Talk:Dork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A version of this article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2005. The result of the discussion was delete.

Various versions of this article were speedy-deleted between 29 May and 4 December 2005.

A version of this article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Recreation/redeletion (please leave the talk page as a record)

The article has 120 deleted edits as of today's date. It has been deleted, recreated, deleted, and recreated. Apparently, Texture tried to avoid the continual recreation and redeletion by making it into a redirect page. That's not a bad idea, but others have objected and moved it to speedy delete. I'm going to delete it again and hope that the vandals who have continually recreated it have moved on to greener pastures. If this is not the case, if the page is recreated again, I suggest a protected deletion. Geogre 14:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's rather funny that there continues to be no page for dork two months after it was deleted. Haha. If there is sufficient means to re-direct this page to wictionary or to nerd, then fine. I however suggest that this could be its own page that would deal with its etymology and uses in popular culture. Jdotpitts 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old talk

this page to wictionary or to nerd, then fine. I however suggest that this could be its own page that would deal with its etymology and uses in popular culture. Jdotpitts 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Article was successfully appeared once already on Mar 32 2005. It has since been resurrected. I renominate for deletion on the same grounds as the first time - the page mirrors a good wiktionary article and belongs on wiktionary, no info is provided beyond what wiktionary has given, and the page simply serves to attract vandalism.

why is there no page on dork. i want to know the history of the word

I concur. At least a wiktionary redirect. - Omegatron 23:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I agree too. Quick definition: a person who is very or completely inept socially and is usually unaware of this ineptitude. Having a definition could lead to many self diagnoses of dorkiness and could lead people to seek treatment. I'm not kidding! If you tell a dork he's a dork he won't listen and he'll never evolve into a well adjusted nerd or geek.--Ryuukuro 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This page needs to include a wiktionary link and a discussion behind the etymology of the word (from "dick", according to the full non-concise OED). This whale penis bit appears to be rubbish -- can anyone provide a reference for its use in this context? I expect not. Czyl

We already have a wiktionary definition: wiktionary:dork, but wiktionary wouldn't cover the history of the word (including the urban legend "whale penis" histories of the word). — Omegatron 23:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest this article be alive. According to wiktionary's FAQ, their entries should include the etymology of the word. This would cover its history, unless there is a significant cultural importance attached to the word in the present context (for instance, nerd) or an interesting story of origin that goes past its etymology. Right now it just appears to be a piece of slang that originally came from "dirk" or "dick", but there's no backstory beyond that.
The "whale penis" myth is interesting as an urban legend, but I don't know of any reference that's actually looked into the origin of this myth. So all this article could state about it is speculation. I marked move to Wiktionary. Czyl 02:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


This page needs to include a wiktionary link and a discussion behind the etymology of the word (from "dick", according to the full non-concise OED). This whale penis bit appears to be rubbish -- can anyone provide a reference for its use in this context? I expect not. Czyl

We already have a wiktionary definition: wiktionary:dork, but wiktionary wouldn't cover the history of the word (including the urban legend "whale penis" histories of the word). — Omegatron 23:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest this article be alive. According to wiktionary's FAQ, their entries should include the etymology of the word. This would cover its history, unless there is a significant cultural importance attached to the word in the present context (for instance, nerd) or an interesting story of origin that goes past its etymology. Right now it just appears to be a piece of slang that originally came from "dirk" or "dick", but there's no backstory beyond that.
The "whale penis" myth is interesting as an urban legend, but I don't know of any reference that's actually looked into the origin of this myth. So all this article could state about it is speculation. I marked move to Wiktionary. Czyl 02:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article should NOT redirect to nerd

The two words do not describe the same concept. Please justify the redirect if you revert, or else you're just being uselessly obstinate. 71.131.184.183 10:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Get it back.

Okay, even if past entries are bad, why not just put up a tiny bit, then expand it as we learn more about any true origins? It doesn't matter at all if there's a Wiktionary article on it, there's bound to be overlap between Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. Definately, a link to Wiktionary would be useful in references though. Any thoughts? I'd like to see it up. As I see it, it seems to be quite similar to Nerd and Geek although it hasn't been taken back as widely and is still never the most disparaging. --User:Tyciol

