Talk:Clear Channel memorandum

message: I've got this article on my watchlist, but in the event that I'm unable to keep up with it, I'm going to try to maintain a link to a recent verified version of the article.  Tons of the edits to this article are done to add songs that aren't on the referenced list, or occasionally to remove a song that is on the referenced list.  Hopefully, this will make it easier to revert such changes, even if the article goes for a month or two without being checked.
4 September 2007 version
--DachannienTalkContrib 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent verified version includes "What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong - are you sure of that?  I can't imagine even the wingnuts at Clear Channel finding anything objectionable in that song. - Mark Dixon 15:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed on the list.  See the sources cited at the end of the article.  Personally, I have trepidation regarding the veracity of these sources, since they seem to have arrived at the information second- or third-hand.  Nevertheless, the cited sources seem at least to agree on the song list, and investigation by reputable sources (snopes.com) indicate that there was some sort of list issued by ClearChannel at the time.  Whether this list is the actual list released by ClearChannel is anybody's guess, but the AfD last year would seem to indicate that even the questionable sourcing provided is good enough to evade deletion.  If we're going to treat those sources as verifiable, then the article should match those sources.  --DachannienTalkContrib 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine that "What a Wonderful World" made the list for irony reasons.  How do you think it would sound on the radio to hear, "Breaking news!  The World Trade Center in New York City has been bombed.  Both towers have collapsed, killing thousands of people.  Stay tuned for updates on this tragedy as they become available.  In the meantime, enjoy "What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong."  68.221.218.218 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See our article on the song: "It was included in the soundtrack for the film Good Morning, Vietnam in 1987. In the film, the song plays over a montage of bombings and other violence...This use of the song in an ironic way has since become something of a cliché in film and television." Rmhermen (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent verified version 

message: The article's title is misleading.  It invites people to come and add songs arbitrarily, despite there being a single referenced list for the songs that was generated by a single third party (ClearChannel).  I'd like to propose moving the article to something more indicative of the purpose of this article, such as "ClearChannel's list of songs with..."  I'll go ahead and take care of this if there's no response within a week or so.  --DachannienTalkContrib 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: go for it. 72.189.48.223 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Went for it.  Moved the article back to its old home, which coincidentally decreases the number of double redirects by a hefty amount.  --DachannienTalkContrib 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: This article has been plagued with people coming in to alter the list away from that presented by the cited sources, but it also has a lot of original research in the lead-in section regarding songs that are about (insert topic here) but were for (insert bizarre reason here) reason not included on the list.  I'll go through and delete all of it in a few days unless cited sources can be presented for those statements as well.  --DachannienTalkContrib 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody beat me to it.  Thanks :)  --DachannienTalkContrib 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary at article head 

message: I'd heard of this article before and just came across it randomly looking at recent changes where an editor linked to it from another article. I did a Lexis/Nexis search and found a number of useful articles referring to this list (and the controversy surrounding it) in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The article could be sourced much better, and indeed does not need to be a list--it could be a full article. We could cover reaction from various observers, from Clear Channel, and the ultimate conclusions about the whole list scandal (I think Snopes pretty much got it right in the article we already cite, but we could go into a lot more detail). I think a change in title would obviously be in order if we wanted to rework this, perhaps something along the lines of "Clear Channel 9/11 Song List Controversy" (ideally we would think of something better as that title is unwieldy and annoying, but it might have to be).
This might be something I could put some time into, as could anyone with access to Lexis/Nexis.  Any thoughts on changing this from a list article to a full blown article? We could either keep the full list here or (probably a better option) simply link to it on Wikisource or somewhere else.
Here's one examples of an interesting source from L/N, an article in Billboard from October 13, 2001 called "Ban Rumors Dispelled, Songs Don't Suffer."
In an exclusive analysis of airplay at Clear Channel-owned stations monitored by Broadcast Data Systems (BDS), Billboard has determined that songs on the list have, by and large, not suffered in light of the Sept. 11 events. In fact, many of the allegedly banned songs are currently receiving similar amounts of airplay on Clear Channel-owned stations as they did prior to Sept. 11.
Rage Against the Machine, alleged recipient of the "across the board" ban, is currently receiving airplay on Clear Channel-owned XTRA San Diego and KIOZ San Diego with such socio-politically charged songs as "Guerilla Radio" and "Testify." The amount of airplay given to Lennon's "Imagine" has barely changed over the past few weeks, according to a review of BDS-monitored heritage rock stations.
Anyhow, I'd like to hear what others think about turning this into a fully sourced article.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a huge improvement.  Are the sources you mentioned freely available online?  --DachannienTalkContrib 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One would need access to LexisNexis, which is generally available through most universities but also through a number of law firms, media outlets, and I would imagine a number of corporations. It's also probably the kind of thing that could be accessed through a good public library, but I don't think it's free to the general public. Most folks in college/academia or in the legal world could get into it though. I can try try to work on this down the road (not in the next few days) and place some new material on the talk page. Any title change suggestions?--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename and work into an article?

