| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Dook |
| Status | Close |
| Request date | 15:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | User:63.88.64.5, User:Duke53, User:DukeEgr93 |
| Mediator(s) | Bejinhan |
| Comment | Closed |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
On the Dook page, and specifically in the Talk:Dook page there is a question as to whether the use of the term as a derogatory misspelling of Duke University should be included on the disambiguation page.
Who is involved?
- 63.88.64.5 (active editor of article page)
- Duke53 (active editor of article page)
- DukeEgr93 (active editor of article page)
- Noah_Salzman (contributor to talk page)
- Bluedog423 (contributor to talk page)
What is the dispute?
While not entirely pre-emptive, this request is being made at the early stages of something that has, and may again, escalate into an edit war. As noted, the dispute is whether such terms are encyclopedic and notable enough to be added to the project. Three years ago, there was a discussion about same ( MEDCAB, RfM, and at the old UNC-Duke rivalry talk page). 63.88.64.5 made an allegation of edit warring; the result was for Black Kite to put the page under semiprotection for one week.
What would you like to change about this?
Outside mediation would be appreciated in determining whether the term and those like it should be included. If it should, additional assistance with the phrasing and also the scope of adding such terms to the project.
How do you think we can help?
Providing a disinterested presence to facilitate communication and forestall edit warring.
Mediator notes
I'm interested in helping mediate this case. Bejinhan Talk 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll be monitoring the discussion. Will it be held here or in the Talk:Dook page? Bejinhan Talk 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
- I would certainly appreciate Bejinhan's assistance here and appreciate the effort! Duke EGR 93 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- One additional note I just left on the talk page: One overarching question I have is whether this page is done correctly at all. It is supposedly a disambiguation page, but seems more like a definition list - there are no pages with titles Dook (blah) for example. Which is not quite right, since the
Wikipedia:Disambiguation page says
not to include dictionary definitions. Perhaps this should be linked over to Wiktionary?
Duke
EGR
93 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be substantially different from pages such as
Cook or
Fluke. Yes, some of the definitions on
Dook are not linked as consistently as those other examples, but it is generally the same.
—
Noah 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree here - the Dook disambiguation page is substantially different in that there is no link to any other page containing Dook in the title anywhere. Though I do enjoy the phonetic nearness of the examples :) The Dook page at present seems to be a list of possible definitions - making it a candidate for Wiktionary - rather than a navigational tool for different Dooks.See updated opinion below Duke EGR 93 23:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be substantially different from pages such as
Cook or
Fluke. Yes, some of the definitions on
Dook are not linked as consistently as those other examples, but it is generally the same.
—
Noah 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- DukeEgr93 raised a question on the Dook talk page: should the Dook disambig page exist at all? I believe that question needs to be resolved before we continue. I would prefer not to have a long discussion about adding "Dook/Duke" to the Dook disambig page and then have that page removed. Thoughts? FWIW, my opinion is the Dook disambig page should remain... while it is not an exemplar of disambig pages, it certainly serves a purpose similar to thousands of other disambig pages. — Noah 16:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The question should the Dook disambig page exist at all seems to have been resolved so I think we should now look as to whether the use of the term Dook, as a derogatory misspelling of
Duke University should be included on the disambiguation page.