Absolutely, there's no excuse for just deleting the page without an explanation being left up. I tried the search and I only got a number of towns called 'Dork', we need an explanation and the history of the word, urban legends and what not, and then a trans-wiki to wiktionary. It's just common sense. - User:Dalta

wikitionary page page about is good but not fully defined like earlier artical so i dont find any reason to delete it from wikipedia. thats why i recreate the page using Google cache history . also add move prevention templet . if u dont like it then lets discuss. dont delete it before discuss.--Blogsd ! 05:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogsd (talk • contribs) --Blogsd ! 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it and said so quite clearly in the #Expand, merge or redirect section below. This page is a mere dictionary definition and contains no non-lexical content. If you think the Wiktionary page should be improved, go fix it. Just like Wikipedia, Wiktionary is open for editing and improvement by anyone. I'm returning it to the soft-redirect status until the concerns already raised below have been addressed. Rossami (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dork is related to Geek and Nerd. For The Record:

A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia. A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one. A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.

if geek and nerd is there then whats problem having dork page

and rossami dont declear justis with out fully ressolve it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogsd (talk • contribs)

That's irrelevant. The problem (which has been clearly stated many times on this page and was most recently articulated in the section at the bottom of the page) is that this page is a mere dictionary definition. It explains only the meaning, alleged origins and usage of a slang word. It has no encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's a policy-level decision and not one that can be just casually ignored.
The argument that "geek" and "nerd" have pages is not a valid argument. (See WP:WAX for more.) If they are also mere dictionary definitions, then sooner or later someone will clean them up too. If they are more than dictionary definitions, then you can not compare them to this page. Rossami (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm also going to refute your argument that this word is any more closely related to "geek" and "nerd" than any other adolescent pejorative. Geek and nerd both have connotations about learning or skill. Dork does not. But that is a fascinating distinction which belongs in the dictionary, not here. Rossami (talk)

I would like to be able to post an article on the game "Dork". It's a party game acutally in which the players use a pool table, the 8 ball, and the que ball to bounce back and forth in a pattern with the object being to either pocket it or set up a shot so the person following your turn does not get to hit it before it stops rolling. If the 8 ball is pocketed then the person following the one who pocked it gets a letter (d, o, r, or k) or if the ball stops rolling before a person can hit it then they are out. Anyway it sounds complicated but i would like to post a complete description with rules on the game because it is one of the most entertaining party games i have known and i think everyone should know how to play it. - user:Leh-nerd77

[edit] "Not verified" template

The website given as a sole reference is of dubious authority and does not provide source of its wisdom. mikka (t) 08:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] finally!

someone really didn't want this article to exist back in the day. I tried- check the deletion log y'all who can. maybe there wern't enough links to it to make it take off fast enough w/ other users. course, it's hard to tell right now how many backlinkz this would have if it weren't for that open-task inclusion. I need to seek my Kzzl Vision 08:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I reverted the information that Numberoneconti typed for Dork. The information is not historically accurate, and if it is, he must prove it by posting the proper citation of where his information may be found. According to a reliable source, an etymology dictionary, this link --[1], dork is properly explained already, thereby proving his edit to be vandalism. This type of Vandalism, is called "sneaky vandalism", which may be researched here, is on the grounds for blocking by administrators if he edits with false information constantly. Please post back on my talk page, informing me of any replies to my comment. Slasher600 (talk · contribs)

[edit] Dork / Latch-key

The connection between "dork" and "latchkey kids" is something that I've been aware of for years, but I'm having trouble finding good references. Etymology is hard to get straight on the Net, and it's especially hard to get the etymology of a word that had a meaning previous to the new usage.

Does anyone have a good, offline reference that covers the 70s-80s changes in usage and the influence of the latchkey studies of that era? If so, I'd love to add the appropriate reference here. -Harmil 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that most dorks are brown-haired?


[edit] Monikers

I just added an internal link to Adam Brodsky, a well-known anti-folk singer who is known by the name "Dork" or "Dorkboy". It's fairly clear if you look at his page. samwaltz 18:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Ach jah, evidence is at http://www.adambrodsky.com/index.php?page=cds&display=24 samwaltz 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Errr... I just bumped him into the inline text, as it looks like having a name listed in "See also" may be a magnet for vandalism. samwaltz 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Situation Comedy

For reference, I just added "Dork" to the character archetype section of Situation Comedy, in case anyone wants to check up on Urkel, etc. samwaltz 08:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dork: The Game

http://moojob.com/dork/ Cute video game. Is it worth mention? samwaltz 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I had been thinking about adding a link to the game, but wasn't sure how ethical it would be since I'm the game's author. Also worth a link, probably: Dork Tower, King Dork. Alan deLespinasse 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The page could use some colour

Image:Adambrodsky_dork.jpg Grrr... I'm thinking the page could use some colour. This is the only thing I can think of; it is (clearly) one of Adam Brodsky's album covers. What do you think? Is a graphic desirable on this page? Can anyone think of a better one to use? samwaltz 09:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Stereotype' Description

The stereotype described was obviously for 'nerd', look at the nerd page, the pictures there fit the description.ThePotsy 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

