Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disemvoweling

Non-notable internet term. Been prodded, deprodded by one of the authors with no reason given. An annon user gave reason that it "has become widely used and referenced on the interent as a method for moderating online discourse". Never mentioned in context in print. Might be a great way to keep cool heads, but we can't have entries for everything found on discussion fourms. -Royalguard11^Talk 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. -Royalguard11^Talk 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifable. No reliable sources found for this usage, despite request.[1]. Note that current article was mostly written by the purported inventor.[2] -Will Beback 17:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Smells strongly of WP:OR and WP:NEO, plus violates WP:V. Scorpiondollprincess 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although its origin is problematic, the article itself is useful in providing an explanation for a term people are likely to encounter online, and resources (via the external links) for moderators who may consider adopting the technique. The first time I encountered the article was when I looked up the term myself, having seen it used, but having had no idea of the history of it or how it's done. Notable writers John Scalzi[3] and Peter David[4] have both mentioned the term in their blogs, and there is some evidence that the term is spreading into other, less precise usage[5]. There are numerous references to disemvoweling online, and sourcing is a problem solely because of strict application of no blogs, no applets, etc. provisos. Since changes to this policy are under consideration, it is probably better to wait for resolution of that issue than to delete this prematurely. The other problems with this article have more to do with interpersonal issues than anything inherent in the article inself. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The change in the status of blogs as sources is still being drafted, and hasn't even been proposed yet. At this rate it may be months before it comes to a vote, and when it does I'm sure it will be controversial. Until such time as blogs are allowed the existing WP:RS policy is active. Maybe we should delete the article now, and resurect it if and when blogs become reliable sources, or when a non-blog source is found. For a mere definition of "disemvoweling", Wiktionary would be the proper location. -Will Beback 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per Karen. That's essentially what I came here to say, so why repeat? St jb 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Karen though I am sympathetic with Scorpiondollprincess's assertion about neologisms, the term does appear to be spreading pretty quickly, and I think it's going to stick. I suspect if we delete it now it'll eventually have to be resurrected, so we might as well keep it. I do not agree that the article violates the original research rule --Shinto 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's great that the first thing you came to for research was Wikipedia, but the term still doesn't have any veryifyable sources. Blogs are not concidered to be WP:V. Why? Because anyone can have a blog. The term is used in the fourming community only, so we can't say it's a well known term. -Royalguard11^Talk 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Anyone can have a blog, but not all blogs and items found on them are equally unreliable. If a notable NASA scientist, for example, reveals on his blog that the rings of Saturn have newly-discovered properties, the fact that the info is on a blog does not invalidate the news. That is why blogs by notable people are being considered for inclusion in verifiability. In this case, several of the blogs one might cite fall into this category. Karen | Talk | contribs 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A neologism used by very few people is still a neologism used by very few people, even if a few of the users are notable. Just because a person is notable doesn't mean every word they produce is. Fan-1967 22:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment In that case I would say that even though the guys at NASA, we can't believe anything to do with science until it is A. verified by several notable scientists AND B. published in a well known scientific journal/paper/RELIABLE newscast. All things in science are considered THEORYS until they are verified by other scientists. Doesn't matter the nobility of the person/scientists. -Royalguard11^Talk 22:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism not yet ready for prime time. Sorry, but 133 blog entries don't cut it for establishing a word as legitimate. Fan-1967 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You should also count the alternate spelling mentioned in the article, "disemvowelling" (181 hits) and their common stem "disemvowel" (170 hits).JulesH 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not count all the variations at once? This search gives me "about 17,000" results. Does that cross into legitimacy? Dori 00:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete**Comment Blogs are vanity presses and the only source for this term. useage, and use as a control technique. Since the article comes from the inventor it is vanity and doesn't qualify. As for what scientists say on blogs, this is different because they have published papers on the topic, so the sources are the scientific journal papers not the blog that are the source. Marky48 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• So Danguyf (talk · contribs) -- the creator of the article is the inventor of the term? And you know this how, exactly? --Calton | Talk 01:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Danguyf wrote two sentences. The bulk of the article was added by someone identifed as "TNH". Perhaps not coincidentally, the inventor is also identified as "TNH", and the material was mostly sourced from a blog run by a "TNH". -Will Beback 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I disagree. The bulk of the article was added by myself, User:Marky48 and User:Mavarin. TNH wrote an earlier version of the article that was substantially reworked following concerns that it wasn't encyclopedic enough. JulesH 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Blog stuff, weirdly enough, tends to be referenced within the blogosphere. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Intriguing... I know the word from blogs and the like - but with a completely different meaning. Disemvowelling is often used to refer to TXT SPK which rmvs vwls from wrds. Mks mr sns in tht cntxt 2. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This, in a certain sense, is part of my problem with this issue. Disemvoweling itself has been around for many years (as shown in this 1990 RISKS digest, this jargon file entry, and this 2001 Internet Oracle post). In fact, this Google Groups search shows 40+ uses in 1999 and earlier. The basic action is the same (removing vowels from words); what differs is the end result of the action (deleting letters altogether versus often replacing with them some other character such as * or _) and the motivation for the action (the blog focus). If the article wasn't focused solely on blogs, and had some of the early and mid-90's history, it'd be both more general and more accurate. Dori 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's good and useful stuff, which should be used to improve the article and expand its scope. None of this appeared in the research I did, but apparently I didn't dig deeply enough. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Google groups aren't reliable sources either. -Will Beback 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sadly (based on what I've read during the ongoing attempts to write this article), it appears that nothing I wrote above is usable based on WP:NOR. Until/unless someone not affiliated with either the blog world or the professional SF world puts something like this into print, and then that print article is also put online, it's all irrelevant so far as I can tell (although why looking for sources is considered original research only here and one other article is an interesting question in itself). But I'd love to be wrong about that. Dori 05:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm happy to tell you that you are wrong. One dividing line between reliable sources and the abyss is the presence of an editing staff. Many internet sources are considered reliable, such as Salon. Neither being in print, nor killing trees, nor sweating ink, nor paying postage are necessary. It isn't about paper; it's about editorial review. One person writing a blog and one person issuing a thesis in a self published book are equally unreliable. World-wide, there are millions of bloggers. Even a thousand references are insignificant in the blogosphere - three plugins and a few hundred mentions are barely small blips on the blogosphere's radar screen. Maybe we need a Glossary of blog terms? -Will Beback 08:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, then this stuff ought to be usable: according to Wikipedia itself, the Jargon File has an editor. According to Wikipedia itself, RISKS Digest has an editor. According to Wikipedia itself, the Straight Dope has an editor (its usage of disemvoweled can be found here). But I have no doubt that someone will now find an objection as to why those edited sources don't count. Or is it that trying to find reliable sources itself counts as original research? Dori 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Blog stuff, weirdly enough, tends to be referenced within the blogosphere" Which makes it a colloquialism at best, but an Internet one at that, and thus a intra-group term not recognized by the world at large, or in a dictionary.Marky48 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. To echo Will Beback, neologisms stop being neologisms when they achieve widespread use. Based on only a few hundred hits, I don't see how this can be called widespread even within the blogosphere. I don't think this has even minimum usage required to make it into a Glossary of blog terms. Fan-1967 13:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See my comment above; a full search gets several thousand hits. Dori 00:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just a thought here: Would disemvoweling be better coupled with a list of moderation techniques used on blogs, guestbooks, message boards, listservs and the like? Moderation techniques are not simply used on people who refuse to remain civil; they're applied to spammers and kids who think it's funny to leave "you're stupid"-type comments everywhere. I have other thoughts on this, but this may not be the place since the topic is disemvoweling. St jb 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think that's a good idea. If this ultimately does end up getting the ax, it would be useful to still find the reference along with other moderation terms--like splat out--that one can't find. --Shinto 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Agree: moderation techniques would be a good article, and disemvowelling would then be a subtopic. --Yonmei 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article discusses a useful technique. Just because the technique is new and hasn't been widely discussed isn't a good reason to avoid discussing it. Trying to define the article as being about a neologism is, IMHO, wrongheaded: it isn't about the word, but about the actions that caused the word to be invented. There should be at least one reliable source here: the article currently mentions that Arthur Hlavaty mentioned the technique in some print publication. If we can find out what this publication was, it might well qualify. JulesH 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• commentActually Jules we only wrote the center section. She wrote the first article claiming credit which was unsourced save to herself and one other who we don't know anything about. That's a vanity article. Moreover, we can't define the actions as causes. It can be anything that fancies the moderator.Marky48 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, very little of what she wrote still exists in the article. See this comparison of the last version she edited with the current version.

