Talk:Dook

Mediation

Request sent to WP:MEDCAB for mediation regarding propriety of Duke University as disambig. DukeEGR93 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the 2006 mediation, for readers' clicking convenience:

* Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Dook

* Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-23_UNC_Carolina_nicknames_and_links

—Noah 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions from Duke fans

Just because fans of Duke athletic teams may not like the use of the term "Dook" does not mean that they should be allowed to remove that definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.64.5 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reason for not including it has already been discussed at length and a decision was made to leave it out. Cheers.Duke53 | ^Talk 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at length? I only see one other sentence (a request for mediation) on this Discussion page. Also, why would a decision be made to leave out a truthful definition? That goes against the spirit of Wikipedia - to share information. You have been reported for violating 3RR, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.64.5 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report away: reverting vandalism is exempt. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then that means there's nothing wrong with my reversions of your vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.64.5 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, my reversions are legitimate deletions of vandalism ... but go right ahead and do what you think you should do, and I will do what I have to do. Good Luck. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where this supposed "discussion at length" is. You haven't. I wonder why. There was no prior discussion here. Go ahead and continue to THREATEN me. I see no evidence that you are an admin. And I am no more likely to be banned than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.64.5 (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References for dook as slang term for Duke University

FWIW, here are a few book references for "dook" referring to Duke University... as found in Google Book search.
How we talk, by Allan A. Metcalf, page 12
"From a Southern point of view, the North talks funny by leaving out the necessary "y." Those who think North Carolina's Duke University lacks Southernness mock it with the spelling dook."

More than a game, by Thad Williamson, pages 214 and 268

Slang & sociability, by Connie C. Eble, page 41

Tobacco Road, by Alwyn Featherston, page 189

Enjoy, —Noah 05:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a reference that points the term out as a mispronunciation rather than a slur:
Telling others what to think, by Edwin Milton Yoder, page 45
"Duke was not then the "national" university it was to become under Chapel Hillians Terry Sanford and Joel Fleishman in the 1970s, but, to us, a strait-laced and parochial Methodist school with a mid-Atlantic clientele incapable of pronouncing the name of its rustic, tobacco-rich benefactors correctly -- "Dook," many called it."

—Noah 05:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference, this time from a sports article in a newspaper: "Duke is a four-letter word to me, he said, joking. Is it D-U-K-E or D-O-O-K?" From the article "2003 N.C.A.A. TOURNAMENT: WEST; Chasing Title, Kansas Coach Returns to Proving Ground," by JACK CURRY, Thursday, March 27, 2003. linked here. —Noah 18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reference from a (the?) leading sports magazine: "But before we submerge ourselves in the whole "Dook vs. the Tar Holes" rhetoric let's take a second to debunk the myth that this game is the best of the year." From the article "Mythbusters: Duke vs. UNC rarely lives up to the hype" by Jacob Osterhout, linked here. —Noah 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reformatted the above a little - hope you don't mind) The question remains, as posed in the MEDCAB and the RfM, whether derogatory terms, or mocking terms, or phonetic representations of mispronunciations, for universities are notable and encyclopedic enough to be included as such. Three years ago, when this first bubbled up, the answer among the people asking the question was no. If that precedent is to be changed, perhaps another MEDCAB or RfM would be in order and should necessarily include a scope larger than this disambig page? DukeEGR93 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the term is notable as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources as shown in the multiple references above. Slang and derogatory terms, for that matter, are an integral part of our culture and this encyclopedia does a fairly good job at listing both the common and obscure slang terms. By the way, since I do not know, is there a guideline for including slang terms on disambig pages? Cheers, —Noah 17:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly open to being convinced (or overturned :) ) - just a bit fearful what opening those floodgates will create and entirely sceptical about how such a thing adds to the project. There are an awful lot of "names" that have been published at least twice for a number of different schools. If it is deemed that such things are encyclopedic, however, so be it. DukeEGR93 20:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those citations, Noah. I can add those in a week. :) Regarding the use of a slang term, I already see another slang definition for "dook" here. I also wonder where this discussion is where "people" had decided not to include the Duke University definition? If it's not on this Discussion page, then where is it? 63.88.64.5 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)63.88.64.5[reply]

63.88.64.5, it is here, here, and at the old UNC-Duke rivalry talk page. According to those pages, User:Bottesini concluded "Compromise had been reached." User:Remember (a UNC fan) stated, "we already came up with a compromise." User:Dubc0724, also a UNC fan, stated, "I've removed the offending passage from Dook. Please see my note at the UNC-Duke Rivalry page. I believe the mediation can be dropped at this time?" Based on those pages, it seems that a Wikipedia:Consensus and "compromise" was reached by User:Remember, User:Dubc0724, User:DukeEgr93, and User:Duke53; that is, to not include pejorative terms for either school. I agree with you that's it's not as clear as it should be, but in the end, they all agreed and the discussion was closed relatively quickly. That is why there isn't a discussion at length - instead, there was a short discussion that quickly resulted in a resolution. Cheers, -Bluedog423^Talk 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this should head back to mediation of some sort. I've opened a MEDCAB Request for this issue. DukeEGR93 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK... I'll keep an eye on that page. Thanks, —Noah 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bejinhan (talk) has volunteered to act as mediator - which would certainly be fine with me. I know of no biases that would preclude such a thing. If other folks interested in this issue could go over to MEDCAB Request and check in that would be most helpful. I know the semi-pro runs out today, and I am really hoping to avoid disruptive editorial oscillations :) DukeEGR93 14:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overarching Question

One overarching question I have is whether this page is done correctly at all. It is supposedly a disambiguation page, but seems more like a definition list - there are no pages with titles Dook (blah) for example. Which is not quite right, since the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page says not to include dictionary definitions. Perhaps this should be linked over to Wiktionary? DukeEGR93 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Regarding Current Dook / Slang Term for Duke Threads

Bejinhan brought up a good point on the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-02/Dook page about where the conversation should be. My recommendation is that anything relative to the specific issue of adding a definition related to Duke University be placed on the MEDCAB page. That'll make sure the history of the discussion is maintained in a meaningful way relative to the purpose of mediation. DukeEGR93 02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aipple/inaccurate edit summary

My edit summary regarding the reversion to the spelling aipple in Scots was slightly inaccurate. The CSD uses this spelling, amongst others but not aiple, but not the cited page 154 regarding dookin for them as I may have implied. SND/DSL, incidentally, also uses this spelling. Mutt Lunker (talk)