In ref to IronChris' partial reversion, specifically the remark "I fail to see what was POV about that" -- here's the POV problem: there's a large body of opinion, albeit undocumented, that the word was originally whaler's slang; this is countered with equally undocumented denial. Ergo, when we go with one side of a disagreement and assert that the other is without foundation, while having none ourselves, we got NPOV problems. The etymology needs to reflect the disagreement without ruling on it (or at least until better documentation is advanced). I'll let this sit to see if comments acccrue, then try another tweak. DavidOaks 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more. If undocumented, it is POV. But since there is a source, it is not POV. I have yet to find a reliable resource that states that "dork" comes from a whale's penis. I have provided one source aginst this popular etymology, but here are some more: [2] (excerpt from the Historical Dictionary of American Slang), [3] (from the whale conservation institute, they should know, right?). All reliable etymologies mention "penis" or "dick", but no whale: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. There are many more, but no reliable ones that mention whales. In fact the only sites that state that "dork" is the word for a whale's penis are either myspace pages, user-edited sites, and other similar sites, which are obviously unfit to be sources for wikipedia.
So you are totally right that if there is a debate, wikipedia must present both sides of the argument, with appropriate sources. In this case, though, there is no debate, since there is no reliable source to make one think that "dork" may be related in anyway to whales. IronChris | (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Right -- so we've got popular undocumented assertion against less-popular undocumented assertion, and no reason to suppose that the latter is somehow stronger. The usage of dork for non-cetacean anatomy is established; the responsible procedure is to identify the whale-reference as "not clear for the earliest known appearances of the word" -- I have no dog in this fight (and don't personally put much stock in the whale's penis theory), but feel the article needs to reflect the facts of the discussion. DavidOaks 13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC
Actually the term dork as a penis is documented. As a whale's penis it is not documented. So we've got popular undocumented assertion against documented proofs.
This turns out to be as messy, as riddled with scholars' and debunkers' folklore as the etymologies of "kangaroo" and "ok." I'm trying to work up something that gives a clear account of the situation, both the controversy and the balance of objective evidence as sober linguists would view it -- and unsourced references to scots terms for a small knife aren't a big improvement over the whale-story. How's this:

original:

Contrary to some popular beliefs, the word "dork" does not mean a whale's penis Instead, the term may be merely a variant of "dick", the vulgar term for a human penis

revision:

It is widely asserted that the term originated as whalers' occupational slang for the penis of a whale, and by transfer became an anatomical insult, undergoing subsequent generalization and amelioration to its present meaning. The current state of evidence suggests that this is a case of folk etymology[9], as no solid documentation has been advanced for the use of the term prior to a 1961 publication (referencing 1953), in which the meaning is clearly penis, but with no particular reference to whales[10]. Instead, the term may be merely a minced oath variant of "dick", the vulgar term for a human penis. Nonetheless, the origin of the whale-reference and its widespread credit remain unexplained, material facts, and the claimed derivation is best treated as unconfirmed.DavidOaks 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


More datapoints: In a 1997 posting to the American Dialect Society listserv, David Johns (Waycross College) reports the "penis" meaning as current in the 1950s[11]; other observations include an Illinois-born soldier stationed at Fort Leonard Wood who used the term with a clear meaning of "penis" (1959) and a citation for "thick slice of bread with butter" current in the US late 19th c-1930s [12].

The revision seems like a good improvement, though it appears to mean the same thing as the original with a bit less decisiveness and more detail. I still don't see what you mean by "less-popular undocumented assertion"; a dictionary has got to count as "documented", right? Anyway, I would like to propose a revision of that revision with some minor modifications, essentially to simplify the language:
It is popularly asserted that the term originated as whalers' occupational slang for the penis of a whale, and by transfer became an anatomical insult, undergoing subsequent generalization and amelioration to its present meaning. The current state of evidence suggests that this is a case of folk etymology[13], as no solid documentation has been advanced for the use of the term in this context. One of the earliest documented uses of the word "dork" is a 1961 publication (referencing 1953), in which the meaning is clearly penis, but with no particular reference to whales[14]. Instead, the term may be merely a minced oath variant of "dick", the vulgar term for a human penis. Nonetheless, the origin of the whale-reference and its widespread credit remain unexplained, material facts, and the claimed derivation is best treated as unconfirmed.
I changed "widely asserted" to "popularly asserted", because it is, as mentionned a bit further down, an unfounded popular etymology, whereas "widely" makes it sound like it is verified. I think it's best to keep things clear for people who are reading fast through the article, for example; if taken out of context in its previous state, the first sentence could sound like this etymology has a solid foundation.
The second modification was just to cut that pretty long sentence in two, again, to make it easier to read at a glance. If you think these modifications are reasonable, you can go ahead and place this in the article, as far as I'm concerned. It is clearly an improvement over the previous version! IronChris | (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me! DavidOaks 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't get this

The term implies stupidity perhaps less regularly than it formerly did, and paradoxically can imply an unadmirable (bookish, academic) intelligence, much as "nerd" and "geek" do.