Bejinhan
Talk 06:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- My take - biased as it is - continues to be that the monikers developed by "the opposition" do not contribute to the encyclopedic nature of the project, regardless of the occasional "references" generated by said opposition. I stand by this for Duke, as well as for Carolina, as well as for other academic institutions... Then again - offensive terms are not a prori off-limits by any means. Regardless of the narrow scope of their use, I suppose. Given that, I imagine what I am mostly looking for is the creation of some kind of guideline that establishes criteria for the notability and inclusion of such a thing, writ large. This is a pretty large box to be opened here, and while I have zero intention in participating in the potential melee to follow, I do believe there is some value in establishing the limit stakes. Duke EGR 93 03:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me the discussion is whether to have something that states "A pejorative name used to refer to Duke University" on the disambiguation page. I don't have strong feelings for this one way or the other so whatever the policy is on disambiguation pages carrying dergatory terms is fine with me. Remember ( talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
- Hi All... I propose we add "A pejorative name used to refer to Duke University" to the Dook page. It's factual and it's well referenced. I think it's a pretty straightforward argument, but then I am not burdened by 1) having participated in any of the North Carolina-flavored arguments of the past nor 2) do I have any interest in a wider discussion about a standard or guideline for pejorative terms for universities. Full disclosure: I am not a basketball fan (as the Warriors rarely make the playoffs), not a college sports fan, and I did for a time own a Duke University t-shirt (my wife went to a conference in Durham once). Cheers,
—
Noah 16:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- So - I am still unsure of the notion of advertising 'rivalrous' insults, "documented" though they may be by said rivals; I think the best I can accede to here is that I will promise not to revert anything in the spirit of Noah's recommendation above...
Duke
EGR
93 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was asked by our kind mediator why I thought we should go forward with making the addition to the dook page. My response is copied here for convenience:
- The usage should be documented here because it is an established and well referenced slang term... albeit one that is offensive to Duke alma mater. If we set aside the emotional response the term creates and look at it coldly from our role as encyclopedia writers it is no different than our documenting and explaining of other potentially offensive slang terms such as tit, geek, or dago. Would a mediation request initiated by those of Italian heritage -- to prevent the publishing of the disambig entry of dago -- be justified? It would not. The reason the dook version of this story is a little different is because, in the past, the folks editing the disambig page were purely vandal-happy trolls. Times have changed and we now 1) have solid references and 2) have someone (me) interested in documenting the term for it's own sake, not as a jab at Duke University. —Noah 10:15 am, Today (UTC−7)
- I do think the one question to be asked is whether the "solid" references are, in fact, neutral. And, also, whether references of that nature actually need to be neutral to count. Duke EGR 93 03:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- We are just documenting the existence of the term, which is by its very nature, a slur. If we are recording on the disambig page as a "slur" then it makes sense for the references to employ it as such. In my mind the logic works like this: 1) I just read on WP that dook is a slur for Duke, 2) are there reliable and notable references that back that up? 3) yep, the NY Times and Sports Illustrated articles clearly show that Duke-haters out there use this term as a slur. The NY Times and Sports Illustrated are not required to include balance in their articles... we simply use them as tools to document the way in which the four letters in question are used. Right? — Noah 15:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was asked by our kind mediator why I thought we should go forward with making the addition to the dook page. My response is copied here for convenience:
- So - I am still unsure of the notion of advertising 'rivalrous' insults, "documented" though they may be by said rivals; I think the best I can accede to here is that I will promise not to revert anything in the spirit of Noah's recommendation above...
Duke
EGR
93 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is the term Dook used commonly to refer to Duke University?
Bejinhan
Talk 09:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- As an insult, yes, as documented in the sources listed on the Dook talk page: 5 books, the NY Times, and Sports Illustrated.
—
Noah 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- How many of those would you say are NPOV sources? For example, Williamson writes for Inside Carolina and Eble is a professor at UNC Chapel Hill... Featherston's book is talking about a poster made by a UNC student. E.M. Yoder - UNC Graduate. Curry's quote? Comes from UNC graduate and now coach. So, is it common for someone from UNC to use "Dook"? Sure. Is that a good enough reason to include it in Wikipedia?
Duke
EGR
93 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- DukeEgr93, I am a bit confused. Are you saying: (1) we need more proof that Dook is used often to refer to Duke; (2) we need proof that Dook is used by individuals other than those affiliated with UNC; or (3) even if we have proof that Dook is used often as a pejorative to refer to Duke Univeristy by those both affiliated and not affiliated with UNC, we need something more for this information to be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia?