• Comment In true Wikipedia sprit this article has been rewritten over and over to the point that very little of the wording from early edits exists.St jb 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dlt. Little evidence it's been used with that definition, and no evidence that that definition is primary. Revert to dictdef (removing vowels from a sentence), and transwiki. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why would the definition need to be primary? Certainly there are other articles on wikipedia whose titles are intended to be interpreted using a less common meaning of the word that forms them (e.g. Right, which is about the second meaning of the third form of the word, as they are listed in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary). This would only be important if wikipedia were a dictionary, which it isn't, and if this article was merely a dictionary definition, which it isn't. JulesH 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If the article were rewritten to include WP:Verifiable uses (which includes speed of typing in TXT SPK, but not does include moderation, except in the minds of a few sysadmins, probably including TNH), I might agree it should be Kept. But all of the existing content would have to be deleted first. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "very little of the wording from early edits exists." As we say where I come from in Maine, "Pushaw." In fact most of it is exactly as it was written in the first place. We added a context section that is now gone even though some still want it. The real question is this: can an "inventor" of a term in an online only community write her own article of significance? is it significant and encyclopdedic because she says so and has fans to back her up? That's not NPOV. Moreover, this is the first version:

"Revision as of 19:05, 25 October 2005 Coined by Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Removing all vowels from a troll's comments." Retrieved from [6]

followed by multiple additions by the inventor. It's her article and has been since long before I found it.Marky48 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment How much was written by whom can be established factually. For example, see this version[7] (the last TNH version before substantial input by others) and this comparison[8] between TNH's last substantial edit and what's there now. A lot of what we associate with her text is actually an edit or addition to it. Even the first paragraph has been greatly changed, and the spelling bit is not at all what she wrote originally. As for my own small contribution, what survives is basically the "For example" bit. As St jb says, a lot of people have written and rewritten this. What's more significant is that the article is getting better, less TNH-centric and more accurate, partly because of this AfD. It would be a shame to delete it, now that it's so much improved, and so much of the problematic material (vanity as well as subjective) is gone. 'Twould be better to work on it than abandon it. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment What's most important is that it's still a neologism used by a small number of bloggers or forum posters. Fan-1967 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article discusses a useful technique, one that I have used myself to moderate various weblogs and that many other weblog moderators use as well. It should be noted that one of the major opponents to keeping this article has himself been the subject of disemvowelling, which may explain his antipathy towards it and his attempts to get it deleted from Wikipedia. All his modifications to this article come directly after this technique was applied to him. Documentation is available on this point. While the impulse to prevent people from hearing about disagreeable things that happened to them in the hope of wiping out the disagreeable thing is understandable, that's no reason for attempting to delete it from a reference work. --72.79.1.138 17:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While perhaps not widespread, the technique has become more and more widespread, and it's generally attributed to Teresa Nielsen Hayden. --Kristjan Wager 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While I agree with the above suggestion that an article on various moderation techniques would be preferable to disemvoweling as an article of its own, until such an article exists I think this one should stay. I also feel that some of the opposition to this article is coming from things external to Wikipedia. Ergative rlt 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per Karen. --Gallowglass.
• Keep In reading the Talk, it looks awfully like certain people are griping about TNH more than anything else. Why doesn't someone cite how many weblog admin are happily using this technique??? I first looked up the definition here on Wiki and was glad to have it defined.