I really don't understand this sentence. What does "stupidity perhaps less regularly than it formerly did" mean? And why "paradoxically"?

Maybe awkward wording (it was mine) -- glad if someone improves it. But I think there was a worthwhile point: the term once implied "stupid." Now it as at least as likely to mean "brainy," but not as a compliment. That's part of the history of the term. DavidOaks 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how useful the sentence "as evidenced by its use in the syndicated family cartoon strip Big Nate (in the form "dorkus") for January 13, 2007" is, considering that most people don't know Big Nate (and there is no article for it), so it's hardly a good illustration, as far as the average reader is concerned. IronChris | (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It may not yet have a wikipedia article (someone should feel free) but it's accessible online (couldn't get the particular day's cartoon to link properly), and the fact that an insult that once meant "penis" is used in a family comic strip is strong evidence that it is no longer recognized as having that reference. My view is, it serves a worthwhile encyclopedic purpose until a better example comes along. DavidOaks 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

The pretty much daily vandalism is a major energy-drain, preventing improvement of this article. I propose adding the following code (invisible in surface version and de-activated in edit view, borrowed from "Amish," in turn adapted from "GWB"):


{sprotected2}}

That is, protection and a comment -- Vandalism to this page will be reverted within minutes. Please consider helping instead of damaging other people's hard work.

Thoughts? DavidOaks 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great.IronChris | (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dorks

Dorks are so hot and are loved by many young girls in America —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.40.119 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Why?

Why does this need to be an article rather than a simple dictionary entry? Exploding Boy 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read any of this page? By the way how old has this been a issue? I just came upon it today.Cupy 52040 03:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch surname?

I dispuate that 'Dork' is a Dutch surname. People might have signed thier names in the Ellis Island record that are different from their real names. Also into the 1910's there was a sophisticated Dutch civil registration system and I haven't found the name 'Dork' anywhere until now. I suspect people imigrated to the New World and simply picked a new fantasy family name 81.5.6.63 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This term is only really used in [North] American English

"Dork" is very seldom used in British English. The article fails to mention that it's basically a US-specific term, and thus does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Thoughts?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In Britain it gets used a lot, though maybe by English people deliberately using American English. Which raises interesting questions. almost-instinct 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The page needs to be fixed.

The information says that the origin of dork came from whaler's reference of a whale's penis. I've heard that urban legend many times, but never anything to solidify it as true (even the OED doesn't recognize it as such). The problem on this page is it states it as a fact, and attaches a reference (wordorigins.com) which contradicts what it is referencing.

Also, there are 3 references at the end of the page, but the article only refers to two of them

[edit] Expand, merge or redirect

As has been noted several times above, this page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meanings, possible origins and usage notes of a slang term. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:

  1. Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
  2. Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
  3. Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template).

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with you about this being a dictionary definition with a little useless trivia thrown in, I believe the proper course of action, if that's your concern, is to nominate the article for deletion, at which point a soft or hard redirect is a possible outcome. If you disapprove of someone's creation of an article, it seems incorrect to simply blank out all of the content, as you seem to be doing, and certainly wrong to edit war over it. An AfD process will allow consensus to emerge, and time for improving the article if it can be improved. However, there was already a deletion discussion and a decision to keep, on this very issue, barely more than a month ago. So you might just want to let it rest. There have been some deletion nominations a couple years ago and more, as you know, but those may not longer be relevant. Wikidemo (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
AFD would quite properly reject the nomination. AFD discussions may sometimes result in a recommendation to redirect a page but they are not the normal process for making that decision and even to the extent that the AFD participants reach such a conclusion, it is no more binding than any other normal-editor decision. Deletion only applies to the complete removal of the page and the page history. I do not think that a second deletion of the pagehistory is necessary or appropriate and could not in good conscience make such a nomination. Whether or not the page should be a redirect is something that Wikipedia policy requires us to work out here on the article's talk page. Rossami (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

  1. Recreation of deleted article without addressing the rationale of the votes for deletion is not allowed.
  2. Wikipedia rules require valid references from reliable sources. Urban dictionary, blogs and webcomics are not valid references.
  3. Edit warring without discussiojn it talk page are inadmissible.

`'Míkka>t 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig page