be no dispute that he claims he's 50. In the interview the interviewers say they thought he was lying and later on also discuss the fact he looks younger (and that most people including Bruso seemed to think so altho if he's been to jail for 18 years he can't be that young :-P) and appear to have done some research (e.g. they know his fiancée) so it seems likely they now believe he's really ~50 although that point is obviously OR. Anyone I'm out, I've already spent way way more time on this silly meme then I ever intended. (On a personal note, I'm not that surprised he's really 50, while I didn't look at it that carefully you don't appear to get a great view of him on the original video so it's not that easy to tell his age, and people often say black people 'age well'. I suspect people are partially letting their preconceptions about this guy's behaviour and being a 'young-punk' influence them, in particular he may have a different lifestyle then they expect which would likely affect how 'well' he ages. Does he really look that much younger then Barack Obama?) Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4chan

[edit]

Why isn't 4chan's role in spreading this meme mentioned? I was one of the first viewers of the video after I saw it on 4chan and I can be pretty certain that 4chan is largely responsible for popularizing it. 63.245.168.34 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources that document the fact that 4chan was responsible for this? NW (Talk) 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beating up a black man is inspiring? It's not the fact that he was black, but that he was provoking a fight. Please, get rid of that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.0.6 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Amber Lamps is solely responsible for spreading this around the internet. 24.113.65.101 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive article about the incident and aftermath

[edit]

There's an extensive article that profiles Thomas Bruso and the events surrounding the incident in San Francisco Weekly. You can read it here. I'll integrate facts and updates from that article but anyone else who is updating this page should use it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. The story there is fairly different from the meme claptrap in this wiki article. Pcap ping 07:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to suggest this article. It should be mined for the real info.--Bobak (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Lamps?

[edit]

Shouldn't Amber Lamps be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.247.58 (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. I came here to see if there were any input from other passengers, especially ones who are "famous".

I see the previous discussion was about it being noteworthy...the one aspect of the incident which is noteworthy, the rather universal application of "Amber Lamps" to a random person based on a person saying "ambulance". Surely that phenomenon is noteworthy if only for the implications of sociology. LaRoza (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Returning to this page 9 years after the fact, i actually came in search of Amber Lamps and was surprised to see it had been deleted. Pursuant to several requests logged here, including a recent one (from June 2019) i am restoring Amber Lamps to the article. catherine yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that an "Amber Lamps" section should be added because it is an integal part of the overall "Epic Beard Man" meme. KNOWYOURMEME talked about her, there are many video tributes to her, numerous pictures and captioned photos and quite a few blog posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.72.130 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn't be on a serious reference source, and in fact this site isn't serious, it's a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.54.58 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amberlamps is included -- it's either witty sabotage or insightful prose... Niels E (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently doesn't mention anything about amber lamps, but it does redirect from 'amber lamps'. This doesn't seem right to me. Richard Jackson (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Lamps needs to be in this article. DFS (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am restoring Amber Lamps from an earlier version of the page. As a sub-meme, so to speak, it certainly is remembered by those who were intrigued by the original meme. I have also done some cleanup to the code for the sub-heads catherine yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

michael

[edit]

is there a reason that Michael's last name is not used in this article? i have avoided using it here, since i dont know why it is absent, but the name of both men is out there, not just Bruso's. Badmachine (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but there's really no reason not to mention it. After all WP is not censored, so go ahead and add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.237.11 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This

[edit]

I do not think this incident which something like it probably happens multiple times per day qualifies to be in an encyclopedia just because it was on you tube. The amount of garbage being allowed on wikipedia is crazy, especially that some intentionally do thing to try to qualify themselves to be on wiki. Maybe it can be moved to tinwiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.108.45 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Many things seem benign at first, many times they are the final straw and a pivot point, thus important. Only history will tell, but deleting history for the sake of censorship to keep things neat and tidy is like pretending your kids aren't on drugs because they wear a nice sweater and are polite.

Against - I'm glad the article is on the Wikipedia, I wanted more information after seeing it on youtube and found it here. -Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.196.67 (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They are many incidents similar to this one. What the hell makes this one so special? --68.123.154.173 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoidance of "Michael"

[edit]

it seems that people are purposely avoidant of learning about this Michael. He was willing to give a radio interview, but no one offered to ask about his last name and history. We know more than enough of Bruso: we have several articles about him, including his homelessness. But absolutely nothing of Michael? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinal (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The radio talk show he did was The Dog House and it was rather pathetic. Both hosts focused on Michael's age rather than the event he was being interviewed about. The crappy statements Michael did give about the fight were easily questionable, yet the radio hosts failed to clarify or follow up on his statements. Michael is not going to give us valuable information. He thinks he's a Rosa Parks-like figure; a black person standing up to a white person about something on a bus--the problem is, he misheard Bruso, started trouble and go his ass kicked. The biggest troublemaker of this whole event is Iyana, the woman who took the video. On top of being an instigator and thief, she responded to the criticism of her actions as "shooting the messenger". None of the facts about what led to this event or how the event was "documented" are well-done. Nobody who has interviewed these three players (Bruso, Michael or Iyana) have called them on when they contradict themselves. I think Michael is happier being known as the guy who got hurt rather than the guy who started the problem then got what was coming to him. Until someone calls him out on it, that's all he's ever going to be, and that's probably what he prefers. Geeky Randy (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Ass Film

[edit]

Bad Ass (film): Does anyone know, if the brave hero Thomas Bruso will be getting a cut of the film earnings? I really hope so! 91.66.9.225 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how embarrassing, he murmured

[edit]

This entry is almost twice as long as the one for Paul Erdos(sic) in word count.146.115.156.66 (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AC Transit Bus fight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AC_Transit_bus_fight&oldid=1197141154"