=Chica= 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 30 July 2006

• Keep as per Karen. Orangehead 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As a technical writer in the software industry, I use Wikipedia as a source for definitions and explanations of Internet jargon. I expect to find new terms in Wikipedia, and came to Wikipedia for information about "disemvoweling." I was surprised (and disappointed) to find that the article is being considered for deletion primarily, it seems, because someone doesn't like the author. Threecoyote
  • Comment Users fifth edit, only one since July 13. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• commentNo one is "wiping out a disagreeable thing," it just has no place in an encyclopedia. The record will also show I didn't nominate it for deletion, nor do I know the editor who did. I don't think the support group can say the same. They all know each other. it's a call to arms.Marky48 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's true that Marky48 did not initiate this AfD, and previously directed his entergies toward changing the article rather than deleting it. The claim "They all know each other" is incorrect, however. Aside from my being familiar with TNH's online writing, and one personal friend, there is no one in all this with whom I had any prior contact whatsoever, aside from occasionally reading online comments. Nor has this anything to do with whether the article should be deleted. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "The record will also show I didn't nominate it for deletion, nor do I know the editor who did. I don't think the support group can say the same." Actually, I'll bet that this so-called "support group" didn't nominate it for deletion either. As for the support group concept, have you ever heard the phrase "Paranoia is the belief that your enemies are organized"? --65.42.5.234 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have certainly not seen any calls to arms, or whatever you want to call it. I am an infrequent reader of THN's blog, but since I rarely comment there, and rarely read other peoples'comments, I wouldn't be able to recognize anyone from there, unless they were well known to me for other reasons. Marky48, I would say that your allegations border on personal attacks, and you should perhaps tone them down. --Kristjan Wager 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment' You know Karen you have to admit what I say is true every time, yet you then discount it as nothing. If all the author's friends and blogswarm come here to vouch for it what does that say about objectivity? Aside from that Ms. Lincoln how was the play?Marky48 01:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No, I said that part of what you said was correct, and part was incorrect. Continually stating that everyone who wants to keep the article is in cahoots with each other does not make it so, or invalidate the article itself. Whether the article stays or goes should depend on whether it is accurate and useful, not on who said what or who knows whom. A number of people have found it to be useful, and the accuracy (or at least verifiability, despite disagreements on this point) seems to be improving. Karen | Talk | contribs 02:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • How has the verifiability improved? There still aren't any reliable sources. Using reliable sources we only know that is a technique for controlling trolls by removing the vowels, which accounts for the first sentence. -Will Beback 04:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • For one thing, we've linked to the creators of various disemvoweling plug-ins, who have stated where and how they got their inspiration. We can accurately report what the creators have stated about it, and we've done so.
        • Where, in WP:RS, are description of blog plugins considered a reliable source? Even if we grant them as reliable sources, they still support barely one long sentence of content. -Will Beback 05:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that Wikipedia have a policy of assuming good faith Marky48, so your allegations are out of order, unless you can point to specific incidents that back up your allegations. If not, please keep a civil tone, and assume good faith. --Kristjan Wager 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment [[9]] This version is rematkably like the current one. Since there is a limit to how many times someone can cite themselves both this and the current version have it down to one.Marky48 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) --65.42.5.234 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that version is remarkably similar to the current one because it's the one just before the AfD was started. Funny how that happens. It's extremely common for articles have few edits during an AfD. What's the relevance? (and btw, to the best of my knowledge, I've never met anyone here & TNH wouldn't know me from Adam) Dori 04:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment That makes one. How about the rest? I picked the wrong version, as she included the section we wrote and I fought even to keep the De Long thread in. The nominator did the final edit. TNH was happy with our section it appears. I can back up all the allegations. Just look at the dialogue from the inventor with the personal attacks on me and then get back to me on assuming good faith. One can't a source to themselves.Marky48 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Marky48 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was refering to your allegations about peoples' reasons for voting. This too, have to be covered by the good faith assumption. What discussion you and TNH might have about the content of the article in questions is irrelevant to the question at hand. --Kristjan Wager 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Until it ends up in the OED, Wikipedia will be the primary resource for defining this term during its growing adoption. Why fight to maintain ignorance? --Danguyf 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment Coining an Internet colloquialism is hardly moving the knowledge base of the world forward. What is relevant is blogs can't be sources and this is a blog only term even if one has used 'disemvowel' for other purposes, like the shorthand comment,this is a forum punishment only. That's its only reason for being.

"Marky48, I would say that your allegations border on personal attacks, and you should perhaps tone them down." Well, that's a very subjective claim. You make my point nicely. You read her blog and now come to support the owner. Case closed. I would caution you not to make accusations and give quasi-orders to others. It further seals your personal bias. I've never said no one should come comment. You should dial back your rhetoric pardner. One thing is certain: if the outcome rides on votes hordes will come to support it from knowledge of the blog community in question. The word is out. That's vanity too.Marky48 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• • As a matter of fact, I came to the artciel through a link at Tim Lambert's blog. He links to the wikepedia article just next to the comment field, and I was curious to see what the wikipedia article said. I haven't read TNH's blog for several months (that's what I mean with "infrequent reader").
  • In other words, this is a very good example of the perrils of not assuming good faith. Oh, and if you are not aware of it, "giving quasi-orders" as you call it, is part of what we do as editors - don't you ever leave vandal or spam templates at other peoples' talk pages? I certainly do. This is all part of trying to improve wikipedia. --Kristjan Wager 05:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Mark, as best I can tell (and I just did a search as well and looking through recent comment threads), this AfD has not even been mentioned in Making Light, ever, nor the Disemvoweling article in the last week. "The word" is therefore not "out." There is no "call to arms." And a suggestion that you tone down your comments is neither no more a "quasi-order" than "You should dial back your rhetoric." Karen | Talk | contribs 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment First of all to all here 1. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 2. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, ie Instruction manuals. Thats what this is. 3. The only references are to blogs, and for the hundredth time, blogs are not WP:V. It's nice people come here for all their information, but Wikipedia isn't here to act as the know-all of everything. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment I found a reference in the UK paper The Guardian to disemvoweling, which I listed on [[[Talk:DisemvowelingTalk:Disemvoweling]]]. It is a different meaning than what has been discussed, but at least it's a mainstream media (print) use. Yeah, I know someone has shot it down, but I still believe it has some significance since it is an MSM use of the word.St jb 02:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment Obviously Karen. That's why I responded in kind, otherwise there would be no need would there?So only the last week counts? The 66 thread alone is enough with you caterwalling all over the place over these two articles for months about me. And the other AW thread as well so the history is clear and more attempts at bifurcating the issue won't work. The word has been out and will remain so until a victory for the forum and supporters is in hand. Or not. "As for the support group concept, have you ever heard the phrase "Paranoia is the belief that your enemies are organized"? --65.42.5.234 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)"

Is inferring someone is a paranoid a good faith assertion?Marky48 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment It was "shot down" because the useage was completely different. It was a verb in that piece I believe and meant to indicate a short hand instant messaging coded text sort of thing.Marky48 03:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You mean like this word Cricket? One word used in several contexts - what will they think of next? St jb 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Disemvoweling" is, of course, a gerund of the verb to "disemvowel." The older usage, which still involves removing vowels from words but often for different purposes, would make a great addition to the article, with juicy non-blog citations to boot. If we fix this thing up properly, it will be more comprehensive and interesting, and not at all a dictionary definition or how-to manual, neither of which adequately describe the text as it stands. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment If we fix this thing up properly... Exactly. We can rewrite it. We can make it better, stronger ... you get the idea. St jb 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody's stopping you. Go for it. -Will Beback 06:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd really like to take a stab at it. My 'net access is going to be off and on for the next few days and I'd appreciate the opportunity to work on it over the next week. St jb 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• commentYeah, no attitide here. Cricket can be found in the dictionary and I doubt it has an "inventor" listed. What would be an example of a copy editor for a print organiazation using this technique on the job. Hey Watson get rid of these vowels in the story. It's 'overvoweled.'Marky48 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment' Wikipedia has a special category for this type of thing called a Disambiguation. Oddly enough, the Light_bulb_(disambiguation)is listed there. And look! It has inventors. Using your logic, all entries for "light bulb" should be deleted as non-cncyclopedic. St jb 12:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Followup Comment. Checking again, there is no WP:RS that this definition is used at all. However, Risks Digest is (almost) a WP:RS, although it's a personal digest, and primarily sourced from Usenet. But that one (and the jargon file) replace the vowels by "splat" characters ("*" or "?"). Still, there's no WP:RS, even under WP:WEB, for its use as a moderation tool. So, this definition has no support. Still delete, but without prejudice toward an article on the use described as quasi-censorship of individual words (N*z*) and in TXT SPK. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. I'd like to take a stab at a total rewrite, but this will require a few days. St jb

Comment on the idea of rewriting the article only to refer to "splat out" self-censorship/"TXT SPK": I don't think these ideas are really notable enough to deserve a wikipedia article, at least not to themselves. What more can you say about either than a single sentence? They should perhaps be mentioned at wiktionary, but I don't think it would be a good idea to have a whole encyclopedia entry on them. Wikipedia, as somebody kindly pointed out above, is not a dictionary, so we shouldn't be aiming at a dictionary definition. Which is why I feel that ultimately, cataloguing uses of the word that don't refer to the same technique the article is talking about is a pointless activity. Yes, they should probably be mentioned. But it isn't really relevant to the core of what the article is about, which is a forum moderation technique. Likewise, I'm not certain it's critical that we include the information that Arthur Hlavaty was the first person to use the term in print (presumably that's in reference to the technique being discussed... the print edition of the Jargon File probably contained the "splat out" definition and was published a few years previously). Although I'd still like to know where it was printed and what he said about it... this is almost certainly a WP:RS that so far we haven't followed up.

As to the idea that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and that therefore this topic (as a little-known technique practiced only by a small proportion of forum moderators, a group which isn't particularly numerous to start with) shouldn't be covered, I'm still far from convinced. The topic isn't an instruction manual. It provides information about why the technique is used, and discussion of the merits of different approaches to performing it. It used to include, and hopefully will again some day when we can find suitable sources, a discussion of the merits of the technique.

If there were another article that it could be merged into, I'd support that, but I don't see one that's appropriate. The technique is useful. Knowledge about it is spreading, and more and more people are going to come across mentions of it and are therefore wondering what it's about. We've seen a few comment on this thread here. Therefore it is useful for wikipedia to contain an article on the subject. That the article presently lacks sources is a problem, yes. It's one that can be fixed, I'm sure: I mentioned one possible source in the last paragraph that we need to follow up and cite. There may well be others. Others will almost undoubtedly come along in the future.