Remember (
talk) 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am just asking if those sources represent sufficient strength to merit inclusion in this project. I thought it was important to point out the potential bias in the sources and ask the question, nothing more. It may be that the final consensus is that it would be sufficient for multiple sources from the same organization using a term for members of another organization for said term to rise to the level of being included in the project. I don't know the answer to that, but I did think the potential bias of the sources specifically cited should be known. Duke EGR 93 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also here is a link to an article written by Jay Bilas, a Duke basketball alumni, where he uses the term Dook when pretending to receive comments from a Maryland alumni ("Voice from College Park: "Yeah, yeah, yeah ... please tell us even more about Dook and Carolina. What about Maryland?! We're the defending ACC Champs for crying out loud!! Have you seen the Terps and Duke play lately? We're the ones that have been filling up your 'Instant Classic' programming for the last five years!! Throw us a bone here, will ya?!!")" - [2],
- I'm a little confused too since
WP:NPOV says "Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'."
—
Noah 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a question of inclusion, not elimination. Small point, but still true. As mentioned earlier in all this, I see this as potentially setting a precedent and I think it would be good if that precedent is set after considering the issues of neutrality and whether or not such statements are encyclopedic. As I noted above, on this particular topic, were someone to choose to add the reference concerning Duke University in the way you recommended, I would certainly not try to remove it. But I am not convinced that adding it serves any good purpose, either.
Duke
EGR
93 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok so am I right to say that your current stance is now that you do not doubt the factual and verifiable nature of the claim ("Dook is a pejorative term for Duke University"); instead you have a more fundamental question which is: "Should wikipedia's redirect pages include descriptions of pejorative terms?" Is that your position?
Remember (
talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's simply this - is there a bar that must be surpassed for perjoratives - perhaps specifically those that come about as a result of college rivalries - that must be met in order for them to be encyclopedic? Because, again, my thought here is once this starts, onward rolls the kinds of things we (specifically, you and I and a few others) saw three years ago with respect to all the other terms Duke and UNC have for each other, as well as those of other schools. Surely, there is a bar that must be met. I believe it is certainly a verifiable fact that people from UNC started calling Duke "Dook" and that there are references - including perhaps some "neutral" ones - that state that. Is that sufficient? If it is, all people have to saw on here is, "Regardless of the background of those cited, it is enough" and while I may disagree, at least I will know what others' are thinking. Because what I want to happen is this - when people on this page say "yes," then those people are going to need to defend the creation and retention of a lot more than just a link on the "Dook" redirect. So I am primarily playing devil's advocate (while seeming also to be Devils' Advocate) to point out the kinds of questions people will ask about their own institutions "pejoratives" and how the thought processes being applied here might be used there to accept or reject inclusion in this project. Duke EGR 93 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok so am I right to say that your current stance is now that you do not doubt the factual and verifiable nature of the claim ("Dook is a pejorative term for Duke University"); instead you have a more fundamental question which is: "Should wikipedia's redirect pages include descriptions of pejorative terms?" Is that your position?
Remember (
talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a question of inclusion, not elimination. Small point, but still true. As mentioned earlier in all this, I see this as potentially setting a precedent and I think it would be good if that precedent is set after considering the issues of neutrality and whether or not such statements are encyclopedic. As I noted above, on this particular topic, were someone to choose to add the reference concerning Duke University in the way you recommended, I would certainly not try to remove it. But I am not convinced that adding it serves any good purpose, either.
Duke
EGR
93 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- DukeEgr93, I am a bit confused. Are you saying: (1) we need more proof that Dook is used often to refer to Duke; (2) we need proof that Dook is used by individuals other than those affiliated with UNC; or (3) even if we have proof that Dook is used often as a pejorative to refer to Duke Univeristy by those both affiliated and not affiliated with UNC, we need something more for this information to be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia?
