Talk:Glossary of Wobbly terms

Untitled

Additional reference information for all of this material is coming... Richard Myers 05:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance, cites, layout, incomplete list, categories

This article suffers from a couple of problems. First, if all this article intends to do is provide a single-sentence definition of a term, then each term should be added to Wiktionary[1]. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Second, on a related issue, why doesn't each term get a separate Wiki page? Say a person was writing an article on the IWW and they wanted to refer to the term "4-3"; how could they create a Wiki link to it, if the term is part of a long list like this? And if more than one term appeared in an IWW article, the author would be Wiki-linking to the same page over and over and over. Third, the importance of this article is not established. Unless it is established, I would argue this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Indeed, most organizations develop their own internal jargon. Why is the IWW's jargon particularly important? It may be culturally significant, but that should be established in the article. Fourth, only a few lingo terms have citations. I realize citations are coming. But Wikipedia advises authors to gather your citations ahead of time. That way, someone reading this article today can see the citations, and won't have to keep coming back to see if they've been added in the future. (This is sort of the "articles should spring from the head of the author fully formed, like Minerva from Jupiter" guideline. I'm showin' off my class-ee-cul ed-jee-cay-shun here.) Fifth, is this a list? If it is, the page should be retitled and restructured according to Wikipedia's rules for lists. But if it is an article, it also needs to be restructured to be an article. An article on "Wobbly lingo" would, I think, address why the IWW created its own jargon and discuss its cultural, organizational, political, social, etc. importance. Instead, this is just a list. But terms are defined, it's not a list, either. For information on how an article should look, see Editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines and suggestions for creating, completing and categorizing lists. See the Wikipedia list-making guideline, and make sure to read the subpages and Talk page. Sixth, not all these terms are IWW terms. Industrial unionism, for example, predates the IWW by many years (although I'm not entirely clear on the etymology of the phrase, I suspect it was a creation of the Knights of Labor). Many other terms are general cultural words and phrases ("balloon" for bedroll, for examples), and are defined elsewhere in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Some may not need definition at all. For example, if I were writing an article on railroad union organizing and wanted to use the term "bull," I could just add "bull (a railroad security guard)" in parentheses. It doesn't take (or warrant!) a whole Wiki page. This could be a very worthy article or list with some work. Good luck! - Tim1965 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: Most of these terms that are not specific to the IWW are general early 20th-century working-class American slang, as can be discovered by a quick look at H. L. Mencken's The American Language. There are a couple of errors. A "yegg" was specifically a safe-blower or safe-cracker, and more generally a professional criminal, not a hobo. A "gunsel" was a young homosexual or rent boy, not a gunman. The term originated in Yiddish and has nothing to do with the English word "gun." This is a frequent error made by popular crime writers. Dashiell Hammett uses the term correctly in "The Maltese Falcon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit, as appropriate. Consider, however, that it is very important to cite sources when actually making such changes. Richard Myers (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Permission from the IWW

Steve O. from the Industrial Workers of the World has given permission for use of the official IWW jargon in the Wobbly Lingo article, as retrieved from the IWW website at: http://www.iww.org/en/culture/official/dictionary February 2007. Richard Myers 12:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Presumably he's given permission for it to be used under the GFDL, and therefore in all GFDL-compatible texts? It's not nearly enough for us to have permission for Wikipedia alone. 81.158.2.225 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't be just copying a source wholesale, anyway. We cite sources, we don't absorb them (except, when WP first started, we absorbed an out-of-copyright version of Encyhclopaedia Britannica just to get started).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Origin of "Wobbly"

I removed the improper edit (in bold, below) from the article. It appears to be original research, and therefore inappropriate in this encyclopedia. But it may also be true. (I'm not taking a position, just preserving someone's comment.)

Wobbly (Sometimes shortened to "Wob") : A nickname of unknown origin for a member of the Industrial Workers of the World. Many believe "wobbly" refers to a tool known as a "wobble saw." One often repeated anecdote has it that a sympathetic Chinese restaurant owner in Vancouver would extend credit to IWW members and, unable to pronounce the "W", {That is nonsense. What some Chinese cannot say is R. New immigrants are perfectly able to say eye doublew doublew - shown by practical test by two wobblies in Chinese Restaurant using an interpreter and a new Cantonese immigrant. The Chinese origin could be correct: Reading I W W if you have not completed learning the names of the alphabet but have learned that I is eye produces 'Eye wobbly wobbly' because W is a wobbly letter. Using initials avoids trying to say the Rs that are in the full words.} would ask if they were a member of the "I Wobble Wobble."

Further analysis/research invited. Richard Myers (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Difficulty

I might be wrong in deducing from the article that Wobbly Lingo is organized, but I don't believe I'm wrong to perceive an implication that the words can be grouped together under one umbrella, namely the domain of the IWW.

Although I admit that some of the terms that I have heard before are from individuals who might be inclined to membership of that august organization, I believe that few, if any, of the people whom I heard using them in my younger days were either members or inclined to be.

Some of the words used are, in fact, common terms used daily by many people in several different parts of the world. I think of bloke, blue streak, mug, for example. And users of words not in the list, such as snap, mike, etc, would, I think, have formed part of Wobbly Lingo if it was organized thusly.