There's something else that Wikipedia isn't, as well: paper. JulesH 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, comp.risks is notable and reliable. I was thinking about comp.telecom.digest, which is only marginally so. The Jargon file is frequently updated, but not constitute a WP:RS, as notability-checking is not done, only fact-checking. TXT SPK has been commented on in the mainstream media, although the term disemvoweling may not have been used there. And there's still no WP:RS for this definition. If you can find one while the AfD is open, go ahead. If not, a deletion is still in order. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The term has been used at least once in the mainstream media, in the UK Guardian. [10] This does refer to TXT SPK. Someone else found it used in The Straight Dope [11], a column that has appeared in alternative newspapers for years. I also found a reference this morning in a small newspaper called The HawkEye [12]. Is that a help? St jb 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ETA: I see someone else mentioned The HawkEye, and I'm sure somone has mentioned The Straight Dope as well. Need a program to track the players sometimes. (grin) St jb 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian supports its use in referring to TXT SPK; the others are just intentional typos, rather than having a meaning. (Would disemvoweling HAL change it to HL?) No reference to its use in moderating boards. comp.risks suggests use (with splats) for self-moderating; but it still only talks about single, objectionable (to someone) words, rather than phrased. There's no source for the definition in the article, so a delete is still in order. A rewrite, leaving nothing of the existing article, seems a possible alternative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• That was me that mentioned the Straight Dope and the Jargon File above. Based on the Straight Dope site, I believe that that column was included in the book Return of the Straight Dope (Ballantine Books, 1994, ISBN 0345381114), but I don't have access to a copy to be sure about that. Similarly, if it's in the Jargon File, it's probably in The New Hacker's Dictionary (MIT Press, 1996, ISBN 0262680920). If either of those books include the word, then they ought to qualify as RS (along with comp.risks, where I'm happy to see someone finally agree that that counts as a RS). Dori 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You better talk to Tony Sidaway and several other admins about the Jargon file not being RS, it was quoted and touted about as RS numerous times to defend Lumber Cartel. As such there is precedent for its acceptance as a reliable source.--Crossmr 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be necessary for Jargon File to perform "notability checking" for it to be a reliable source. The only think that a reliable source is required to do is provide accurate information. Why would we expect an external editor to follow the same standards we use here? JulesH 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Karen and Shinto; allow it to grow. — Catherine\^talk 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems that someone has found this article useful already: [13] St jb 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A) "Usefulness" is not a criterion for retaining articles. B) It appears that the writer already was familiar with the technique, and is a fan of the putative inventor. -Will Beback 21:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• weak Keep with rewrite I've been digging through google. It appears this term goes back much further that its purported creation. This reference [14] pegs its usage in the 18th century. It was likely a word that fell out of use until the practice was reborn only modernized. As a potentially historical term the article could be rewritten both to reflect the past usage and to reflect the modern usage of the term. There have also been forum and web plugins created for automating this technique. While it has limited google prescence it does seem to have a history.--Crossmr 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm still not sure why the history of use of the word is even relevant. The article isn't about the word, but about the technique that is described. If we want an article about history of the word's usage, I suspect wiktionary is a more appropriate place.

    Because the impression that I got from the article was that she invented the whole she-bang which is obviously false as the practice existed in the 18th century as a form of moderation. It was used to take the bite out of profanity much the same way its used now to take the bite out of trolls. Her invention isn't so much an invention as it is a re-application of an old technique, as such its quite pertinent to the article.--Crossmr 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment perhaps they should go back to the first voweless language? That of ancient Israel.[15]. "In a discussion of the technique on J. Bradford DeLong's weblog, it was suggested that disemvoweling acts to publicly ridicule the offender, and therefore is more likely to make them stop." Or leave after the mob throws enough insults and cyber popcorn and then the so-called offender can't respond. Been there done that. This is just another fan mentioning the TNH weblog, not this article. Their tentacles run deep in the blogosphere. What we have is more repeating on blog comments. That isn't a source.Marky48 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And here I thought the Lumber Cartel was the American Forestry Association. Not in Internet lingo. The Hacker's volume didn't have it from searching the book through Google. Only a reference to the book I cited within another, but it was restricted. Moreover Lomas didn't use it in the HK. He just said the language contained no vowels.Marky48 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Hawkeye article. I conducted some original reporting, uncommon on blogs. Here is the answer:

Mark, I made it up.

Bob

---

Original Message -----

From: Marky48 To: bsaar@thehawkeye.com Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:53 PM Subject: Disemvoweling Marky48 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, Mark! We have another inventor! Thanks! St jb 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It the article is reincarnated in well-sourced form, fine, but currently the History section alone is an embarrassment. Precis 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can anyone explain to me why this article is any different from numerous other wikipedia articles about webspecific phrases? E.g. Poe's Law, Blogwar, or Skitt's law. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for deletion of such articles, since I feel they fit the wikipedia format very well, but we could use the same arguments for deletion for many of the Internet culture articles.

In general, I am of the general opinion that it's better to have one article too much, than one too little. --Kristjan Wager 16:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.