Talk:Disemvoweling/Archive 4 May 2007

Things that should be discussed in this article

(Moved from archived talk page JulesH 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

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)

Removal

As discussed previously, much of this article was either unsourced or cited unreliable sources (blogs). After a long time waiting for better material, I've now removed it. Anyone who wishes to restore the material needs to find reliable sources for it. -Will Beback 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All in all, I think I like it better this way, with no "proponents say..." or "detractors say..." material. It exists, this is what it looks like, there are two spellings, and the process can be automated. The end. Karen 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Good riddance to bad rubbish because that's all it was. Not to mention a waste of time.Marky48 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Damned if I know why Will BeBack's been harassing and nitpicking me, but he's turned up to do it to every entry where I've had significant input. It may have something to do with my once having stetted a "correction" he made in a sentence he'd misread. He seems to have a fair amount of ego investment in his copyeditorial abilities. I can't help him there.

BeBack's previous high point was to insist that I don't have any authority to write about the mechanics and history of science fiction publishing. I didn't think he could top that, but I underestimated him, because here he is, saying that I'm neither reliable nor a source on disemvowelling -- a moderating technique which I invented.

Mr. BeBack, the world is full of irritations, but few of them are this funny. May your edits never be forgotten.

As for Marky48, I've come to believe he must be M., whose objectionable remarks in the comment threads of my weblog got disemvowelled a few months back. Given that he's also been trying to gnaw on my ankles in the Barbara Bauer entry (and probably in other entries as well), I think he must still be steaming about it, and trying to get revenge.

This is useless, but it's also probably inevitable. My weblog is not the first (or the second, or the third) online venue that's given M. the boot for aggressive rudeness and refusing (not failing; refusing) to play well with others. It's a recurrent event. It infuriates M. when it happens, but he never sees it as having any connection with his own voluntary behavior.

Right now he's primarily angry at me, though he's still lingeringly angry at the moderators of the Absolute Write board, the previous venue that kicked him out. Here's the funny part: the reason he came to my weblog in the first place was to denounce the AW moderators. Does Wikipedia chuck people out for contumacious behavior? Because he's got a string going ...

--72.225.217.252 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)--Teresa Nielsen Hayden

This guideline proposal may be of interest to all: Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_Citing_Self-published_Blogs. It's still a work in progress, but it may provide some much-needed guidance. (And no, I'm not taking sides. I just want to point out that there may be a resolution to this issue.) St jb 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Teresa why was it I posted for a year at your blog without a mishap? I'm angry with group behavior patterns. My response has to come from something. Those same people sent me messages and slammed my books online. Where is the outrage for that? There is a root cause and it rests squarely in the laps of likeminded thinskinned group members. Perhaps if they could stand having their views challenged they'd be able to respond civily instead of going on the attack? There's a cart before this horse.Marky48 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

72.225.217.252 - Do not post the real life names of editors - it is a serious offense. Regarding your authority on the topic. I don't doubt that you know a lot about it, but that is irrelevant under Wikipedia policies, which demand reliable sources and no original research. If someone writes in newspaper, magazine, or book about the topic then those would be reliable sources. Blogs are not. Lastly, don't make everything personal. Please comment on the edits, not the editors. -Will Beback 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's put the issues more directly. We have an instance where this topic, a technique, is claimed to have been invented by a person. That person's blog is our source for the claim, and that person is adding the claim here. Once we have some reliable sources attributing the creation of this technique to a person, then we can include this information. If we were really strict, we'd cut even more, at which point the notability of the topic would be in quesiton. That'd be a pity. -Will Beback 08:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again I need to jump in here, reluctantly, but to speak my conscience. The History section here seems pretty well sourced to me, and should not be deprecated. As was pointed out, the disemvoweling applet citations (and the citation of the thread where it all started) really ought to be sufficient for the invention (or "first known use") claim, regardless of who first wrote some version of those words. There are numerous other references online, but they tend to be from blogs, as one might expect for this subject. On the other hand, I really think the Value section ought to go away. Many attempts have been made to make it NPOV, and it's certainly more so than it has been at various times. However, it seems evident that it's the most contentious, least verifiable section here, because it's primarily about value judgments (hence the name). Rightly or wrongly, even the factual material in it is constantly disputed, and one of the links (which I originally put in) goes far beyond the claims I was trying to source, to value judgments about a particular person. Whether those judgments are justified or not, it makes that citation problematic. It seems to me that the better way to go is to leave the pros and cons out entirely, and let the reader decide, without guidance, whether disemvoweling is effective or ineffective, fair or unfair, temporary or permanent. The remaining citations should be sufficient (or made sufficient) to allow people to research the subject further. Karen | Talk | contribs 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm mistaken about something. The problematic link I put in a while back is no longer there, so I withdraw that objection. The remaining links seem appropriate. However, it still wouldn't break my heart to lose the Value section, and keep the rest, for reasons state above. Karen | Talk | contribs 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what sources other than blogs could reasonably be expected to exist, given that disemvoweling is unique to blogs. --70.16.206.199 06:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't exist then we shouldn't have an article about this topic. -Will Beback 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on my end. It's vanity.Marky48 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding who invented disemvoweling and Mr. Beback

Mr. Beback is not following his own guidelines regarding sourcing. The first two links in the article for disemvoweling plugins ([1] and [2]) both list Teresa Nielsen Hayden as the inventor of disemvoweling. For some reason, he doesn't like the alternate phrase "earliest known usage of this technique" instead of "invented by" either, though he fails to cite an earlier usage. --72.79.1.138 09:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Plugin source code does not count as a reliable source. -Will Beback 08:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Will, someone else added that this evening, from what I read elsewhere[3], not TNH. I haven't read that edit, but the citation from before the previous removal went to a page where one could see the actual invention of the technique in progress. I suppose someone else could have independently arrived at the same idea on a different date, but if so, there ought to be some hint of it somewhere. (I just wasted an hour Googling - there are lots of non-notable TNH references, none at all mentioning anyone else in the technique's creation that I found.) As for another source, one of the widgets in the external links is named shrpshr, which is the name of the first-ever disemvowelee on the aforementioned thread. I hope that helps! Karen | Talk | contribs 09:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone may have re-added it, but that material was oringally written by user:72.225.217.252. [4]. I'm not sure if any of the sources here count as WP:RS. But I'm not comfortable with this self-sourced, self-written material. If someon would like to post a history on their blog we can still link to it, even if we don't use it as a source. That might be the best solution. -Will Beback 00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The inventor can't write it herself or it's vanity.Marky48 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the references to blogs, which do not qualify under WP:RS. Therefore, I've changed the "questionable sources" tag to the "no sources" tag. We need to find reliable sources for this material, which could be multi-person websites, magazines, newspapers, books, etc. Without such sources this article should be dropped back down to a stub. -Will Beback 08:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this? Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_Citing_Self-published_Blogs? Shouldn't this be taken into account?

St jb 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not under the NPOV context. Blogs are opinion. Very little actual reporting is found on them. Just commentary on reporting in mainstream publications. I have one so I know a bit about the subject.Marky48 11:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a proposal and has no standing at all. It is still being drafted and I doubt it will be adopted. -Will Beback 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding who invented disemvoweling should be disambiguated, as there are at least two meanings or questions which seem to be discussed here, at cross-purposes:

• Who invented disemvoweling (the practice)?     and

• Who invented "disemvoweling" (the word)?

With a possible subdivision of "who invented the practice" into:

• Who ever took the vowels out of words at all? — which might cover the Jewish pietist use of the word "G-d", or even be stretched to cover the written Hebrew language (in which vowels are not indicated) — and

• Who started the practice of disemvoweling as a forum moderation method and not only made it stick but inspired others to follow suit or even write software to automate the process? — which appears to be Teresa Nielsen Hayden, on November 21, 2002.

• Who first applied the term "disemvoweling" to what TNH did? — is on record as being Arthur D. Hlavaty, later the same day.

The two non-blog references cited, from The Guardian (2005) and Scholastic (2006), are years later, thus can't be considered "the original", and might even be derivative.

Earlier Net use of "disemvowel" has occurred; I've found Usenet examples back to 1995, the earliest of which is a humorous story.   Excerpt:

   "What happened?" the Amigoid asked.
   "D'nt knw," she said. "Jst wk p nd hrd y tw tlkng n thn, sddnly nd wtht wrnng, thr ws ths ns."
   "What?" Robotech_Master asked.
   "I think I know what happened," Lawrence said. "It must be part of the Silliness that's infecting the Author's Altiverse."
   "S wht hppnd?"
   "You've been disemvoweled," the Amigoid informed her.

It's all very well to say that a blog should not be cited as an authoritative source on a topic. But if the questions are — historically — "Where and when did the ongoing forum moderation practice of "disemvoweling" which inspired the software originate?", and "Where and when was this term for it first applied to it?", then the honest answers to these must be "on that blog, on that date". As a matter of history, no other answer would be true.

(And come on, where are you going to find the earliest use of a forum moderation method, if not on a forum?)

Since both the practice and the word have spread well beyond that blog and even the Net (witness again The Guardian and Scholastic), they can hardly be ignored as too localized for general relevance or interest. The existence of the categories Internet terminology and Internet forum terminology show that Wikipedia considers these topics worth explaining; and the spread of the practice, the word, and the software clearly make this an deserving member of those categories. That is not making any comment whatsoever on whether the practice is good, bad, desirable, or undesirable — just as the Time Magazine "Person of the Year" designation has not been reserved either for heroes or for villains. -- SAJordan 13:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And back from the dead comes another hagiographer blog commenter from guess where? Making Light yet again. What a stunning surprise. Marky48 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While this would be the night to come back from the dead, I haven't been dead yet. -- SAJordan 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue was until another fan arose.Marky48 00:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why this entry should not be deleted

Royalguard11 suggested deleting the article outright. The concern he expressed was "Non-notable internet term. It's used on the internet, but no big media coverage, ect."

