Talk:Disemvoweling/Archive 20 June 2006

message: TNH, not to worry, you're not the only compulsive rewriter here.  You should see some my my stuff.  - pk (PKM 03:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

message: If we are going to give an example of this, then let's please mark it as an example. Also, contractions are great for informal writing, but an encyclopedia is not the place for them. -Will Beback 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contractions & example

message: OK, I've been looking for general sources on disemvowelling.  I'm ignoring everything that directly quotes TNH as a primary source, since we're supposed to be looking for secondary sources here.
The best I've found is this .
Cramer describes at the top of the page how she doesn't use disemvowelling, so is clearly reporting on other people's experiences of it.  She then goes on to make similar statements to some of the ones we have in the article here, including the one quoted above.
Still, it isn't really a reliable source according to wikipedia's policies on verification.  I don't know where to get anything better, though. JulesH 22:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thakns so much for hunting. I think that under the circumstnace this article should be compacted down to the first paragraph giving a description of the process, and leave the rest out. None of the other material is reliable, and it is frankly just TNH's personal essay. -Will Beback 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't want to get involved in this one, but it seems to me that the problematic section is the part in the middle.  The beginning (this exists, it came about on this date, and was named in print shortly afterward) seems okay, except that the who-named-it-when could probably be tightened to "and received the name disemvoweling (or disemvoweling) shortly thereafter."  The later bit, about scripts to carry it out, seems relevant and useful.  Whether it's effective, fair, etc., could reasonably be replaced with something like, "As might be expected, its use is somewhat controversial, especially for those whose text is so altered." Just a drive-by suggestion, folks. If it were up to me, I'd probably leave it alone, but I understand the concern being raised here. Karen 06:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I certainly have no object to including anything uncontentious like that, even unsourced... it seems self-evident enough to just state it.  Perhaps "In cases where a poster persists in the behaviour which earned them their disemvowelment, other harsher penalties (such as comment deletion or banning) usually follow"? JulesH 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, having actually looked at the link rather than just assuming it was how it was described, I'm not so sure I'm willing to let it stand; the description completely misrepresents what is said in the article.  See my summary of the problems with it at the bottom of the page. JulesH 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding sources 

message: "It's an Internet form of publish banishment favored by the Puritans in the 1600s." This is exactly what it is ahistorical or not. Banished from the colony worked identically. Disemvowlement is pre-bannishment public humiliation. Perhaps you've heard of The Stocks. Many things are not only unsourced, they don't even explain the conditions that warrant this treatment? All of these people cam straight from absolutewrite and Making Light and all of this is over the smearing of James Cordray. They just followed me here like trolls are apt to do. An encyclopedia should have sort of criteria for who deserves to be in it and why. This really streches the concept in my view.Marky48 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like the concept of wikipedia, go elsewhere.  The fact is, we can't include your sentence because it doesn't make any sense.  Disemvowelment is not "publish banishment", whatever that happens to mean.  It isn't banishment in any sense; it is merely a technique for removing offensive comments from a discussion forum.  It isn't intended to ridicule any more than editing a comment and leaving a message saying 'this message deleted for (reason)' is, and in my experience that is the most common method used for the purpose.  In fact, disemvowelling seems to me to be inherently fairer; it allows other visitors of the site to read your text if they want, and make their own minds up as to whether you were treated unfairly.  For the record, I don't care one bit about Cordray.  I came here because of your destructive edits and personal attacks on the Barbar Bauer page; I wanted to make sure you weren't doing the same kind of vandalism on other articles.  It turned out you were.  Now, just go away and take your personal attacks with you.  We'll concentrate on the job of writing an encyclopedia that doesn't include your petty, biased opinions. JulesH 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, let's keep things cool. We're here to write an article. Our jobs as Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Disemvoewlling may indeed be like banishment or the stockade, but we should not make that decision on our own. Rather, we should find those reliable sources who have characterized and summarize whatver they said. -Will Beback 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Marky48's comments  

message: Marky48 has removed the Kathryn Cramer link again.  I'm not going to revert his reversions any more, so I'll not be adding it back.  Anyone else could, if they wanted, of course, but perhaps it would be better to find a link he hasn't taken an irrational dislike to. Any suggestions? JulesH 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement for Kathryn Cramer link? 

message: But which I have been unable to find useful sources for.
* Negative opinions of the technique by anyone who provides a full name and who hasn't had it used on them.
* Details of any sites that have tried it and subsequently stopped using the technique
* I've seen a suggestion during my research that it may be unlawful in some jurisdictions due to copyright law.  I'd like to see some discussion of this by somebody legally qualified, but haven't seen any.  It could just have been a misinterpretation of the law by the poster I saw. 
Anyone know of anything like this? JulesH 06:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that should be discussed in this article 

message: This article page needs an example. It is one thing to present the information it is another altogether to present so that it makes the avergae reader wiser.
Ths rtcl pg nds n xmpl. t s n thng t prsnt th nfrmtn t s nthr ltgthr t prsnt t s tht t mks th vrg rdr wsr.
Without an example and I would suggest a spoiler in the next paragraph it is hard for an avergae reader to understand just how obtusificating the technique is. I didnt know until I wrote a sample. NOTE: simply removing all white space is not always reversible there exist sentences that are contradictorily ambiguous. Removing vowels is more radical, I suspect but havnt thought of an example where it destroys or at least leaves open two original meanings,
which is where humour probably uses it. 202.164.205.96 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, JulesH. This is the kind of constructive work we need. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example required