But my entire difficulty comes from one thing. Early on in the article is a suggestion that the IWW is an international union formed with members in several countries. In the context of the article as a whole, though, the IWW is a purely US phenomenon. Others might read the article and understand without my having said so, but yet others will not. So, it's worth making that point. Jones the Red 74.226.91.95 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good observation. I sincerely hope that additional editors will offer contributions to make the article more universal. Unfortunately, the sources to do so are likewise not universally available (except for a very few books on related topics published before 1925 which may be found on Google Books). Richard Myers (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That is what I have found. Jones the Red 74.226.91.95 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Much of this page is duplicated in the section "Expressions used through 1940s" in the article Hobo. That article section also has better formatting, IMHO. I suggest a modification of this page's title and combining the 2 sections into a single lexicon. Liam Proven (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a partial merge may be appropriate. There's overlap but some terms are more specialized for one or the other. I disagree that the other page's list is formatted better, and that's not just from bias because I just overhauled this page's formatting. See here for reasons for the current format: WP:Glossaries. — Djr13 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There may be overlaps but the IWW is such a specific political organization that they have different terminology than found in general hobo culture. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oppose. Just because another entirely different org uses similar patterns doesn't mean they shouldn't be documented for this culture. TitaniumDreads (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overlap with hobo expressions

There seems to be quite a bit of overlap between Wobbly lingo and hobo expressions used through 1940s. Wouldn't many of the terms here be better placed there? —  AjaxSmack  12:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead says there is overlap; I don't think anyone will be confused. The only danger is definitions and their sources wildly diverging. I would suggest HTML-comment cross-references between the shared definitions so that if a relevant entry is changed, it is updated in both places.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• This might be an alternative to deletion.Borock (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. No prejudice against a new RM discussing the merits of expanding "Wobbly" to "Industrial Workers of the World", but I can't see any consensus in this discussion the "Wobbly" is ambiguous. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Wobbly lingo → Glossary of Wobbly terms – "Wobbly lingo" sounds awfully informal. The proposed title is more consistent with other members of Category:Glossaries and probably more recognizable too. I checked to make sure the current title isn't commonly used in other sources; it isn't (see "wobbly lingo" -wikipedia). "Wobbly" itself is slang, of course, but it's well-known and used in reliable sources enough that I don't think it's problematic on its own. And Glossary of Industrial Workers of the World terms is a bit much. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC) BDD (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "Wobbly lingo" seems insufficiently precise to identify the topic. "Wobbly" also appears to be insufficiently precise, considering there's a musician with an article by that name, and the word "wobbly" as well. So, I suggest Glossary of Industrial Workers of the World terminology -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support the proposed move or at least a move with something with "glossary" or "list" in the title. —  AjaxSmack  12:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Use either Glossary of Wobbly terms or Glossary of Industrial Workers of the World terms if the anon above is correct that "Wobbly" is too ambiguous; the word "terminology" is misused frequently, and we shouldn't perpetuate that as the anon did. It means a system of terms, and a glossary is not an article about such a system, but about the terms themselves. Anyway, "lingo" is itself slang.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merged

The content has been merged back to Industrial Workers of the World#Lingo per the recent AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks.Borock (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Northamerica1000: Do you think I have to get consensus to merge, separately from this? You do realize this incentivizes editors like me to vote delete (which would have happened had I not supported merging) rather than keep a bit of useful content? I think you're making this harder than it ought to be. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge – The result at the recent AfD discussion was no consensus. While the above comment was being typed out, I have been adding reliable book sources to verify content in the article, and you're already talking about !voting to delete the article. Perhaps consider allowing me more time to further work on the article instead. Also, in your edit summary (diff), you stated, "redirecting now that merge is complete", but a significant portion of content was not merged (diff) and this content is verifiable, as my efforts have demonstrated thus far. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understood what I wrote above. If you like searching for sources for this cruft go right on ahead. I was asking a question that you failed to answer. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry. I don't think a merge is warranted at this time, particularly since I have been expanding the article, and I have opposed a merge above. The nominator at AfD was for deletion in entirety, and did not state anything about merging, except afterward, stating "thanks" above on this talk page. So, yes, I think that obtaining actual consensus for a merge would be in order. I don't view this glossary as "cruft"; rather, it covers an aspect of the Industrial Workers of the World, which is a significant aspect of American history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • First, I disagree with your assumption about the subject's significance; the source material I read indicated the Wobblies borrowed a lot of hobo terms once the hobos joined the organization en masse. I didn't merge the long list of terms because most are unsourced and not notable.
      • My original question was procedural: there was a previous request to merge and it ended no consensus. There was an AfD and it ended no consensus. Postdlf closes that AfD and says to merge to IWW as I suggested in the AfD. You say I have to ask for consensus, again? My point here is that I like using AfD as a cleanser. Next time Borock opens the door for deletion I'm gonna just !vote delete to fix the mess because my interest in keeping some of the information will result in someone like you keeping all the crap, which is explicitly not what I wanted. But, have it your way. I'm not actually a deletionist. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Postdlf did not opine for merging. In their close (diff), they stated, "The result was no consensus. Merging can be addressed through normal channels as Chris Troutman proposes", but postdlf did not specifically !vote for merging. Also, I've been expanding the article with more reliable sources, adding citation needed templates to content I cannot immediately source, etc., and you're already stating that you'll !vote to delete. Seems like jumping the gun a bit, and prejudicial. Perhaps consider waiting to see how the article is improved, rather than deciding ahead of time. Why so eager to delete history from Wikipedia? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I meant generally; I'm not threatening deletion. I don't think the subject is notable and finding a single citation for some term I don't think merits inclusion. That the article was written by an IWW member also turns me off from being involved with it. I think it would've made more sense to keep this content at the IWW article and develop it there before WP:SPINOUT. Restoring the content from the redirect was the wrong move in my opinion. I don't see the point in arguing this anymore, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)