I disagree. Disemvowelling has become widely used and referenced on the interent as a method for moderating online discourse. Disemvowelling plugins have been written for most major blog platforms, including Movable Type and WordPress. Many weblog administrators call disemvoweling "the most effective troll-repellent yet invented."

Other references to disemvowelling and it's uses: http://www.boingboing.net/2002/11/25/disemvowelment_antit.html http://www.chickenorbeef.net/wordpress/archives/2006/02/25/disemvowelment/ http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003059.html

Most media coverage is going to be on the Internet, simply because that's the major avenue of spreading information for any sort of web administration. You don't read a magazine to learn how to run a weblog.

I believe the word is quite notable. Accordingly, I am removing the suggestion that the article be deleted. --72.79.1.138 01:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I recall running across use of the term in the Guardian. Let me check and get back on that.St jb 01:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I found it, but the word is used in a different context. For the curious, here's the link: [5]. Search for "disemvowel." Minor notability, perhaps, if only to show that the word has been used in the mainstream press. St jb 02:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling for it to be deleted entirely, but the inventor can't put wind into her own sails here on the matter. That's vanity on its face. There are no shortage of cyber foot- soldiers in the game to carry the water. I've never seen it referred to in a print article. Nevertheless, weblog triumphalism and mainstream media disdain are the norm for the Internet community even though it is the credibility of weblogs that remains highly suspect. A generic tool reference is called for here, but not a hagiography of the creator. A communication torture technique is hardly something to revel in.Marky48 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"The stories in the papers implode too, contracting into weblinks: everything we don't have room for is banished to the vacuous attic of cyberspace. In our impatience, we "disemvowel" (empahsis mine) language when we transmit terse txt msgs to our m8s, using punctuation marks and parentheses to semaphore our moods." Guardian article.

This is completely out of context and irrelevant. This is not an abbreviation for the purposes of shorthand. "Disemvoweling" is targeted torture technique and tool of cyber warfare.Marky48 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now we get into the meat of the issue. Marky48's problem now seems to be not that this is unimportant and worthy of note, but that it's a bad thing, and shouldn't be mentioned, much like, say, a [denial of service attack] or using the word [nigger]. And now that we've found reference to it in a print article, Marky48 wants the goalposts moved. And really... a "communications torture technique"? It would make one think that all Marky48's modifications to this article come directly after this technique was applied to him, and that this is not so much a disagreement about the validity of the entry as an attempt to prevent others from hearing about this technique. 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 deleting it from a reference work, particularly one that purports to be neutral.

For time's sake, we won't even discuss how disemvoweling comments posted to someone's else weblog qualifies as a tool of cyber warfare. There is nothing preventing the person making comments from posting them on the commenter's own weblog or a public forum like Usenet-- or even the Discussion page on Wikipedia. --72.79.1.138 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No it is unimportant and and not worthy of note. Moreover it was written by the "inventor." That makes it a vanity article on its face. My additions were to provide context and this includes ramifications of applying this technique to people who didn't even cuss in the so-called violation of personal blog conduct. "Uncivil" depending on who one is in the pecking order of the forum. That's a slippery definition indeed.Marky48 15:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark, according to the automated comparison I posted to the deletion discussion, only 52 of the 506 words in this article were written by TNH. I'd hardly describe it as her writing any more. Also, it's quite clear that "uncivil" is a subjective decision with an interpretation that depends upon who makes it. But this is a problem with all forum moderation techniques, so comments about it should be applied to a general article on the subject, not to one about a specific form of those techniques. Why not take your argument to Forum moderator where it's more appropriate? JulesH 17:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history. Look at the first post and then who wrote the article right after that. I think your word count is not only flawed, but deliberately misleading on its face. That could be a moderator issue. Show your work.Marky48 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark, there is nothing misleading in what Jules says above. Nobody is denying that TNH did significant writing on this article early on. You're perfectly correct about that. The point Jules, St_Jb and myself have made is that she is *no longer* the author of most of the article, because the majority of her words have since been edited away by a large number of Wikipedia editors. As for showing the work, you have only to follow the comparison links already provided in comments to the AfD page. The article really has changed a heck of a lot since March, and not just in the now-deleted middle section. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No it hasn't after you consider the section we fought over is for all practica; purposes gone. I really don't think you people are capable of objectivity; logical process or anything else that infringes on your personal connection to the subject and bias baggage you have brought here. It's obvious to everyone but those in the klatch.Marky48 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[[6]]There it is from october by TNH.Marky48 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you take a close look at the TNH text you just linked to? It has very little in common with the current text, which was the whole point of my previous remark. You keep trying to prove that TNH did a lot of writing on the article, a fact that nobody disputes. But if you're trying to show that she wrote most of what's there now, your own link undermines that argument. At least I linked to a later TNH edit, which was more likely to have a substantial amount of text that survived. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is the jist of what remains after you take out the section we wrote. If nobody disputes it, which isn't true, at least one does then it's a moot point.Marky48 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Hlavaty

The article currently states:

Arthur Hlavaty [...] was at least the first person to use the term in print

This sentence was added by TNH back when she originally rewrote the article. Does anyone have any idea what print publication this was in, and what was said? JulesH 14:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We could ask him. He has an online presence. I've been wondering, though, whether "in print" in this case means a paper publication, or just a published reference of any sort. I guess the way to know is to ask!

On the older, hacker usage, someone should check The New Hacker's Dictionary, 3rd edition. For that matter, there might well be a print reference to the moderation usage in some recent computing Dummies' Guide or somesuch. We won't know until we look! Karen | Talk | contribs 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

From Google Groups (names deleted): "Date: Sat, Jul 26 1997 12:00 am Groups: rec.games.pinball Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

>---snip--- >>also...can someone explain to me what the trend on this newsgroup of putting >>asteriks in place of vowels is? WHY???

>It's an old tradition called "disemvoweling" I believe. It's what you do to >something that you dislike so much that you can't actually spell the word, >like P*p*y* or Dr*c*l*.

Simila to the way one would disemvowel a profanity, so as not to offend. eg- Sh*t, F*ck." Precis 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or just a just an idea you don't like sans any attack or profanity. I've never heard of this person.Marky48 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. And your ignorance is meaningful how, exactly? --Calton | Talk 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And your comment is meant "in good faith?" Who has heard of him is more to the point, but since you've been consistently hostile I propose you be defanged for this attack. Want to play with fire scarecrow? By the way New Hacker's doen't have it. Search and see for yourselves.Marky48 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And your comment is meant "in good faith?" Yeah. How is your lack of knowledge of something the least bit relevant? Unless it's a confession of that form of solipsism that believes unless you personally know about something, it's not important to the rest of the universe. In which case it's relevant, but only in reinforcing your lack of credibility. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[7]Yeah, just another member of the scifi community close to TNH. Friends begat friends begat...Fanzines, zines, all unqualified sources. With the history of the supporters of this article and the connection to each firmer and firmer as we dig deeper for sources, what we have is the equvalent of a circle jerk akin the Publishamerica authors Amazon five star reviews. I don't see how anyone can deny it, but then deniers are stubborn.Marky48 01:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

...but then, deniers are stubborn Yeah, like someone who can't admit he misspelled "bifurcation", no matter how many sources contradict him. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm on the record saying I mispelled the word, but used it correctly. Actually I added a different word that didn't exist, just like "disemvoweling" for example. Try again.Marky48 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Noooo, you're on record as continually insisting there was such a word as "bifrication" -- despite frequent corrections and offers of the correct word -- but if you want to use your atomic-powered hair-splitter to once again bend reality so you can continue to maintain your illusion that, once again, everyone is wrong but you, go ahead. Objectively, it doesn't do much for your reputation, but you burned those bridges here a long time ago -- and a little outside research shows that this is a regular pattern for you. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark: why does it matter who Hlavaty is? Yes, he's clearly somebody who knows TNH. In fact, I'd suggest that's absolutely certain from the context -- the first person to dicsuss something like this in print is almost certainly going to be someone who knew about it from the beginning, so has to be fairly close to the source. What exactly is the problem with this? All that matters is that it sounds like he has published a reference to the technique somewhere, and therefore (independently of who he is) that reference may qualify as reliable. Unless you can suggest a good reason why it wouldn't be? JulesH 06:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: New Hacker's Dictionary. 3rd edition doesn't have it, but ESR's working copy clearly does. Don't know if there's going to be a 4th ed, but if there is, it'll almost certainly be in there. JulesH 06:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Atomic hair-splitter? No I corrected my mistake, but the meaning stands as I said. It's you who is splitting and attacking. This is not good faith clearly. I'll be filing charges of personal attacks. Mr. Beback are you watching this? What does matter is you people are a partisan gang. He "published noyhing in print. What part of zine don't you get? There is no legitimate source except to yourselves. That much is clear. It's a circle jerk.Marky48 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think you know what the publication is, so I don't care whether you say he published nothing in print or not. You clearly don't want there to be any sources on this article, because you don't want this article to exist, so making it better isn't your primary concern. And who or what exactly am I attacking? If you're not going to contribute anything positive to this dicussion, please don't contribute anything at all. JulesH 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care what your opinion is on anything. You don't agree with the moderators here and I do so good luck with that. As for the atack I was referring to calton. Sci-fi shills abound here without regard to sources. Zines don't count so try to grasp that fact if it's possible. At this point I don't think it is since insistance on getting your own way is paramount. It won't work because the rules won't be broken or altered on your behalf. Life is tough. If you can't adhere to the critieria please don't add more proof of that.Marky48 23:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my remarks above: Hlavaty was not the first ever to use the term "disemvowel", merely the first to apply it to the forum moderation technique Teresa Nielsen Hayden had begun using that day. -- SAJordan 13:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New Edits

It's looking better, JulesH. I have some more references I'd like to add, but it will be few days before I have the time to sit down and work on it. St jb 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Good job. Precis 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Still draws conclusions (rude? opinion) and has no legitimate sources. Moderators most likely won't accept it under current sourcing rules. Moreover, "Gosh, Mark! We have another inventor! Thanks! St jb 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)" Aside from an overuse of the exclamation point this is original research, mine, and can't be used.Marky48 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I'm going to tackle a rewrite. Thanks in advance for your patience. As for the other remark, I think you missed my point, even if it was made in exclamation. St jb 03:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? What is your point? That anyone can make up a fake word? This source still can't be used and isn't related to the issue at hand: a moderation technique favored by folks who like to publicly ridicule people that disagree with them. That's not an idea friendly scene.Marky48 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reordered the first sentence to note the correct, sourced definition first, and added the examples with splats. If anyone wants to provide a WP:RS for the second, unsourced, definition, go ahead. I think the second definition fails WP:WEB, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about definitions, because this article isn't a dictionary entry. I've reverted your changes because they involve a substantial change of the subject of the article. If you feel that the other definition warrants it, please create a new article for it and add a link at the top of this article. Or, we can leave the single-sentence reference to the other meaning of the word without any further discussion. JulesH 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB isn't relevant here, because we're not discussing a web site or web content. Although if it were, I contend that it would meet the third criterion for notability, as the technique is used by administrators of multiple sites, many of which are quite well known. JulesH 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the idea has been discussed on Boing Boing [8] which has won several Blog awards and therefore qualifies under the second criterion. JulesH 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLLOCKS. The primary reason the article survived (the first) AfD is that the previous term existed, and could have had an article written about it. Still awaiting any WP:RS in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, a plug-in is not a "source", it's an "example". We still need a "source". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLLOCKSDefinitely.Marky48 20:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Unindenting.