Remember (
talk) 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- How many of those would you say are NPOV sources? For example, Williamson writes for Inside Carolina and Eble is a professor at UNC Chapel Hill... Featherston's book is talking about a poster made by a UNC student. E.M. Yoder - UNC Graduate. Curry's quote? Comes from UNC graduate and now coach. So, is it common for someone from UNC to use "Dook"? Sure. Is that a good enough reason to include it in Wikipedia?
Duke
EGR
93 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- As an insult, yes, as documented in the sources listed on the Dook talk page: 5 books, the NY Times, and Sports Illustrated.
—
Noah 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note...
- There is no Wikipedia policy stating that prejorative terms are not allowed in Wikipedia.
- Adding a prejorative term should only be for information purposes(for ex., if someone hears the word Dook with Duke University, they might want to find out how is it connected with Duke University)
Bejinhan Talk 13:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Final note
I've decided to add a final note as I'll be closing this case in a week or so.
- Disambiguation pages are not for lists of nicknames or slang terms.
- The Dook disambug page fails WP:MOSDAB since disambig pages are not supposed to have references in them.
- It's not my job as a mediator to say who is right or wrong and I can't enforce my opinions. All I'm supposed to do is make sure the discussion do not go out of hand.
- Those involved would have to seek out a compromise or if not, take this case up to the next level of dispute resolution i.e. to an RFC or ArbCom.
- The reason why I'm closing this case is because the discussion has 'worn out' and honestly, I don't see any ending to this dispute because both parties are not going to budge an inch on their positions.
- Hence, I'll be leaving this open for another week or so, mainly for anymore questions, and then I'll mark this case as close.
Bejinhan Talk 11:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh - I think you are selling this process short. As one of the parties, I think there's definitely been budging :) It would seem that what might need to happen would be the potential creation of a standalone page specifically for Dook as a slang term, and then that slang term would need to stand on its own on Wikipedia rather than merely having an entry on a disambig page. If consensus is that such a page passes muster, than an entry on the disambig page would be warranted. Regardless, I certainly appreciate folks taking the time to weigh in on the issue, and also your time serving as moderator. Duke EGR 93 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Dook |
| Status | Close |
| Request date | 15:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | User:63.88.64.5, User:Duke53, User:DukeEgr93 |
| Mediator(s) | Bejinhan |
| Comment | Closed |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
On the Dook page, and specifically in the Talk:Dook page there is a question as to whether the use of the term as a derogatory misspelling of Duke University should be included on the disambiguation page.
Who is involved?
- 63.88.64.5 (active editor of article page)
- Duke53 (active editor of article page)
- DukeEgr93 (active editor of article page)
- Noah_Salzman (contributor to talk page)
- Bluedog423 (contributor to talk page)
What is the dispute?
While not entirely pre-emptive, this request is being made at the early stages of something that has, and may again, escalate into an edit war. As noted, the dispute is whether such terms are encyclopedic and notable enough to be added to the project. Three years ago, there was a discussion about same ( MEDCAB, RfM, and at the old UNC-Duke rivalry talk page). 63.88.64.5 made an allegation of edit warring; the result was for Black Kite to put the page under semiprotection for one week.
What would you like to change about this?
Outside mediation would be appreciated in determining whether the term and those like it should be included. If it should, additional assistance with the phrasing and also the scope of adding such terms to the project.
How do you think we can help?
Providing a disinterested presence to facilitate communication and forestall edit warring.
Mediator notes
I'm interested in helping mediate this case. Bejinhan Talk 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll be monitoring the discussion. Will it be held here or in the Talk:Dook page? Bejinhan Talk 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
- I would certainly appreciate Bejinhan's assistance here and appreciate the effort! Duke EGR 93 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- One additional note I just left on the talk page: One overarching question I have is whether this page is done correctly at all. It is supposedly a disambiguation page, but seems more like a definition list - there are no pages with titles Dook (blah) for example. Which is not quite right, since the
Wikipedia:Disambiguation page says
not to include dictionary definitions. Perhaps this should be linked over to Wiktionary?
Duke
EGR
93 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be substantially different from pages such as
Cook or
Fluke. Yes, some of the definitions on
Dook are not linked as consistently as those other examples, but it is generally the same.
—
Noah 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree here - the Dook disambiguation page is substantially different in that there is no link to any other page containing Dook in the title anywhere. Though I do enjoy the phonetic nearness of the examples :) The Dook page at present seems to be a list of possible definitions - making it a candidate for Wiktionary - rather than a navigational tool for different Dooks.See updated opinion below Duke EGR 93 23:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be substantially different from pages such as
Cook or
Fluke. Yes, some of the definitions on
Dook are not linked as consistently as those other examples, but it is generally the same.
—
Noah 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- DukeEgr93 raised a question on the Dook talk page: should the Dook disambig page exist at all? I believe that question needs to be resolved before we continue. I would prefer not to have a long discussion about adding "Dook/Duke" to the Dook disambig page and then have that page removed. Thoughts? FWIW, my opinion is the Dook disambig page should remain... while it is not an exemplar of disambig pages, it certainly serves a purpose similar to thousands of other disambig pages. — Noah 16:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The question should the Dook disambig page exist at all seems to have been resolved so I think we should now look as to whether the use of the term Dook, as a derogatory misspelling of
Duke University should be included on the disambiguation page.
Bejinhan
Talk 06:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- My take - biased as it is - continues to be that the monikers developed by "the opposition" do not contribute to the encyclopedic nature of the project, regardless of the occasional "references" generated by said opposition. I stand by this for Duke, as well as for Carolina, as well as for other academic institutions... Then again - offensive terms are not a prori off-limits by any means. Regardless of the narrow scope of their use, I suppose. Given that, I imagine what I am mostly looking for is the creation of some kind of guideline that establishes criteria for the notability and inclusion of such a thing, writ large. This is a pretty large box to be opened here, and while I have zero intention in participating in the potential melee to follow, I do believe there is some value in establishing the limit stakes. Duke EGR 93 03:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me the discussion is whether to have something that states "A pejorative name used to refer to Duke University" on the disambiguation page. I don't have strong feelings for this one way or the other so whatever the policy is on disambiguation pages carrying dergatory terms is fine with me. Remember ( talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
- Hi All... I propose we add "A pejorative name used to refer to Duke University" to the Dook page. It's factual and it's well referenced. I think it's a pretty straightforward argument, but then I am not burdened by 1) having participated in any of the North Carolina-flavored arguments of the past nor 2) do I have any interest in a wider discussion about a standard or guideline for pejorative terms for universities. Full disclosure: I am not a basketball fan (as the Warriors rarely make the playoffs), not a college sports fan, and I did for a time own a Duke University t-shirt (my wife went to a conference in Durham once). Cheers,
—
Noah 16:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- So - I am still unsure of the notion of advertising 'rivalrous' insults, "documented" though they may be by said rivals; I think the best I can accede to here is that I will promise not to revert anything in the spirit of Noah's recommendation above...
Duke
EGR
93 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was asked by our kind mediator why I thought we should go forward with making the addition to the dook page. My response is copied here for convenience:
- The usage should be documented here because it is an established and well referenced slang term... albeit one that is offensive to Duke alma mater. If we set aside the emotional response the term creates and look at it coldly from our role as encyclopedia writers it is no different than our documenting and explaining of other potentially offensive slang terms such as tit, geek, or dago. Would a mediation request initiated by those of Italian heritage -- to prevent the publishing of the disambig entry of dago -- be justified? It would not. The reason the dook version of this story is a little different is because, in the past, the folks editing the disambig page were purely vandal-happy trolls. Times have changed and we now 1) have solid references and 2) have someone (me) interested in documenting the term for it's own sake, not as a jab at Duke University. —Noah 10:15 am, Today (UTC−7)
- I do think the one question to be asked is whether the "solid" references are, in fact, neutral. And, also, whether references of that nature actually need to be neutral to count. Duke EGR 93 03:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- We are just documenting the existence of the term, which is by its very nature, a slur. If we are recording on the disambig page as a "slur" then it makes sense for the references to employ it as such. In my mind the logic works like this: 1) I just read on WP that dook is a slur for Duke, 2) are there reliable and notable references that back that up? 3) yep, the NY Times and Sports Illustrated articles clearly show that Duke-haters out there use this term as a slur. The NY Times and Sports Illustrated are not required to include balance in their articles... we simply use them as tools to document the way in which the four letters in question are used. Right? — Noah 15:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was asked by our kind mediator why I thought we should go forward with making the addition to the dook page. My response is copied here for convenience:
- So - I am still unsure of the notion of advertising 'rivalrous' insults, "documented" though they may be by said rivals; I think the best I can accede to here is that I will promise not to revert anything in the spirit of Noah's recommendation above...
