Talk:Soggy biscuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 14, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus).

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Contents 1 Wondering 2 CIRCLE JERK 3 Hm 4 Merge suggestion

[edit] Wondering

How can you "reference this"? I mean, apart from asking someone to publish it how is it possible to verify these claims? I mean, I've heard of the term a lot but there are some that haven't. It's kinda silly to even have this article then I suppose.. BTW, I've seen the Burning Bush on [Consumption Junction] and it was hilarious. I'd find the link but I'm at work, and they don't like that kinda stuff. ;) Fr0 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article "The Burning Bush" is not IMO a reference for the claim that this is "a widely known concept, at least in the Anglophone world." It merely uses it without explanation. From this we might infer that the author thought that some of her readers would understand the reference, but how many we don't know. Additionally, the word "Anglophone" permits multiple meanings, and since the article is in the UK paper The Guardian the word should be one that clearly refers to that paper's main audience and not one that could mean the English-speaking world in general. Шизомби 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are holding this article to a very high standard of verifiability, and one which I suspect many statements on Wikipedia- if not the majority - would fail. One need not expect every term to be defined every time it is used in a piece of writing- were that to be the case, the English language would become (euphemistically speaking) somewhat unwieldy. Here, the context (being caught engaging in an embarassing activity) is the key; if one sees a reference to 'flying in a balloon' one would usually assume that the author refers to a hot-air balloon, rather than an enlarged party balloon. The exact point that is being made with the inclusion of that particular reference is that the author intended for her audience to understand her work- notability is established (at least in part) precisely because the term is NOT defined explicitly. An alternative would to link to a google search which returns thousands of hits from across the world pertaining to this term. It is commonplace and widely-known. Writers for a mass audience do not compose pieces that their readers do not understand- if they do, they tend to get the sack. Other newspaper sources to establish the notability of the term are available, however I am unable to link directly to them as I am not a subscriber. As to your second point- the dictionary definition establishes that the term originated in Australia, and the Guardian (a UK newspaper, albeit one with a limited international readership) reference establishes that the term is also known in the United Kingdom. That is in itself a large part of the Anglophone world. Nevertheless, I will change the wording to be more specific. I invite yourself and other editors to provide links to to UK or non-UK newspapers, magazines or other printed sources referencing the term. All the best, Badgerpatrol 14:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, I do think WP articles as a whole should meet standards of WP:V to a far greater extent than at present. On the one hand, WP can try to compete for respect with the long-established encyclopedias, or on the other it can be an "anything goes" subject of derision. In sex-related articles perhaps enforcement becomes more of an issue because so many inventions creep in. In any case, these things absolutely do get more attention when there is an AFD and I think that's as it should be.

A reference must support the purpose for which it is cited. I'd never heard of this term or practice until recently (and neither apparently had the band Limp Bizcuit). Certainly there are US references that can be found that have it (I gave some in the AFD), although my suspicion is that it would be less likely to appear undefined in a US publication.

To nitpick again, "variations on the theme are referred to commonly in popular culture"... yet only two examples are given—which doesn't demonstrate that it is very common, and both are UK. Шизомби 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many (probably nearly all) articles could do more to meet the standards of WP:V. I disagree that this one doesn't, as currently modified. I'm not an expert on the sex-related articles; I suspect that WP:OR is a problem, but perhaps in the sense that many sexual terms may exist in the vernacular, but are by their nature somewhat taboo and ephemeral; printed sources may therefore be at a premium. I would imagine (not least because the word 'biscuit' is rarely used in the US) that the terminology may differ over there- but the concept exists in some form in America, and probably throughout much of the world (note that 'Cookie game' and 'limp biscuit' redirect to here). As for the pop culture section (and the article generally)- like everything on wikipedia, this is not a definitive version. From a glimpse at the Limp Bizkit article, I would be surprised if their name did not (indirectly) stem from this practice. I can't think of another likely origin for the phrase 'limp biscuit' as an adjective. Note that the concept is also identified there, with a north American spin- 'frat parties' or similar; sadly they don't explicitly identify their sources, or I could include them here (maybe we should nominate Limp Bizkit for deletion and see what happens?). Anyway, other editors will presumably add to this article over time- you may not have heard of it, but many others have. Once the alternative names for the practice outside of the UK and Commonwealth (e.g. 'cookie game' or whatever) have been identified and sourced, the article will be sustainable and should hopefully be safe from future AfD debates (I will of course add to it, but I don't intend to make it my life's work!). For the time being, I will alter the wording appropriately. Badgerpatrol 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to provide contructive criticism (I did change my recommendation in the AFD after all), I hope you're not taking it personally. By saying above I'd never heard of the term or the practice, I meant I had never heard of the practice of masturbating onto food or the practice of masturbation as a game at all in any form. I went to public school, summer camp etc., I wasn't homeschooled in a cave. AFDing the Limp Bizcuit article would be silly, but it would be reasonable to tag the thing about frat parties for sources. I'm not disputing that people have heard of SB, but it does no good for people to add things they have heard of unless they can find sources as well — which I think you agree with? Mentioning something on a talk page "I have heard of X, can we find sources for it?" would probably be OK. Шизомби 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIRCLE JERK

Man, it's a figure of speech. How would you anticipate researching this? Can you verify the origin of English language, or slag for that matter. Is a penis really a dick, cock, or schlong? Get over it, you don't need to verify that people call it circle jerking. How do you even know this exists? Jesus Christ, this is retarded.

Fr0 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the process of writing an encyclopedia! Researching and verifying is what it's about. Шизомби 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. That's a little lame, but alright. So, I can interview people and it's verified them right? Fr0 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fr0, a good place to start would be a dictionary of slang or similar. One such book is already included in the article; I did mean to directly reference the other terms but have not gotten it done yet. The relevant policy here is WP:Verifiability; you will find that (whilst not perfect) Soggy biscuit is unusual in being far better referenced than the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles. Essentially, these other articles are WRONG and this one is correct; almost all statements, even those which the vast majority of us know to be true, must be sourced. Don't forget, this is an international encyclopaedia; what is common knowledge to you and I may not be so to everyone. Sourcing facts helps to identify vandalism and allows other users to directly check the veracity of statements for themselves. Don't be discouraged that your edits were removed; I'm sure the reverting editor involved was acting in good faith and I assure you that any well-meant contributions (such as yours was) will be very welcome on Wikipedia. All the best, Badgerpatrol 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Badgerpatrol, that was the best explaination I've ever recieved on this site. I now truly feel enlightened, and any harsh feelings have been alleviated. :) I will try to find some sort of proof! Jsut seems silly to me to pass it off as random slang that needs to be verified. I can see the goal of this site is to one day be an actual encyclopedia. Fr0 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hm

So it is real. --AnYoNe! 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

• Strongly object. This article has survived two votes for deletion, so I see no reason to merge now. DWaterson 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)