message: Wouldnt the Snopes article seem to indicate that there was no "list" at all? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There apparently was a list of some kind and Clear Channel did admit to it, which is exactly what the Snopes article says. The "falseness" of the urban legend is that the list was a "banned" list. Rather, it seemed to have been circulated among programming directors (probably originating away from the central corporate office) and was merely a suggested list of songs that may have been inappropriate after 9/11--it was not binding in any way. I came across one article where a Clear Channel spokesperson--acknowledging the existence of the list but noting it was not a ban and claiming it did not originate from corporate headquarters--even noted that some of the items on the list were a bit beyond the pale, in particular Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World. Anyhow, there was some kind of list, and it did stir up a great deal of controversy and obviously became a classic urban legend, so we should have an article explaining what really happened and how folks reacted. There are plenty of sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the real problem here is that there are no reliable sources for what was or wasn't on the list.  I've been following this article for two years, and NOBODY can produce a PDF of any written list or e-mail.  As far as I can tell, THERE IS NO DOCUMENT.  So, we can discuss the urban legend, but how can we possibly have any kind of list presented here with any confidence?  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  17:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that Slate, Snopes, E!, the New York Times, and so on reported on the list and some of them reprinted a version of the list, I don't see why you insist on a primary source.  We as an encyclopedia depend on secondary sources.  We should assume that the journalists for these organizations saw a document with the list and, as they tend do, did not scan it for publication but rather reproduced the text. Croctotheface 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put citations to them in the article.  Fuckedcompany is not the NYT.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll put them here: , , , , .  This is just a few sources I got from quick research.  I'm sure there's better stuff out there.  I'm not going to make footnotes and put them after every single song. Croctotheface 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the absence of a copy of a memo or e-mail, it may be difficult to be certain about the exact songs on the list.  I'm not sure that this matters too much to me, as I am in favor of reconfiguring this article so it is not a list but rather a discussion of the controversy.  While Morton is correct that their is no "primary source" so to speak, they're clearly are secondary sources, and Clear Channel did admit to the existence of some kind of list (not a ban list) so it's existence is not in question, though the precise songs might be.  As far as secondary sources, as Croctotheface notes, this Slate article reprinted what it claimed to be the list "with original spellings intact" (I don't know how this compares with the list we have now, but we should look at that).  Slate is obviously a reliable source for our purposes, and the fact that they claimed they were presenting a copy of the list is sufficient--we don't need the primary source.  My proposal would be to create a document at Wikisource (though I know nothing about the rules over there) which lists all of these songs and sources the list to Slate or, if we can find them, better sources or additional sources. This article can just become a regular article, and we can link to the full list at Wikisource.  What do people think of this?  I'm open to other suggestions but I think something along these lines would be workable.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not 100% opposed, but I don't see this list as violating the spirit or letter of any policies governing what is or is not appropriate for the encyclopedia.  If we can have List of notable cover songs, List of songs of Oklahoma, and innumerable other such lists of songs, I don't see a good reason that this list should not exist while those do.  The fact that this list not compiled from multiple sources, in my mind, does not mean that it has a different quality than the lists that are.  Croctotheface 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Tick tock?"  What does saying that accomplish?  So far, three editors have commented on the issue here.  Two hold my position, and you are alone in yours.  Croctotheface 02:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Slate reprinted a list of songs, and that is certainly a reputable secondary source which can be put in the article. I'm also not sure what the "tick tock" reference is supposed to mean.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 03:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added in a cite to the Slate article, though folks should feel free to move it somewhere else. I still think someone should compare the Slate list with the one we have. Also I still think this article should be made into more than just a list and I still might try to work on that down the road but not in the immediate future.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Snopes

message: This subject should not be removed because its not what you think has to do with 9/11. Its that people used the death of over 3,000 people as an exscuse to censor people who they that were too exspresing and showed their oppinions or just played the wrong music. If they think people shouldn,t hear it then let them at least learn about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.46 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't think of deleating this 

message: Does anyone know if this "list" still applies?  Just wondering... 67.86.126.40 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear Channel says that there was never an official list that applied to anything.  This list was apparently of an advisory nature to local stations.  That's my understanding, anyway.  --DachannienTalkContrib 12:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this list still applies; I hear a bunch of these songs on the radio still. I suspect it was never meant to be permanent, and just to be a short-term thing; Americans are too vacous to care for more than a year anyway. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still correct?

message: I've made large, but hopefully mostly uncontroversial changes to this article. The most noticeable of the changes being shifted from a text formatting with lots of headers to a table formatting style. I believe this formatting will be clearer to read and easier to scroll around in than the old formatting. other minor changes include taking independent notes that were in the article and making a notes section at the bottom (so the table formatting isn't cluttered), adding Guns N' Roses' song Knockin' on Heaven's Door, which is sourced in the external links reference, spliting a song that had two artists, and listed both artists seperately and correcting alphabetical order, such Steve Miller Band (moved from 'M' to 'S') and Paul McCartney and Wings (changed from that to the Wings article and alphabetized under W). If you have any question or anything, feel free. — Κaiba 22:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Thanks much!  --DachannienTalkContrib 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your welcome :] — Κaiba 07:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no valid reason for filing "Steve Miller Band" under 'S.' "Steve Miller" is a name and all variations including "Band" should be under 'M.' And another thing, you're being inconsistent with Paul McCartney & Wings under 'M.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.76.143 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes I've made

message: I don't understand why clear channel wouldn't have wanted a radio station to play "New York, New York" after the 9/11 attacks. It seemed appropriate to me, kinda showing support for new yorkers at the time --Nerd42 (talk) 14:32, March 24, 2009 (UTC)
:"These little town blues, are melting away"?  I think at best, a song this cheery and upbeat would sound like "We'll Meet Again" at the end of Dr. Strangelove if it were played with the WTC still burning.  At worst, well: melting.  C'mon.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't attempt to read the minds of Clear Channel executives as a group.  That way lies madness.  How can any Wikipedia editor possibly know "why" these choices were made?  (Unless and until some former Clear Channel executive who was in on the meeting chooses to write a book about it -- then we could cite the book, perhaps ...)  Paul (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Since the whole thing was about piety, it seems quite reasonable that after such unwonderful a thing it might seem inappropriate to play one of the most well-known songs yout how wonderful the world is. That is not saying the world isn't wonderful, but a question of appropriateness.--77.4.127.38 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the guy above. Don't try and understand this list, just accept it for what it is, a piece of tosh that arose from the (very understandable) hysteria post-9/11. When under attack many governments/'official' groups panic and censor the crap out of things Cls14 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree with you, NapoliRoma, as the song regained its long lost popularity due to three snippets of it being used at the beginning of the pilot episode for the CBS TV crime drama Blue Bloods. If you have Netflix look up the series, play the pilot episode from the beginning and you'll see (or rather, hear) what I mean. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And as for you, unknown editor, watch your language, as this is an online encyclopedia, not a porn site. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why to most of these? 

message: How strange that Clear Channel promotes what they call "Christian rock music"  on more than a thousand AM stations but at the same time suggests banning a "Christian" song that encourages people to "smile on your brother, everybody get together, try and love one another right now."  Compare these lyrics with 1_Corinthians_13.  Perhaps it would be accurate to describe Clear Channel as anti-Christian?  I wonder how their supporters in the Christian right would feel about that. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that article discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article.  They are not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.  --DachannienTalkContrib 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleas note that I am using this talk page to propose  improving and expanding the article, particularly in relation to the listing of a song in the article.  Please also note the words compare these lyrics and perhaps it would be accurate to describe in relation to this content.  Please also note my curiousity in relation to these improvements.  The subject of this article is fair game for discussions related to such improvement, and if the opinion of their  supporters can be represented, they will be in proportion to the topic.  It occurs to me that the opinions of the artists who have been singled out are also fair game, and should be added.  Please also note the lack of content in this list, and  in that respect my proposal for expansion  becomes even more necessary. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised that you consider your motivation to be the improvement of this article, when your first comment above was pure POV.  The addition of other sources to the article was a good thing, but please tread lightly when it comes to interpretation of the motivation for songs being on the list.  As even your sources indicate, nobody apparently has any clue anymore (if they ever did in the first place) why some songs were included and others weren't.  Without evidence one way or the other, the article can't really discuss the topic in any detail.  --DachannienTalkContrib 00:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you have difficulty distinguishing between "POV" and observable statements about a topic.  I have expressed no POV whatsoever.  Your sense of humor may be impaired or you may have trouble understanding the subtleties of language, I don't know, but noting the contradictions of Clear Channel's actions in relation to their support of Christian ideology is in fact, on topic, relevant, and timely.  You would do well to read more about the topic. The current article is inappropriately titled, lacks accurate information, and is in need of a serious rewrite.  You are free to help out, but I predict you will simply ignore the hard work that needs to be done.  Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You reached the thinly-veiled conclusion that Clear Channel was "anti-Christian" without an ounce of evidence (as opposed to conjecture) to back it up.  How is that not POV?  In any case, I'll help out by monitoring the article through your edits and ensuring that Wikipedia's policies are maintained.  --DachannienTalkContrib 01:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading for comprehension.  "Your sense of humor may be impaired..."  Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Get Together" by The Youngbloods 

message: The present state of this article is atrocious, with the current content either deliberately distorting the sources cited or ignoring them altogether.  As a result, I am attempting to fix this problem.  Please be aware of the "in use" tag.  Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite in progress 

message: I've changed the problematic article title from List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks  to the short and neutral title of 2001 Clear Channel memorandum.  This title more accurately reflects the subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  Much improved. -- Vary | Talk 01:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: The article mentions how one version of the same song can be on this list, but not another, and gives examples (like Michael Jackson and Alien Ant Farm's versions of "Smooth Criminal", among others). However, Wings' version of "Live and Let Die" happens to be on the list, but not the Guns N' Roses version. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because even Clearchannel has the good musical taste to not give airplay to that monumental piece of hackdom, and if you understand G&R's story behind recording it, know that was ironically part of its intent, as nobody ever plays either version now. BTW AAF's smooth criminal was pure genius, and I love both versions. just sayin'!Batvette (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guns N Roses 

message: I see the list has Black Star of Malmsteen which is an instrumental piece. Either the "lyrical questionability" aspect is not central to the list or there is a mistake "Black Star" being there. Or the guys were pretty confused while making the list. fyi. Mrmandman (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  lyrically questionable instrumental piece? 

message: Are you actually serious? Frank Sinatra's "New York, New York"? Is that meant to be comical? If so, then this page should be deleted from Wikipedia. I do not find this to be humorous or informational at all. I am a native New Yorker and I lost a few close friends on this horrible day. 71.190.145.53 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Titles 

message: The Message is not included on this list?  That song was the first thing that came to mind when I heard about this list.  It includes the line "I swear, I might hijack a plane."  Why wasn't it included?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait a Second... 

message: I've been researching a lot on this topic, so I decided to compare this revision of the article with the Slate and Hits Daily Double lists which are being used as references in this article.
The Hits Daily Double list is apparently the original list, and the following songs are in the linked Wikipedia revision, but not in the Hits Daily Double list:
* Bad Company - "No Smoke Without a Fire"
* David Bowie and Mick Jagger - "Dancing in the Street"
* MC Hammer - "Have You Seen Her"
* Megadeth - "Killing Is My Business...and Business Is Good!"
* The Rolling Stones - "Shattered"
* Sugar Ray - "When It's Over"
Because the Hits Daily Double list is apparently the original list, for now I have removed these songs. However, three of the above songs are present in the Slate article, whose list also claims to be the original list, "with original spellings intact."
* Bad Company - "No Smoke Without a Fire"
* The Rolling Stones - "Shattered"
* Sugar Ray - "When It's Over"
Do you think these three songs can be included in the list or not? Holiday56 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of some songs 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://zephyr.unr.edu/zephyr/arts/archives/art_dutpuch_musicindustry.html
** In 2001 Clear Channel memorandum on 2011-05-25 07:07:57, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 2001 Clear Channel memorandum on 2011-06-10 06:58:16, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I guess the open-gaping mouth is implied in this article? Or does it demand a controversy section?
I for one wish I had gone to high school with the losers who worked on the published the list, so that I could have harassed/bullied them and then later bragged about it at the bar as I got into my mid-late twenties.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.158.112 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: That all songs by Taylor Swift would be banned in 2001, before her career had begun seems beyond suspect and indicates that the text preceding the list probably needs further review.
VHKLMHA (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the Post-9/11 world. Things don't have to make sense. Carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious information (Taylor Swift) 

message: Clear Channel (now iHeartMedia) couldn't suggest people not to play this song after 9/11, because it's like saying goodbye, however, it was a very popular song at the time, so popular, not only it's in the Top 10 (even #1), it also can't be brought down by the memorandum and that song was, yes, NSYNC's Bye Bye Bye.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan7157 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  One forgotten song that was very popular, so popular at the time, it can't be taken down or banned! 

message: How can "Imagine" by John Lennon be listed here if the song's message is mostly positive? If you don't believe me read the lyrics to the second pre-chorus:"Imagine all the people living life in peace" and to the final pre-chorus:"Imagine all the people sharing all the world". How is that viewed as a negative message? Does this song mention, or even encourage, war? Also, by saying "Imagine there's no countries" I think what he implied is that the world exists as a single country, hence the lyric "Imagine all the people sharing all the world" I quoted earlier. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question to ask the Clear Channel team 16 years ago, but doesn't have a lot of bearing on this article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can...? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2001 Clear Channel memorandum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwishnia_142.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020923200949/http://content.clearchannel.com/corporate/article/NationalBannedPlaylist.pdf to http://content.clearchannel.com/corporate/article/NationalBannedPlaylist.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the memo Clear Channel sent with the list of songs, they forgot to include USA for Africa's "We Are the World" (and the follow-up remix by 25 for Haiti) due to the lyric about "people dying". I think both versions of the song should have been included. Or else both songs re-recorded with "people dying" being replaced with "babies crying" to symbolize the beginning of a new life. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission by Clear Channel 

message: While I agree calling it 2001 Clear Channel Memorandum might be odd since there hasn't any other memorandum, perhaps it should have been renamed 9/11 Clear Channel... which, is in fact, what it is. Isn't it? ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Title