Duke
EGR
93 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is the term Dook used commonly to refer to Duke University?
Bejinhan
Talk 09:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- As an insult, yes, as documented in the sources listed on the Dook talk page: 5 books, the NY Times, and Sports Illustrated.
—
Noah 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- How many of those would you say are NPOV sources? For example, Williamson writes for Inside Carolina and Eble is a professor at UNC Chapel Hill... Featherston's book is talking about a poster made by a UNC student. E.M. Yoder - UNC Graduate. Curry's quote? Comes from UNC graduate and now coach. So, is it common for someone from UNC to use "Dook"? Sure. Is that a good enough reason to include it in Wikipedia?
Duke
EGR
93 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- DukeEgr93, I am a bit confused. Are you saying: (1) we need more proof that Dook is used often to refer to Duke; (2) we need proof that Dook is used by individuals other than those affiliated with UNC; or (3) even if we have proof that Dook is used often as a pejorative to refer to Duke Univeristy by those both affiliated and not affiliated with UNC, we need something more for this information to be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia?
Remember (
talk) 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am just asking if those sources represent sufficient strength to merit inclusion in this project. I thought it was important to point out the potential bias in the sources and ask the question, nothing more. It may be that the final consensus is that it would be sufficient for multiple sources from the same organization using a term for members of another organization for said term to rise to the level of being included in the project. I don't know the answer to that, but I did think the potential bias of the sources specifically cited should be known. Duke EGR 93 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also here is a link to an article written by Jay Bilas, a Duke basketball alumni, where he uses the term Dook when pretending to receive comments from a Maryland alumni ("Voice from College Park: "Yeah, yeah, yeah ... please tell us even more about Dook and Carolina. What about Maryland?! We're the defending ACC Champs for crying out loud!! Have you seen the Terps and Duke play lately? We're the ones that have been filling up your 'Instant Classic' programming for the last five years!! Throw us a bone here, will ya?!!")" - [2],
- I'm a little confused too since
WP:NPOV says "Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'."
—
Noah 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a question of inclusion, not elimination. Small point, but still true. As mentioned earlier in all this, I see this as potentially setting a precedent and I think it would be good if that precedent is set after considering the issues of neutrality and whether or not such statements are encyclopedic. As I noted above, on this particular topic, were someone to choose to add the reference concerning Duke University in the way you recommended, I would certainly not try to remove it. But I am not convinced that adding it serves any good purpose, either.
Duke
EGR
93 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok so am I right to say that your current stance is now that you do not doubt the factual and verifiable nature of the claim ("Dook is a pejorative term for Duke University"); instead you have a more fundamental question which is: "Should wikipedia's redirect pages include descriptions of pejorative terms?" Is that your position?
Remember (
talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's simply this - is there a bar that must be surpassed for perjoratives - perhaps specifically those that come about as a result of college rivalries - that must be met in order for them to be encyclopedic? Because, again, my thought here is once this starts, onward rolls the kinds of things we (specifically, you and I and a few others) saw three years ago with respect to all the other terms Duke and UNC have for each other, as well as those of other schools. Surely, there is a bar that must be met. I believe it is certainly a verifiable fact that people from UNC started calling Duke "Dook" and that there are references - including perhaps some "neutral" ones - that state that. Is that sufficient? If it is, all people have to saw on here is, "Regardless of the background of those cited, it is enough" and while I may disagree, at least I will know what others' are thinking. Because what I want to happen is this - when people on this page say "yes," then those people are going to need to defend the creation and retention of a lot more than just a link on the "Dook" redirect. So I am primarily playing devil's advocate (while seeming also to be Devils' Advocate) to point out the kinds of questions people will ask about their own institutions "pejoratives" and how the thought processes being applied here might be used there to accept or reject inclusion in this project. Duke EGR 93 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok so am I right to say that your current stance is now that you do not doubt the factual and verifiable nature of the claim ("Dook is a pejorative term for Duke University"); instead you have a more fundamental question which is: "Should wikipedia's redirect pages include descriptions of pejorative terms?" Is that your position?
Remember (
talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a question of inclusion, not elimination. Small point, but still true. As mentioned earlier in all this, I see this as potentially setting a precedent and I think it would be good if that precedent is set after considering the issues of neutrality and whether or not such statements are encyclopedic. As I noted above, on this particular topic, were someone to choose to add the reference concerning Duke University in the way you recommended, I would certainly not try to remove it. But I am not convinced that adding it serves any good purpose, either.
Duke
EGR
93 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- DukeEgr93, I am a bit confused. Are you saying: (1) we need more proof that Dook is used often to refer to Duke; (2) we need proof that Dook is used by individuals other than those affiliated with UNC; or (3) even if we have proof that Dook is used often as a pejorative to refer to Duke Univeristy by those both affiliated and not affiliated with UNC, we need something more for this information to be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia?
Remember (
talk) 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- How many of those would you say are NPOV sources? For example, Williamson writes for Inside Carolina and Eble is a professor at UNC Chapel Hill... Featherston's book is talking about a poster made by a UNC student. E.M. Yoder - UNC Graduate. Curry's quote? Comes from UNC graduate and now coach. So, is it common for someone from UNC to use "Dook"? Sure. Is that a good enough reason to include it in Wikipedia?
Duke
EGR
93 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- As an insult, yes, as documented in the sources listed on the Dook talk page: 5 books, the NY Times, and Sports Illustrated.
—
Noah 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note...
- There is no Wikipedia policy stating that prejorative terms are not allowed in Wikipedia.
- Adding a prejorative term should only be for information purposes(for ex., if someone hears the word Dook with Duke University, they might want to find out how is it connected with Duke University)
Bejinhan Talk 13:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Final note
I've decided to add a final note as I'll be closing this case in a week or so.
- Disambiguation pages are not for lists of nicknames or slang terms.
- The Dook disambug page fails WP:MOSDAB since disambig pages are not supposed to have references in them.
- It's not my job as a mediator to say who is right or wrong and I can't enforce my opinions. All I'm supposed to do is make sure the discussion do not go out of hand.
- Those involved would have to seek out a compromise or if not, take this case up to the next level of dispute resolution i.e. to an RFC or ArbCom.
- The reason why I'm closing this case is because the discussion has 'worn out' and honestly, I don't see any ending to this dispute because both parties are not going to budge an inch on their positions.
- Hence, I'll be leaving this open for another week or so, mainly for anymore questions, and then I'll mark this case as close.
Bejinhan Talk 11:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh - I think you are selling this process short. As one of the parties, I think there's definitely been budging :) It would seem that what might need to happen would be the potential creation of a standalone page specifically for Dook as a slang term, and then that slang term would need to stand on its own on Wikipedia rather than merely having an entry on a disambig page. If consensus is that such a page passes muster, than an entry on the disambig page would be warranted. Regardless, I certainly appreciate folks taking the time to weigh in on the issue, and also your time serving as moderator. Duke EGR 93 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)