That may be your interpretation of the outcome of the discussion. It isn't mine, and I don't see how it can logically be held that way. A total of of 14 people voted keep in the AfD discussion. They broke down thus:

• "Article describes a useful technique" or "article may be useful to people who encounter the techique" or "technique is becoming more widespread" etc. -- 8 (User:Mavarin and those who referenced her explanation of reasons, User:JulesH, User:Kristjan Wager, User:72.79.1.138)
• No real explanation about reasons but references to blogs which tend to suggest decision was based on the moderation technique explanation -- 2 (User:Calton, User:=Chica=)
• Would prefer an article on moderation techniques but keep this one until such an article exists -- 1 (User:Ergative rlt)
• References to defining the term without explanation of which meaning they were after -- 2 (User:Threecoyote, User:Danguyf)
• References to defining the term making explicit that to explore the complete history of the term -- 1 (User:Crossmr)

That doesn't indicate to me that "the primary reason the article survived (the first) AfD is that the previous term existed". In fact, it indicates that the primary reason the article survived AfD was because people thought it useful for wikipedia to have an article about this technique. Thus, I've reverted your reversion. JulesH 21:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Two quick things: First, I've been working on locating other sources, but it will take a few days. The reason is that I'm on vacation. Second, Jules, I also reference Mavarin's "useful technique" as per above. St jb 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jules your popularity contest isn't what defines this. It's obvious from the history that you and the others want a blog triumphalist decsion to elevate your heroine and her terminology ensconced in sci-fi-land. That's what this is about. This is about what it is, and the current rendition which can't be reference in qualified sources according to policy fails on its face. What you're doing is blind vanity partisanship and I can see your other articles in this vein were deleted. What an embarassment to watch this debacle. Mr. Rubin won't take it. NPOV ain't you son.Marky48 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who turned this into a "popularity contest". User:Arthur Rubin said "the primary reason the article survived (the first) AfD is that the previous term existed." I feel the statistics above prove that statement wrong: it is at most a secondary reason, and it is fairly clear that the article would have survived even without it.

Yes, the article is about what it is about. And until Mr. Rubin came along and changed the subject of the article from a forum moderation technique which is called "Disemvowelling" (which is what it has been about since the very first version) to the general use of the word "Disemvowelling", everyone was happy with state of affairs.

NPOV doesn't enter into this. It's a simple matter of the articles subject: self-censorship by replacing vowels with asterisks is not the subject of this article. It could be the subject of another article, and if you and Mr. Rubin are insistent that such an article should exist, I'd suggest you create it at Disemvowelling (self-censorship) and put a link at the top of this article to it. We could even move this article to Disemvowelling (forum moderation) if you prefer and set up a disambiguation page at Disemvowelling.

The articles subject is also not the meaning of the word Disemvowelling. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this were the subject of the article, the existence of the article would be against wikipedia policy on acceptable topics. I therefore strongly resist any attempts to so change the subject of the article. Please stop hijacking it.

Also, please lay off the personal attacks. I've warned you several times before, both here and on your talk page. If I see any more, I will be making a complaint about them. JulesH 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the closing admin, but there have been a number of AfD's closed as delete with a technical majority (or even supermajority) of keep votes, if no reasons were given to keep. In this case, the old (splat) usage has sufficient references that the first sentence could be expanded to a viable stub. Together with TXT SPK, which is (at least) a plausible use of the term (although I can't find a WP:RS, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, as it's plausible), and (TXT SPK) has adequate references in mainstream media under various names, I admit an article should be in this space. It's just not this one, nor does it have anything from this article other than the first sentence and references. If no reliable sources appear in the next week month or so, I'll renominate, although others may renominate earlier. At the very least, the splatted form should be included, even if TNH doesn't so include it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The present version present version at 06:51, 07 August 2006, has an acceptable introduction for the moment, as far as I'm concerned. I'll still renominate if no sources are provided for the use in moderation, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree on keeping the other definitions. I'm just getting back from my vacation (still clearing out the work backlog) but I did run across what may be a useable citation from an award-winning site. When I get caught up here I want to go back and re-evaluate it to be sure it conforms to the rules before I go inserting the cite.St jb 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Also, please lay off the personal attacks. I've warned you several times before, both here and on your talk page. If I see any more, I will be making a complaint about them."And I back at you. You've attacked me for months over every edit I've made because it doesn't defer to your blog crowd. This well-documented. You will not be able to defend it under objective scrutiny. "Award-winning site?" If it's online only it's moot. Not that it will stop you from denial.Marky48 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. The guideline that User:Arthur Rubin pointed us to explicitly states that web content is worthy of an article if it has been covered in a blog that has won one of the awards described at Blog awards, which Boing Boing has. Therefore the content is notable, if that's the definition we want to use. I don't feel it is, because it's a definition for content, and this isn't about content.

And please, show me a single place where I've attacked you, except for the single flippant comment I made some time ago which I have since apologised for. JulesH 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more precise above. I believe the site will hold up under WP:WEB. St jb 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You've repeatedly accused me of using "inacurate information," which is the same as calling me liar. Yo've led steady opposition to my very existence here. The fact is you came here from Making Light and the Bauer article which you wrote. You followed me by admission and removed my edits based on your own personal biases which are still under scrutiny now. This is the equivalent of stalking.Marky48 23:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling your information inaccurate is not a personal attack, because it isn't about you. There have been several points where you put information into this article which was incorrect in a variety of ways. Yes, I did follow you here, because I felt that your edits on Barbara Bauer suggested you might make similarly poor edits elsewhere, and I was correct. Your initial edit on this page, which I reverted, was pure, unsourced opinion and definitely not suitable for this or any other article on wikipedia. Other edits you have made to this article have included statements that could be interpreted as attacks on Teresa Nielsen Hayden. I'm glad I followed you here, because somebody had to stop what you were doing to this article. None of this is a personal attack, it is merely a statement of truth about the work you have done here.

However, "it's obvious from the history that you and the others want a blog triumphalist decsion"[sic] and "what you're doing is blind vanity partisanship" and "NPOV ain't you son" are all personal comments and violate wikipedia policy. You're reading motivation into my words that I take offence from, primarily because your reading is incorrect.

So just drop stuff like this, and we'll all get along much better. JulesH 12:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What should the subject of this article be?

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who believes the subject of this article should remain what it has been all along, but others seem to disagree. Just to gauge what the general consensus is, could people who have a particular opinion sign one of the lines below, so we can easily tell who thinks what about it? JulesH 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Article should be about disemvowelling as a forum moderation technique; other meanings of the word should be restricted to a single sentence, potentially with a link to another article giving a full description. JulesH 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm kind of in the middle on this. A single sentence might be a little too restrictive, but the focus should remain with the original subject of the article. There doesn't seem to be all that much to say about the splat out meaning, anyway, but if something interesting turns up it should probably be covered briefly, or else spun off and disambiguated. (This is assuming we can solve the sourcing issue, which is by no means a certainty.) Incidentally, there seems to be a school of thought here for a third option, to delete nearly all references to the original subject of the article, and make it about something else entirely, simply because it's more easily sourced. That would be the one option I completely reject. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why I suggested delete and recreate an article about the WP:RS'd usages, which does not include this one, although standard Wikipedia practice does include overwriting articles about a non-sourced use of a term with a valid sourced use. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Article should be about use of the word disemvowelling, and explain all such uses, giving full coverage to each in the same article.

• Article should be about the "term" disemvowelling, including any of the self-censorship (or moderator censorship of specific words) splat, TXT SPK, and forum moderation that can find reliable sources. We can separate those which require additional expansion later.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• The artilce should limit itself to topics that have verifiable material per WP:RS. -Will Beback 19:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The letter "y"

WB's terse version is better. There are infinitely many variations. For all we know, some forums remove y's that appear as the second letter of the word (those y's are usually vowels too). Or they might remove y's at random, using a random number generator; one can give a rationale for this as well. There is no reason to expound on the different treatments of the letter y; the details are self-evident and uninteresting. Which is better, "Some teenagers get acne", or "Some teenagers get pimples on their cheeks, some don't get pimples at all, some get pimples on the ends of their noses, ..."? Precis 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the short version was overly terse. The different ways to treat y in this context are interesting, especially because of the automation issue. By contrast, the short version is abrupt and unhelpful, IMO. Karen | Talk | contribs 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The short version is fine--it communicates that "y" is an exceptional letter which is not handled in a consistent way. As a compromise, I'd accept a concise sentence giving examples of treatment of "y", leaving out obvious rationale. The sentence should in no way suggest that the list of examples is exhaustive. Precis 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the rationale is necessary. For instance, it wouldn't be obvious to somebody who hasn't thought about automating the process why you wouldn't just remove the "y"s that are used as vowels and leave those that are used as consonants. The rationales are common sense, so shouldn't require sources, other than the one for removing them at the end of words only, for which we do now have a source for the necessary information. I agree about not suggesting the list is exhaustive though, as we have no evidence that it is. These are just suggestions of possibilities. JulesH 09:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is usually a vowel.[1]

forgot to sign... Karen | Talk | contribs 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds better than the current version to me. JulesH 10:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds better to me as well, but there are still problems. First of all, when y is at the end of an English word, isn't it always (not just usually) a vowel? If you are going to insist that y is not a vowel in words like boy, buy, say, play, prey, then you are claiming that words ending in y-digraphs are less common than the other words ending with y, which I'm sure is true, but you have no source for this claim. The technique of removing only terminal y's is a lazy, idiosyncratic approach, and hardly worthy of special mention. The lazy approach leaves intact words like "rhythm", and with only a little extra programming, one could remove all y's in words lacking a,e,i,o, and u (thus eliminating y's in words like "myth"). In my judgment, it suffices to mention the all or nothing approaches and leave it at that. Precis 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe 'y' at the end of a word is always a vowel, and the source I added seems to back that up, but it isn't quite explicit, and I hestitate to use the word "always" without a good source. The technique of removing y's at the end of the word is mentioned because it is the technique used by at least one of the plugins in the list at the bottom of the article, although I forget which. Unfortunately, it seems as though a plugin author's description of the software he has written isn't a reliable source about the features of that software, so this can't be explicitly mentioned in the article. JulesH 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Common sense" is not quantifiable.Marky48 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version is a reasonable compromise. Precis 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

the letter w

I can't believe nobody has added a section yet explaining the various techniques of disemvoweling words like crwth and cwm. Precis 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the letter j, which is often a vowel in Scandanavian languages. ;) Karen | Talk | contribs 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one have only ever heard of the technique being used in English. Besides, I believe in Welsh and Scandinavian languages, w and j respectively are always vowels, so it wouldn't exactly be a difficult choice. :) JulesH 06:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to discuss the various plugins designed for trolls who mention the Jyllands-Posten in the forums. Precis 09:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

St jb's source

Interesting. While the source is undoubtedly self-published, I'd say the author clearly counts as a professional researcher (as a lexicographer for OUP specialising in slang and editor of another professionally published book about lexicography), so the source is probably within the rules of WP:V. JulesH 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians shouldn't accept as fact blog material which references another blog. Neither blogger is qualified to comment on the history. The most I'm willing to accept here is a direct quote from St jb's source. " According to ..., "...". Precis 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As a professional lexicographer, I think Barrett is quite qualified to comment on the history of usage of the word. JulesH 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Barrett's site is not a blog, although he does cite one. Karen | Talk | contribs 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I spent some serious time at that web site in attempting to determine whether or not it might hold up under WP:V. The site has an editor; it does not appear that just anyone can add a word. It appears that the majority of the words have the disclaimer about further research, but the information on the About page convinced me that this is a good source. St jb 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Spanish-language blog portal Bitácoras named DTWW the best English-language blog of 2004. This site's content is syndicated to offline media by BlogBurst." Precis 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it as more of a reference than a blog. He probably does use blog software to drive the site, but I believe the intended use is beyond that of a blog. In addition, many non-blog sites offer syndication - news sites, even some wikis. St jb 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, and I'm not discounting this "blog" as a possible reference. But when this source admits that it has not researched a word, it is simply not a reliable source for the history of the word. That goes for any other word this source claims it has not researched. The most that should be accepted here is a direct quote, since DTWW has not done the research to support Wikipedia's conclusion. DTWW gives other blogs as supporting information, and that's not enough to make it a reliable source for the history of the word. Precis 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yow, two edit conflicts in two minutes! I imagine that somebody somewhere has called snopes.com a blog, too, because it's available as an RSS feed on Bloglines and so on. Yet neither it nor DTWW exhibits other defining characteristics of a blog. Each is not a web diary about the author's life or politics, but instead compiles well-organized information into a reference work, and cites its sources. (BTW Jules, nice job on the reference format. I need to learn how to do that myself.) Still, if you want to add an "According to...", that seems reasonable to me. Karen | Talk | contribs 21:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if the site boasts that it won best blog award, it's not wrong to call it a blog. Here of course blog is used in a broader sense than "web diary about the author's life or politics". Nevertheless, your point is well taken, and I won't refer to it as a blog again. The "according to" suggestion is for replacement, not addition. I don't think the current version is supported by the citation. Precis 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The site seems to contain both the author's language-related blog and the dictionary we've linked to. The references to a blog are probably references to the other half of the site. (I guess this makes 3 edit conflicts!) JulesH 21:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All this twisting in the wind and what do we wind up with? The same blog reference we had two months ago via my DeLong thread. Farrell was removed from that too. This fails the credibility test yet again.Marky48 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the key: his employer OUP doesn't endorse this blog site project, or publish it in print. No go.Marky48 23:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from whether the "Double-Tongued Word Wrester" is a blog, it appears to be a self-published website. Self-published sources are not reliable sources either. -Will Beback 05:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

They are when the author is a "professional researcher in a relevant field", according to WP:V. The author is a lexicographer employed by Oxford University Press as an editor of a number of dictionaries of slang. That appears to be a very relevant field to me. JulesH 07:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note the next sentences in WP:V:

• In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party news organizations or publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on a professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Has his information been published by a credible, third-party publication? -Will Beback 01:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note what Precis quoted above: "This site's content is syndicated to offline media by BlogBurst" -- anything that's "syndicated to offline media" (or even just syndicated, if you want to use the traditional rather than web-jargon definition of the term) is not self-published, as it is being republished by somebody else afterwards. BlogBurst has editorial guidelines and an acceptance process, so is clearly not a self-publishing service. [User:JulesH|JulesH]] 07:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the author of DTWW says about his historical research:

"There are two reasons I have not tried to find the ultimate earliest citation for each word. First, it's too time-consuming. If I try to find the earliest citation, it can take twice as long to hit all the various resources for each word, not counting when it is necessary to visit the library. Even then, there is always one more book, one more archive, one more database to check. The time investment is too high. Second, the importance of earliest citations is over-rated for most words. It is of value only if one is able to significantly change the understanding of a word's history or origins, which does not occur with most antedatings. While it is interesting to find that political football dates about 100 years earlier than I expected, it does not change the meaning of the word either then or today. "

In short, the current Wikipedia History section is virtually a misquotation. The most we can do here is to quote the author verbatim, but it's embarrassing to do even that, because this is NOT a reliable source for etymology, by the author's own admission. The only source he cites is a blog, for heaven's sake. One reason WP insists on reliable sources is because reliable sources have reputations to protect, and they are unlikely to lay their reputations on the line for questionable assertions. This author is NOT even laying his reputation on the line, as he provides the following disclaimer in his Citations section: "These are recently added citations for catchwords that have not yet been researched or incorporated into a full dictionary entry." So come on, does that sound like a reliable etymological source to you? If the author's history (based on a blog) is wrong, he is protected by a disclaimer. Are we? Precis 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I concure with Precis.Marky48 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Mark here. The article we're refering to does not provide a reliable source over the history of the term. What it does do is provide a reliable source that the term is used, with the meaning that this article was originally written to describe. JulesH 18:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article states This catchword has yet to be researched. This leans against it being a WP:RS, even if doubletongued, as a whole, is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, and as such the source is not reliable as a definition of the term. However, since DTWW is reliable as a whole, it is a reliable source for how the word has been used by a blogger. For this reason, I changed "may be used" to "has been used". This should be satisfactory unless someone disputes the description we provide about how DTWW says the blogger used the word. The reason why I initially suggested verbatim quote from the site is to avoid such disputes. If a reliable source R quotes a rumor, then the rumor may not be reliable but the fact that R quoted the rumor IS reliable, and that fact may be significant enough to report in Wikipedia. Precis 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

latest change to the history section

"Citing from another source"? Let's admit it, DTWW reproduced a passage from HF's blog entry. I can perfectly understand the desire for vagueness, but we need to be forthright for our readers. Quote the passage verbatim, and say where it was taken from. That will not invalidate the citation if the author of DTWW is considered an expert at cataloguing new words, as he may well be. Precis 11:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't quote a blog as the source if that's the citation the DTWW used. And it clearly is. Moreover if that is HIS source he isn't reliable either, at least in this private unsanctioned venue. Of course the history is the editors from Neilsen Hayden's camp here want them to be. Look, as a blogger myself I can understand this but I can't change the rules. Blogs are opinion sites and nothing more, thus NPOV is not the MO.Marky48 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia's policy is concerned, it doesn't matter what DTWW's source is. And that's fair enough, because otherwise it would be impossible to put any information about blogs into wikipedia, because ultimately all such information is sourced from blogs. What does matter is that DTWW doesn't actually say what we need it to say in order to back up what we've put in the article. JulesH 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If a reliable source R quotes blogger B's statement S, then WP can say: According to R, blogger B said S. What WP cannot do is to assert S and then cite R as a reference for S, because what is reliable is not S but rather the fact that R quoted S. Precis 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that make sense, and is in line with what I was thinking as I finally headed for bed this morning. At that point it didn't seem worth coming back in here for another late night rewrite.

How does this work for you? No section header:

Lexicographer Grant Barrett cites the word "disemvowelling" being used by blogger Henry Farrell to describe the forum moderation technique as being pioneered by Teresa Nielsen Hayden.[ref] The technique has been employed by a number of online venues, and plug-in filters are available to automate the process.

As for the current version, it's generally okay, but there is one glaring problem:

The technique has been employed by a number of online venues, due to plug-in filters to automate the process.

It seems unlikely that moderators use disemvoweling primarily because of the plug-ins. If they didn't want to use the technique, the existence of widgets to make it easier to do would not induce them to do it anyway. Even if the bit above isn't accepted, I strongly recommend that that sentence be revised as shown. Karen | Talk | contribs 23:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the proposed new sentence is too awkward: too many "being"s. Also, I'm wondering why you prefer to interpret the quote rather than to let the verbatim quote speak for itself. Precis 00:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A verbatim quote would be even better. I'm just trying to figure out how to comply with the rules, and still show that the forum moderation technique exists, and has been mentioned by somebody somewhere. Have you a better wording that incorporates the quote itself? (Yeah, I thought that last "being" was awkward, too.) Karen | Talk | contribs 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh! As I look at the article again, I see that this basic purpose has already been fulfilled. Okay, then. Never mind. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturally the "glaring problem" is my rendition of the generic sentence sans opinion. The problem? NO TNH! Obviously the plugins make it easier to employ. As long as no personal credit is referenced here it should fly farther than before.Marky48 04:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

which definition is primary?

If the only dispute is over which definition is listed first, perhaps as a compromise we could reverse the order of the definitions, keeping the same respective sources? Precis 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done (before I read this, actually), although looking at the blogging source, it states it isn't researched. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, a look at a rather large number of google results shows the forum moderation definition is in use with substantially higher frequency than the self-censorship definition. Plus, this article is about the forum moderation definition, and always has been. I'm putting it back to having this listed first. If anyone wants an article on the other definition, it should be in a separate article. The two are different subjects, and should not be discussed in the same article, as far as I'm concerned. JulesH 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't actually "state above", but I did the research before, so here are the results:

I looked at a total of 40 google results for "disemvowel" with a few terms excluded to get rid of pages that seemed to produce multiple hits (including this article and verbatim copies of the jargon file entry). I looked at all 10 on the first page, and 2-3 randomly chosen links from the next 9 pages. All but one of these were using it in the forum moderation sense. This suggests to me that the primary definition of the word in current use is clearly the moderation technique. JulesH 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may suggest, Google searches are likely to return results only from Internet sources. If one used the same technique to find the primary meaning of "page", then the likely result would be that a "page" is a part of a website, not a part of a book. On the opposite side, the more reliable source we have for this term gives a non-Internet definition. -Will Beback 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But Will, both definitions are Internet-based. The Jargon File one references USENET, which essentially was the Internet before the Web came along (and still exists today). Karen | Talk | contribs 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have a Guardian sources for another usage related to texting? And don't we have a web-version of a printed article about the old practice replacing vowels with asterisks to veil censorious terms? If we have reliable sources we should use them. -Will Beback 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to [9]? It is a reliable source, but about the only thing we can use this source for is to prove that the writer said "disemvowel". To anyone but Beavis, that's not worth mentioning. Sadly, it appears that we still have no source for the usages of "disemvowel" which we consider, by consensus, reliable. Precis 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To my reading, the author defines the term as he uses it:

• In our impatience, we disemvowel language when we transmit terse txt msgs to our m8s, using punctuation marks and parentheses to semaphore our moods.

He is saying that the omission of vowels in text messages is "disemvowelling". Who's Beavis? -Will Beback 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. See new section Compromise, Part 3. Beavis is a character who got really excited by the use of certain words--but you had to be there. :) Precis 00:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

compromise?

Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is the removal of vowels from text. It has been used as a method of self-censorship, for example, "G*d", and as a technique by forum moderators to suppress Internet trolling. [1], [2] For example, the moderation technique would leave the first sentence of this article looking like this:

Dsmvwlng (ls splld dsmvwllng) s th rmvl f vwls frm txt.

The moderation technique has been facilitated by plug-in filters to automate the process. Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is virtually always a vowel.[3]

The word follows the standard patterns of English orthography; i.e. it may be spelt either disemvoweling or disemvowelling, with the former generally prefered in US English and the latter prefered in British English. Precis 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like that the distillation of the definition to its essence, which applies to both usages, and to other fringe usages I've seen. I'm a little uncomfortable that there's even less explanation about deprecation and effort needed to read the text, but otherwise I like this compromise. Also the choice of the word for the splat out example is a good one, IMO. Karen | Talk | contribs 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

After the example, you could add "Deprecating disruptive text in this fashion makes it difficult to decipher" if you think that is not overly alliterative. Precis 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't cite so-called inventors in a circular blog roundtable.Marky48 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems OK, depending on the context of [1] and [2]. (Although — it can obviously be used by disruptive moderators to suppress sensible, but unwanted, posts on their boards, so I suppose "the moderator is always right" is WP:Biased.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how they use it more often than not. Squelching dissent is the reason for it. Of course that falls under trollery, which is a cliche for we don't like what you say so get out while we throw rocks at you. It's an ancient tactic really.Marky48 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

These are valid points, but note that the sentence "Deprecating disruptive text in this fashion makes it difficult to decipher" does not contradict the assertion that some moderators abuse their privilege. As for the Barrett reference, many feel that it is problematic as long as disemvoweling remains an unresearched catchword. In order to reach consensus, we could replace Barrett by the less controversial source[10]. This is a source with editorial oversight that reliably verifies our assertion that the disemvoweling technique has been used for forum moderation. Precis 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The source is a plugin. Hasn't this been proven with all those links to plugin builders?Marky48 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the plug-in code on this page for a moment, and focus on this passage above it, which verifies that disemvoweling has been used for suppression of trolling in forums: "This plugin removes vowels from comments posted from an IP in the disemvoweler blacklist. The idea is to remove trolls through humiliation, and has worked quite well in some forums." This WordPress source is reliable enough to reference in the body of the text--I'm not sure the other links are. I have no objection however to relegating this source to the bottom, with the other plugin links. The point was to find a replacement for Barrett, which seems to be causing a lot of dissension. Precis 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all the pages with plug-ins were deemed unusuable as sources by User:Will Beback, regardless of context. I agree that the WordPress one should be valid as a source, but I also think the Barrett citation is solid enough to use. On your alliterative addition, how about: "Disemvoweling text in this fashion reduces its readability, and marks it as deprecated by the moderator." This way, no judgment is made about the moderator or the disemvowelee being right or wrong in their respective actions.Karen | Talk | contribs 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

compromise, part 2

Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is the removal of vowels from text. It has been used as a method of self-censorship, for example, "G*d", and as a technique by forum moderators to suppress Internet trolling. The moderation technique would leave the first sentence of this article looking like this:

Dsmvwlng (ls splld dsmvwllng) s th rmvl f vwls frm txt.

Disemvoweling text in this fashion reduces its readability and marks it as deprecated by the moderator. The technique has been facilitated by plug-in filters to automate the process. Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is virtually always a vowel.[1]

The word follows the standard patterns of English orthography; i.e. it may be spelt either disemvoweling or disemvowelling, with the former generally prefered in US English and the latter prefered in British English.

---

Remark:We could place the Jargon File link and the Barrett link and WordPress link at the bottom along with the plugin links. That would leave only one direct source in the body, but this should be ok, unless someone can point out an assertion that could be regarded as disputable. Precis 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Works for me! Karen | Talk | contribs 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more suggestion, though. Adding back "or other unwanted behaviors" after "internet trolling" would acknowledge the possibility that not everyone disemvoweled is necessarily a troll. Karen | Talk | contribs 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. St jb 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need an exhaustive list of everything disemvoweling has been used for. Disemvoweling has been used by imperious moderators for suppressing people who disagree with them. Do we need to mention that too? I prefer the tighter wording, but ok, if it will bring equanimity, I can live with the addition. Precis 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking at this entry for Forum_moderator. Perhaps it would be useful to link to it as the article acknowledges that some moderators act more on their whims than by common sense, but it also acknowledges some boards have different rules regarding profanity and personal insults and the like. That may help maintain a neutral tone. St jb 17:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Precis 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise, part 3

Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is the removal of vowels from text. Some implementations include the use of homophones, e.g., "mates" becomes "m8s" [1, Guardian reference]. Disemvoweling has been used as a method of abbreviation, of self-censorship (for example, "G*d"), and as a technique by forum moderators to suppress Internet trolling and other unwanted posting. The moderation technique would leave the first sentence of this article looking like this:

Dsmvwlng (ls splld dsmvwllng) s th rmvl f vwls frm txt.

Disemvoweling text in this fashion reduces its readability and marks it as deprecated by the moderator. The technique has been facilitated by plug-in filters to automate the process. Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is virtually always a vowel.[2]

The word follows the standard patterns of English orthography; i.e. it may be spelt either disemvoweling or disemvowelling, with the former generally prefered in US English and the latter prefered in British English. Precis 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Thanks for working on this. -Will Beback 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. And now it covers every usage I've ever seen of the term. Well done! Karen | Talk | contribs 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By broadening our characterization of disemvoweling at the outset, we were able to bring in a reliable source. On the other hand, most of the article focuses on forum moderation, so I'm hoping this compromise will sit well with JulesH. Precis 06:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. JulesH 09:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job. Thanks. St jb 13:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As it is now finally generic it suits me as well.Marky48 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Asterisks or dashes

User:Yst has edited the page to use a dash rather than an asterisk in the "splat out" disemvowelling example, asserting in the edit summary that this is a convention used among Orthodox Jews.

Some questions need resolving:

• How common is this convention. Do we have a reference for it?
• Is it used for other words, or just God?
• Is it called disemvowelling, or is it known by some other name?
• Is it for purposes of self-censorship, or some other purpose?
• If it isn't called disemvowelling, should it be discussed here anyway (this page does discuss self-censorship by replacing vowels with other characters, so perhaps that should be discussed here whatever name it happens to use)?

Once we have answers to these questions, we can decide what changes to the article should be made.

I've temporarily changed the article to include both versions, but I don't think it should remain this way indefinitely without a source referencing the use of dashes. JulesH 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to use a different word for the spl*t out character example, since this one appears to commonly use a hyphen. (I've certainly seen this, but not researched it.) Following the Jargon File link to splat out gives a few possibilities (N*z*, *v*l*t**n), but I'm not sure they are as obvious as they might be. Karen | Talk | contribs 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a wiki article that may be of help: [[11]]

Dang it, that was me. Sorry. St jb 18:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above, see G–d, or refer to the film Trembling Before G-d. I am fairly certain you will find no examples of "G*d", and so I can't imagine why you'd demand this apparently non-existent usage be kept here, save due to some misplaced sense of personal proprietorship over this article. --Yst 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The * usage is for online self-censorship in general per Jargon File[12][13], not for this specific word. The difficulty here is not a lack of examples of d*s*mv*w*l*ng with the * for assorted words, but that, as you've rightly pointed out, the convention in referring to the deity is to use the hyphen instead. If G-d is another example of the overall term and practice, then it should be in the article, and another word should be used to demonstrate the spl*t usage. I hope that helps! Karen | Talk | contribs 01:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"save due to some misplaced sense of personal proprietorship over this article." I wouldn't hold out much hope for changing this. This is a cause anf facts won't get in the way of the message. Just look at the history. On second thought it looks like you have.Marky48 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This[14] seems like a useful citation to add for removing the vowel from the name of the Divine. Anyone want to take a stab at the revised text, with both the respect for G-d concept and a less problematic spl*t **t example? Karen | Talk | contribs 18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A relativly minor matter of reference

One of the links reads thus: Making Light - Autodisemvowelling A discussion of Disemvoweling techniques, including the above two plugins however I can assue you that as the article predates the authorship of NP_CommentBuddy (the one above) by some time it can not be talking about that.

Perhaps if the two plugins under discussion could be named directly.--Lord Matt 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, yeah, that's what happens when people start messing with the order of the links. :) JulesH 09:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti troll method?

(me again) might I suggest that a section on the effectivness of Disemvoweling in dealing with trolls might be a very good addition. Perhaps leading on to links to similar techniques and maybe the loose identification of "family" groupings of such techniques. --Lord Matt 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

While I completely agree with you, there was once such a section that was the subject of continuous and repeated edit wars. There are no good sources, and anyone who has been the subject of disemvowelling tends to view it rather negatively. JulesH 09:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hear hearMarky48 02:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Such a section would be welceomed if it can be referenced with reliable sources. -Will Beback 10:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on page

Two successive edits by Marky48 have deleted two sourced references and a relevant sentence, and left the first paragraph garbled by leaving the body of a third reference (pertaining to the deleted sentence) embedded in the text, since the starting "ref" tag is also deleted. It now appears as follows:

Disemvoweling (also spelled "disemvowelling") is the removal of vowels from text. Peter Conrad, Tiny Things, Tiny Minds, The Guardian, November 13, 2005</ref> Disemvoweling has been used as a method of abbreviation, of self-censorship (for example, either "G*d" or "G-d"), and as a technique by forum moderators to suppress Internet trolling and other unwanted posting. When used by a forum moderator, the net effect is to mark the original text as deprecated.

Editing a page to improve it is one matter; editing to repeatedly trash the page is another matter. I request intervention. -- SAJordan 01:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to the {helpme}, which should generally be used on your own talk page, but this is fine I suppose. This seems to be a dispute over content/sources, if you can't work it out via calm discussions on thia talk page Wikipedia:Resolving disputes has some ideas. Accidentally breaking a reference doesn't seem to be vandalism. Wikipedia:Reliable sources may be of interest also.--Commander Keane 02:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're are late to the party SAJordan. As an editor I reject your sources. Moreover, as sci-fi-friends of a cited blog when blogs can't be cited here, you flunk the objectivity test required of NPOV. Call in anyone you want. I welcome it. Will Beback?Marky48 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see I indeed missed the ref link. It's fixed now.Marky48 02:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Far from being "fixed", the reference is now also missing the ending "ref" tag, still leaving text (which should be seen under "References") in the body of the paragraph, although the actual sentence belonging there (for which it was the reference) is still gone. Now the top paragraph reads:

Disemvoweling (also spelled "disemvowelling") is the removal of vowels from text. Peter Conrad, Tiny Things, Tiny Minds, The Guardian, November 13, 2005 Disemvoweling has been used as a method of abbreviation, of self-censorship (for example, either "G*d" or "G-d"), and as a technique by forum moderators to suppress Internet trolling and other unwanted posting. When used by a forum moderator, the net effect is to mark the original text as deprecated.

The text "Peter Conrad,.... November 13, 2005" isn't referring to anything remaining in that paragraph, and isn't an actual sentence. This paragraph has been botched. I am restoring it to its unvandalized form. Marky48, please stop vandalizing it. -- SAJordan 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the trouble with asserting what the "earliest known" uses are is that doing so is original research. If there's an independent source then that's fine, but we can't just search around on our own and report the oldest reference we can find. -Will Beback 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Usenet and blogs are not reliable sources with regard to anything else — but here the categories are "Internet terminology" and "Internet forum terminology", and the archives of Usenet and blog entries are primary sources to establish that terms were indeed used on the Internet. To point to the "oldest reference found" does not prove that older usages may not have occurred — but that's not what it was presented to prove; what it shows is that the word "disemvowel" has been used at least since 1995, and that back then it meant "taking the vowels out of text", with an example that matches current usage. The link takes you to evidence of that usage occurring on the Internet, a primary source. -- SAJordan 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrase should be "used as early as", rather than "the oldest reference found". Otherwise it begs the question, "found by whom?" -Will Beback 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly changed to read: "Used in this sense as early as 1995, e.g. in an online humorous story from October 28, 1995:" -- SAJordan 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, -Will Beback 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise rephrased the Nielsen Hayden reference to "Used as a forum moderation method by...", in order to avoid any assertion about "earliest known". She did use this method then, and that much the archive documents, again as a primary source. -- SAJordan 04:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider being labeled a vandal to be a personal attack. When jamming such a large reference with quote in it isn't easy to get it all out. That IS NOT vandalism which is a whole different matter. That said, it still strikes me as original research. I'm not a vandal but you are definitley a shill for Nielsen Hayden. Nothing new about that around here, just the latest rendition on a mission from the starship.Marky48 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) Blanking out the middle of a paragraph so that the remainder is garbled, with the non-sentence text of a reference left inside the paragraph (despite the deletion of the sentence to which that reference had been attached) so that the sense and flow of the paragraph have been disrupted: that's vandalizing the paragraph.

(2) Note that I so designate the action and its effect, which is not the same as pasting a label on Marky48 as a person.

(3) To delete a large reference (or any other text), one (a) highlights that specific text (drag mouse, or put cursor at start and shift-click or shift-arrow to end); (b) looks to see whether the text highlighted matches what one intended to delete, no more, no less; (c) presses Delete; (d) clicks on "Show preview" to check the finished appearance (and does the revised paragraph still make sense?); adds an Edit summary any time up to this point, and (f) only then clicks "Save page".

(4) If (3) is too difficult, one may wish to reconsider editing text.

(5) Now, there have been times I've spotted an error or omission only after clicking "Save page" — or worse, someone else spotted it and had to point it out to me — and I had to go back to fix things.   People do make mistakes.   But you saw my comment above, went back, and did not fix the mistake, did not repair the damage, but merely removed the ending "ref" tag, so that the reference it had ended remained stuck in the paragraph body — though the sentence it sourced was gone.

(6) You complain that you're being denied a presumption of good will, as applied to your actions.   You did not display good will in deleting another's contribution ("large", as you say) without discussing the content, without suggesting what improvements you would want made to it in order for it to meet your (otherwise unguessable) standards, in fact without yourself presuming good will on the contributor's part, since your one comment here on the matter was the "back from the dead... hagiographer" remark — labelling the contributor but not discussing the content.   Nor are you either displaying or presuming good will with the remark "you are definitely a shill for Nielsen Hayden." (spelling corrected)   You lack "clean hands" in the matter of good will, or the presumption thereof.

(7) Shill (noun) is defined as "1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.   2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty."   Either way, that's an accusation of dishonesty, a way of calling someone a liar, certainly not a presumption of good will.   What you have not done is say what, if anything, that I posted was dishonest, or show how it was.   You have not challenged the factual truth of what I posted, merely called me a "shill" for posting it.   How is it being a "shill" to post the verifiable truth?

(8) The content you deleted neither "praised" nor "denounced" Nielsen Hayden.   It pointed to where she had, on record, removed vowels from text as a forum moderation method in 2002; to where someone else (not her) had, on record, denoted that action as "disemvoweling" later the same day; and to where someone else (or at least someone not using her name) had, on record, used the term "disemvoweled" back in 1995, with the meaning of "removed all vowels from text".   How is it being a "shill" to point to the actual record?

(9) I included links whereby all the readers could go see for themselves that what I said was true, that the text I quoted and summarized was indeed there.   Against the usual guideline of not relying on blogs or Usenet posts as reliable sources, I've pointed out that here the topic is what "Internet terminology" or "Internet forum terminology" was posted on the Internet, when, where, by whom, and with what meaning — which makes the actual posts the primary sources, the hard evidence, the original source documents.   You deleted these verifiable references to primary sources.   Yet one chief complaint about the article has been the lack of such references.

(10) Thus your edits have not been in furtherance of the article, of improving the quality of its information.   Your edits have been to remove the very content that an editor had declared the article needed, and to garble the text that was left behind.   In the words of Template:Test2a, "Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism." -- SAJordan 00:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You listen up: I was editng this thing long before you caught up so you have no idea what's been going on here. Don't you dare lecture me you sci-fi freak.

"People do make mistakes. But you saw my comment above, went back, and did not fix the mistake, did not repair the damage, but merely removed the ending "ref" tag, so that the reference it had ended remained stuck in the paragraph body — though the sentence it sourced was gone."

I'll be you're big on conspiracies if this is your thought process on this. You have it right at mistake. The "shill" part is you're just the latest "lttle friend" of Neilsen Hayden from Making Light to come here in order to ram her name home on this. It's vanity article as it is, and no original research is allowed. I don't give a good goddamn what you think. It wasn't vandalism. It was a mistake removing that massive reference to a stupid little story only "club" members would acknowledge. Who is the author of that piece? Does it come from a book about forum moderation printed and sold in stores? I think not. You went whining for help right off and low and behold they didn't agree it was vandalism. Imagine that. Back off and quit defaming me or I'll seek internal action against you. Editing is removing invalid content.Marky48 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If forms of personal address like "Don't you dare lecture me you sci-fi freak." (and "shill" and "dead" further above) and threats like "I'll seek internal action against you." were considered acceptable behavior here, then the policy about civility on Wikipedia would be a dead letter.   I'll presume that the people who wrote and maintain such pages mean what they say. -- SAJordan 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark, why do you have to make everything so personal? Just back off, calm down, and stop being so paranoid. I see no evidence here that User:SAJordan has ever had anything to do with the Nielsen Haydens. A search suggests that nobody with the name "S A Jordan" (or similar) has ever posted at Making Light. I also see no evidence of "defamation". Labelling your edit as vandalism may have been assuming an intent that wasn't there, but nobody said anything about you personally until you came in here, being hostile and generally aggravating people.

Stop. It doesn't help anyone.

Also note that adding references to primary sources is not considered original research.

It is irrelevant who the author of the piece is, or whether it has been published in a book about any subject. It is primary evidence backing up the claim that the term has been used on USENET for longer than it has been applied to forum moderation.

BTW: If you consider this article vanity, why do you bother editing it? JulesH 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jules you don't see any evidence of you ever being at Making Light either yet we know you were. This article is a sci-fi darling and is in reverence for a sci-fi ediotor at TOR. Otherwise it wouldn't have been written in the first place. The kid reported me as a vandal which was false. The moderator told him so. That's personal where I come from. pardon me if I don't defer to your legal expertise on defamation. I've read your bio and like the other defenders of this article you're a hopeful sci-fi writer possibly like Karen with a submission to a particular editor at Tom Doherty & Assoc. As was said the so-called vandalism was an innacurrate hyperbolic invective. People respond when accused of crimes. Expect it or stop.Marky48 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be slang

Disemvowel is not defined in any published dictionary: [15]. I also checked the OED, M3, The Oxford Companion to the English Language and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1992) and couldn't find it. Google and Google Book searches give results mainly from informal passages. It's obviously used by some outside of the linguistic community, so it's worth treating. But perhaps we should change the lead from 'Disemvoweling (also spelled "disemvowelling") is the removal of vowels from text' to 'Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is a rare slang term for the removal of vowels from text.' Any thoughts?--'sup, bud 08:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary; we're providing a description of the subject, not a definition of the word. Therefore a phrasing that defines the word (as yours does) is not really appropriate. Is it really relevant to the subject of disemvowelling (not an article about the word disemvowelling) that the name is slang rather than a real word? In any case, I'd say the term is more jargon than slang in that it is used formally by a subset of the population but is not in wide use outside of that term. JulesH 10:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jargon is used by a certain type of person, (e.g., doctors). I am not aware of a specific type of person who uses the word disemvowel. Nor am I aware of a word for the removal of vowels from a word that is used by linguists. Linguists usually call the phenomenon elision or telescoping — referring to the removal of internal letters in general. Slang is simply language used unconventionally and informally. Some use the words slang and jargon interchangeably, but linguists generally define them as I have. The distinction between defining concepts and words is common for Wikipedia, but impossible to implement in most cases. All encyclopedia entries begin with a definition and all published encyclopedias provide usage information in certain cases. If we do not let the reader know how the word is used, they may begin using it in formal situations (e.g., theses). I think that would be wrong. Perhaps I could put the usage part further down?--'sup, bud 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The type of person that uses the word disemvowel is the type of person who uses the technique for forum moderation or to avoid causing offence in written (usually online) public communication. Other than as a joke, I have never heard of it being used outside of these areas. It is definitely not the same as elision or telescoping, which have a different aim point of rendering a word shorter but still intelligible; the aim point of disemvowelling is to make a word difficult to read. The term is not one in use in the field of linguistics, I agree, and perhaps it would be better to make this clear, by specifying in the first paragraph the areas of interest in which the term is used (i.e., prefix the current first sentence with "In the fields of Internet discussion groups and forum moderation, ...")

My hesitance to perform this rewrite stems from the fact that this article has been the subject of repeated edit wars in the past, as those who have been subjected to the process for moderation purposes tend to find the topic somewhat emotive, and some previous editors of the article have insisted on cataloguing all uses of the word, which has made the article unfocussed. This is a reaction to the marginal (but, IMO, present) notability of the subject.

I would definitely disagree with describing the word as slang. The definition we have of slang here is "highly informal words and expressions that are not considered standard [...] very often colloquial [...] tend to be specific to a particular territory." Disemvowel is not really used informally; I've never heard it used colloquially, and its usage is not specific to a particular territory, but rather to people within a particular interest group. Only being a non-standard word qualifies it as slang. JulesH 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to reference a reliable source like The Oxford Companion to the English Language before arguing about the definition further. As I've said, you can find more than one definition of the word, but linguists use only one. I tried to compromise just now by writing simply that it wasn't used by linguists and that it was rare, but some other guy not participating in our discussion reverted my edit. The term is not used mainly in forum settings, as I can see from a Google search. If you want to argue your point further, you can do it without me. I'm not here because I enjoy debate. I'm here because I dislike misinformation and becuase I'm a linguist. Don't tell people what we call the removal of vowels from words. We don't call it disemvoweling. Thanks.--'sup, bud 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was active in discussion in the talk page archive, if you're curious. I don't really care what you (linguists) call it, if you don't use it. Those who do use it call it disemvowel(l)ing. Perhaps a phrase in the lead that linguists call it "vowel elision" would be appropriate, but I'm not sure whether that includes the replacement by "*" (or blot) or elimination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps the article should be deleted. It's not a valid name for the phenomenon, and you want to make people think that it is. I must admit also that I am amused by your assertion that everyone in America is from the United States. I don't know where you got the idea that letters are enclosed in quotation marks, either. Can I have the name of the style guide you are using?--Richard Maxwell 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Specific errors by 'sup, bud

Also repeated by Richard Maxwell...

1. In the reference to "y", the correct orthgraphy is to quote the letter rather than to italize it.
2. "y" is not a semivowel under the definition we presently have, so this section that comment is just wrong.
3. "U.S." and "US" English would be better phrased as American English, but that's not entirely an error. ("U.S." is probably worse than "US", but that's just a stylistic change.)
4. And that reference to books.google.com is a plausible WP:EL, but not a plausible reference for an even more obscure use than the one in the article. The sentence that linguists use a different term should possibly be in the lead, if sourced.

There was one small copyedit which was correct — but it was difficult to find.

But I'm not going to revert again, even if neither of the users in question justified their edits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Perhaps you should fire off an e-mail to Merriam-Webster Inc. Their Manual for Writers and Editors, page 55, says otherwise.
2. Perhaps you should fire off an e-mail to Oxford University Press. Their Oxford English Dictionary entry "semivowel" says otherwise.
3. Either abbreviated form is correct and as I said above, if you have to change it, it should read "North American English," if it actually is used in Canada.

The assertion that "disemvoweling" even signifies the removal of vowels is incorrect. If you want to take such a literal reading of policy, then the Wikipedia is not a Dictionary policy would dictate deleting or renaming the entry.--Richard Maxwell 00:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1. My mistake.
2. Wikipedia's mistake. Please fix the semivowel article, or remove the link. Semivowel describes letters which may be vowels when following a vowel, but are normally consonants. y is a vowel when not following a vowel, and may be a consonant (or silent) when following a vowel.
3. Wikipedia's mistake again, but it's a stylistic difference which we shouldn't fight over.
4. The reference is still inappropriate, but I'll change it to a valid link. add the appropriate dispute tags.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. So elision is wrong, also. It states it refers to the omission of one or more sounds, and here we refer to the omission of one or more letters. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Further guideline violations in the new reference section: #5 (google books) clearly fails WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #9, #6 (no printed reference) clearly violates WP:OR, and #7 fails WP:DICTDEF. We have references (2-4, I believe) to the term as used, so that definitions are irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Looking up something using a search engine is actually secondary research, since the material has already been published.^{[16], [17]} As for elision, there is more than one definition of the word used by professionals, as noted in the entry. As for semivowel, the entry is not written clearly, so there is no way to know what the author means with any precision.--Richard Maxwell 02:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I hope to settle the current disputes by making the following changes:

• Clarify the context of the article. It was never intended to be an article about linguistics, nor a definition of the word or the history of its usage; it is about a technique of censorship (used for both self-censorship and forum moderation) that is used on the Internet.
• Remove references to humourous uses of the word, as they are irrelevant to this subject.
• I don't see why it is even remotely relevant to note that the word is not in common use in print, so remove that.
• Remove suggestion that the preferred term is elision or telescoping, as these are not techniques of censorship.

It is now clear that the word is not one in active use by linguists. Is everyone satisfied by this? JulesH 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Without my additions, it is not clear to anyone who reads the entry that it is not used linguistically. If you are unwilling to rename the entry or warn the reader about how they should use this word, then the article must be deleted. You mentioned the Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary policy, and I believe that this already is a definition of a rare slang word, rather than a concept. Therefore, since we cannot even make a proper dictionary definition, the entry must be deleted.--Richard Maxwell 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to describe the concept, how would you do it? This is the aim of the article, and I don't see how to do it better than is done here. JulesH 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

First, it says that "disemvoweling" has been used to censor. Instead, it should say that it is censorship. Also, no matter how much the term is restricted, if a reader is unaware of another name for the removal of vowels from text, they will use the word disemvowel to describe it. They will do this even if they are not referring to censorship. If a term is related to "disemvoweling," it should be mentioned here. Vowel elision is related to the subject of this entry. There seems to be a bad habit (or cancer, or what have you) on Wikipedia of focusing an entry to the point of making it un-encyclopedic and misleading. Wikipedia is a single work and understanding what vowel elision or vowel telescoping means helps the reader understand just how narrow a concept "disemvoweling" is.--Richard Maxwell 09:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The text says "In the fields of Internet discussion and forum moderation, Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is the removal of vowels from text." I'd say it would take particularly poor reading comprehension for somebody to read this and assume it applies generally. If you say vowel elision is related, fine. I don't know anything about it. Go ahead and create that article, and link it in under "see also". Or maybe just link "elision", which already exists. But the article should be about a single subject, and that subject in this case is the technique of censorship/moderation known as disemvowelling. JulesH 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd AFD

Looks like Richard Maxwell has put it up for deletion. --Calton | Talk 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good for him. I second the motion. This looks like Custer's last Stand for the Teresa Nielsen Hayden fan club files. Marky48 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Companion ref

I have removed the following:

Linguists generally do not use the term at all. They call the removal of letters from the inside of words telescoping<ref>MacArthur, Tom. "telescoping." ''The Oxford Companion to the English Language.'' (1992) p. 1030</ref> or ''elision''.<ref>MacArthur, Tom. "elision." ''The Oxford Companion to the English Language.'' (1992) p. 344</ref> (See Elision.)

I happen to have this book, and looking it up, I see no such reference to "telescoping" there. --Calton | Talk 22:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Page 1030:

TELESCOPING [1870s: telescope as a verb].
The contraction of a phrase, word, or part of a
word, on the analogy of a telescope being closed:

What the hell do you mean there is no reference? You can search it here:[18]. I can't believe how rude you people are being. Do you even think before you make any edits here?--Richard Maxwell 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to search it there as I, to repeat, own a copy. I have it right here, and no, there is not a hint of it related to Elision -- any connection is yours alone, especially as the "Telescoping" reference on page 1030 is clear regarding the formation of word forms, as in, to quote:

(1) Adapting classical combining through reducing the first word in a compound or fixed phrase: when biologically degradable is telescoped to biodegradable...

(2) Creating syllabic acronyms like sitcom or smog

Neither is what is going with disemvoweling, and your attempts to link them constitute original research on your part. --Calton | Talk 23:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So now its elision, also. I also own a copy, so here another quote:

ELISION [16c: from Latin elisio/elisionis crush-
ing out]. In speech and writing, the omission or
slurring (eliding) of one or more vowels, con-
sonants, or syllables, as in 'ol man old man,
... ... ...

Richard Maxwell 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, and no perhaps you can explain why Oxford's referring to the slurring of speech and its reproduction in writing has a thing to do with the deliberate alteration of written words that is disemvoweling. Original research on your part, part deux.

Try as you like, your attempt to force these meanings onto "disemvoweling" has no support there. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK . . . It says, "the omission or slurring." Now you explain how using previously-published material is original research . . . If anyone seems to be trying to interpret anything anyway, it's not me.--Richard Maxwell 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you explain how using previously-published material is original research Because you're not actually using previously published material, you're citing it in support of something it doesn't actually say, mean, or even mention. Any connection is in your own head, not on the page. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No. You're wrong. My interpretation of what it means is correct.--Richard Maxwell 23:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bzzt. "My interpretation" = "Original research". Try again. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation ≠ analysis.^[19] The two terms are related, but they are not synonyms. Interpretation is simply clarification.^[20]--Richard Maxwell 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaning on a dictionary definition to prop up a claim is not new, but neither is it very convincing. Neither is the technique of taking references and reading into them what they don't actually say. That's not "clarification", that's -- wait for it -- original research. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if your interpretation of original research were correct (although I can assure you it is not), you would be the one practicing it, rather than me, because your interpretation of what the author is saying is the least natural.--Richard Maxwell 01:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Dictionaries are the most reliable books in the world. Unlike other writers, lexicographers have to provide a minumum of 3 citations for each term. The average number of citations for a definition is about a dozen.

I'm not interpreting a thing, I'm going by what's on the page. And not satisfied with conducting your original research, you've apparently decided to reinterpret the meaning of "original research" in an unsurprisingly self-serving way. So, instead of all the vigorous handwaving and attempts at sidetracking, now would be a prime time for you to back up your claims with direct evidence that the definitions you're trying to shoehorn in apply directly to the subject -- kind of hard to do for a reference published in '1992. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the 1992 publication date has anything to do with the definition of elision or telescoping. Paradoxically, your definition of original research would be original research under that same definition. As for a direct relation, "disemvoweling [sic]" is actually a type of elision using Oxford's definition. As for direct evidence, that is indeed hard to do for a word that hasn't entered the English Language.--Richard Maxwell 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the 1992 publication date has anything to do with the definition of elision or telescoping It has everything to do with your attempt to shoehorn them into the article as a reference to a primarily Internet phenomenon. Which is moot, really, since neither definition actually applies -- you've certainly not provided the slightest connection, outside of your own head, making it -- wait for it -- original research.

As for direct evidence, that is indeed hard to do for a word that hasn't entered the English Language. You need to make up your mind as to what your argument actually is: "It's not really a word, and oh, here's a reference for what I say it REALLY means." --Calton | Talk 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My belief has been that it is not an English word, and that even if it were, it would not describe a very unique concept. Assuming that it is an English word, it would not describe a concept very distinct (if at all) from either elision or censorship. Therefore, the refusal to include any mention of elision in the article does not make sense. This fictional way of describing the phenomenon does not deserve an article, and if the article cannot be deleted, then we must clarify to the reader that it should not be used in most situations.

And let's be clear that the burden of proof is always on the person trying to prove that this name is correct. I have graciously taken the step to actually prove using reliable sources that it is not a valid name. In other words, using the following scale, the weight of the evidence is actually unlikely, rather than uncertain:

True ← Likely ← Uncertain ← Unlikely ← False

This is why I am so surprised that anyone is arguing with me. I would think that Wikipedia would prefer that the evidence provide some sort of certainty, instead.--Richard Maxwell 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Replying below the warning Calton posted earlier to keep this in approximate order. JulesH 07:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to quote a warning template:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you have made on Disemvoweling. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, you seem to be under the illusion that a word is only a word if it is listed in a dictionary. This is an unusual belief. There are a number of references in this page to people using the word "disemvowel" to mean precisely what is described here. Besides, what other name do you know of for the process of removing vowels from a word in order to censor to it? It clearly isn't elision, because almost every definition of elision I have encountered describes something else:

• "A change that consists in the loss of unstressed vowels or syllables." [21]
• "Omission of an unstressed syllable in verse in order to preserve the metrical pattern, as in Milton's line: 'Who durst defy th' Omnipotent to arms.'" [22]
• "The softening of a vowel sound, so that one word runs into the next." [23]
• "cutting a syllable or letter in order to get a better metrical flow" [24]
• "omission of a sound between two words" [25]
• "the omission of one or more sounds (such as a vowel, a consonant, or a whole syllable) in a word or phrase, producing a result usually considered easier, or more euphonic, for the speaker to pronounce." [26]

Note that these are talking about the removal of sounds from a pronounced word or phrase, often with the goal of making something easier to read or sound nicer, not the removal of letters from a written word with the goal of making something harder to read without actually changing its pronunciation. To say that the latter is a case of elision is, frankly, original research unless you can cite a reliable source where the word has been used with that precise meaning. JulesH 07:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that inclusion in a dictionary is not what makes a word English, but widespread usage, which is what this word lacks. Also note that dictionaries like the OED often include some pretty rare -- even dubious -- words. Also, I just thought of another name for it: contraction. Elision is the removal of letters inside words, while contraction is their removal in general. We could include a phrase mentioning elision/telescoping/contraction. As for your other point, elision is not done to make the word easier to understand. It is done to make it easier to say or write. Contractions are not inherently easier to understand.

I'm still confused what mentioning elision/telescoping/contraction in the entry would actually hurt. You mentioned reliable sources above, as if those sites you cite are actually reliable (i.e., have fact checkers, require citations, etc.) Not as if it matters here who is right or wrong. Mob rule has triumphed.--Richard Maxwell 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to saying that a linguist would refer to this as elision on two grounds, (1) that it is unlikely a linguist would refer to it at all as it is not a linguistic technique, and (2) that it is far from clear that even if one were to do so they would use any of the terms discussed here so far, as all of the terms we've discussed so far are about removing sounds from a pronounced word, whereas disemvowelling is not intended to change the pronunciation.

Contraction also doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate word. It is typically defined as "the amalgamation of two or more words as a result of shortening" or similar. Some definitions do not require the presence of two words, but most do. Again, most definitions refer to the omission of sounds from a pronounced word, rather than specifically letters from a written one.

I do not object to mentioning that these concepts are related, as they clearly are, but it would be wrong to suggest that they are the same thing unless they had been so described by a linguist in an appropriate source. My suggestion is the inclusion of a 'see also' section, which would probably include links to elision and contraction (grammar). JulesH 09:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you've chosen to ignore my suggestion. I've tried to come up with a compromise, but the current version seems to be the best I can do. By the way, the suggestion that "no published dictionary contains the word" is wrong. The HarperCollins Living Dictionary (an online-only publication, but one published by a reputable dictionary publisher) contains an entry. Unfortunately their web site isn't working right now, but google cache has a copy. JulesH 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And here is an example of a linguist using the word as an example of a recent neologism. I note that he doesn't say that the term is incorrect and another one should be used in its place. JulesH 19:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another online dictionary that defines it, although this one is a dictionary of neologisms. The point is that this is a word whose use is confined to Internet-related topics. Stuff that isn't discussed much outside the Internet. No, I wouldn't expect to see it in a print dictionary. I also wouldn't expect to find decompiler or bytecode or blitter or packet sniffer or any of a hundred other jargon terms I use regularly in a print dictionary. Not unless it was a specialist one, and have you ever seen a blogging dictionary? JulesH 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Primetime theater

Richard Maxwell (talk · contribs · block log) and 'sup, bud (talk · contribs · block log) are sockpuppets of user Primetime (talk · contribs · block log), as proven by an RFCU. He is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. If you see any future accounts adding the same material it is likely the same user and the material should be removed. -Will Beback · † · 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to archive

This talk page is over 120KB long. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)