Talk:Bloke

Comments
Please see a feedback request concerning this page at Talk:Bloke Cnilep (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

original research
This article appears to have a lot of original research wherein evidence of the use of a word (for example in a google search result or in a headline or series of headlines) is then used to support an analytical claim which is not present in the source. I have removed some blatant examples, but there may be many more. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:01, 11 July 2012 (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: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

– Now that the AFD is closed as "keep", this article must be the primary topic because... it is a word used by Anglo-Western people, including British and Australians. Even this article establishes creation of impact by this word. That's all. George Ho (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bloke (word) → Bloke
 * Bloke → Bloke (disambiguation)


 * oppose I don't see that it's primary. There are almost no (precisely one) incoming links article and very little readership (most of it probably down to the RfC, AfD and now RM focussed on this article – there are dozens of non-article links). The usage of the word is separate from its notability as a topic, so most people using the word in Wikipedia would be uninterested in the cultural and historical aspects of the word. Of course if they just needed the definition they could consult a dictionary such as the one linked at Bloke and here.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very common word used by English, Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish, Australians, New Zealanders and others. I honestly can't see how it's not a more likely target than a little-known comic book character or a Slovenian city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unreal7 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 July 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Procedural close it's at deletion review, so it hasn't survived AFD yet. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I don't understand the logic in this odd RM. It would be seldom that an article on a word would be primary, as we seldom have articles on words. Use the "(word)" disambiguator to distinguish it from topics named Bloke seems sensible if we're going to have the article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - But not for why you think.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  20:41, 24 July 2012 (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.

Sentimental Bloke
Our Wikipedia article says:
 * Australian poet C. J. Dennis wrote a collection called "The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke" which was published in 1915, and "reveal[ed] as it did to Australians their own slang and culture of the common people".

It's not OR. The quote is in reference to the book. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the quote is in the book, yes. but our plucking the quote out of context to claim/imply that the quote is about the word "bloke" is "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The quote is about the book. It would only be out of context if the quote were to mean something else in context. The quote in its original context is about the book, the quote in this context is about the book. At the same time, the quote is relevant to this article since it deals with Australia and slang. Relevancy is not the same as SYN or OR. You say this quote is SYN because it reaches a conclusion about something - what is the implied conclusion of this quote? Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * but our article is not "about the book" it is "about a word". If the quote is "about the book" then it is irrel to this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * if you are claiming the "slang" in the quote applies to the word in our article, then yes it IS WP:OR because the source of the quote does not identify that it considers "bloke" to be among the "slang" that it is referencing. You would need to be combining another source that calls "bloke" "slang", hence SYN. --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "revealed" quote establishes why we are mentioning the book in the article. If we took out the quote, it would be be trivial to just mention any old book that contains the word bloke in the title, there are dozens. The quote establishes why it's important to mention this particular book: it has importance in Australian slang culture history. You are attempting to make a literal connection between the word bloke and the quote, but that's OR/SYN. We don't need to do that, the quote is making a connection between the book and Australian slang, which is relevant to this article since it includes the word bloke in the book in a non trivial and recognizable way (notably for what the quote is saying: cultural dissemination of slang words). Green Cardamom (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PRECISELY - why are we mentioning the book in this article? The quoted source cannot provide a valid reason without the application of SYN by presuming that Wilson includes "bloke" when he is talking about "slang" because Wilson does not explicitely make that claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying but it's too fine a point, Wilson doesn't need to explicitly list every slang word he intended to mean (the book contains hundreds), he clearly meant: the slang used in the book. It's notable that bloke is central in the title, and used nearly 35 times in 118 pages fairly evenly throughout, on average once every 3.5 pages. And central to what the book is about, "a sentimental bloke". Green Cardamom (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We could guess and make assumptions, but WE DO NOT KNOW. and that is the crux of WP:OR and why is says "explicitly". And all we know is that Wilson says "slang" but does not identify what he means by that and we cannot make his definition for him. If he wanted to, he could have stated "From the 'bloke' of the title to the last rhyming couplet of X and Y, Dennis's work reveals ..." then we would be fine in using it, but he doesnt. He uses the more general "slang" without explicitly identifying that he includes "bloke" as part of the slang and we cannot put words in his mouth. --  The Red Pen of Doom  20:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all moot - its self published and a novel. Fails RS all around.-- The Red Pen of Doom  20:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the Lulu publisher, should have checked. The material is from the glossary, which is critical apparatus/research and not fiction, it would have been acceptable, but the Lulu unfortunately makes it not. However now that I see the author is still presumably alive I may contact for leads on other sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just my 2¢ from noting this on my watchlist. Yes, it's synthesis, a form of original research, to apply a summary of the language whole book narrowly apply to one word which that summary doesn't explicitly mention. If the source explicitly referenced 'Bloke' then it might be appropriate but it doesn't. The title of course contains "bloke", as does the 1915 book, but that makes it just an example of usage, not necessarily the first unless that's established.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was coming down to a matter of interpretation/opinion because it was more than just an example it is central to the book, not just a mere usage. In any case, not worth debating now. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

 * 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

– I proposed this move two years ago, the year of the article's creation, yet it was unsuccessful because the time was too wrong to tell whether the word is the primary topic. Right now, the only "Bloke"s we have are Municipality of Bloke (Slovenia) and Bloke (comics). None surpass the historical significance and popularity of the slang word "bloke", and popularity of the word is rising in Wikipedia (no stats needed, right?). I tried finding other "bloke"s; there is no other. Therefore, the word shall be primary topic. George Ho (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Bloke (word) → Bloke
 * Bloke → Bloke (disambiguation)


 * Support No stats needed but for convenience: the 30-day traffic for Bloke (word) is 3198. Bloke (the dab page) is 897. The other Bloke's much less in fact the word article has more traffic than all others combined, including the dab page which is the primary topic. The word should be primary topic for stats reasons, but also as George says, Bloke really is best known as a slang term; this is easily verified via Google hits (more stats). -- Green  C  04:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, primary usage in the English language. bd2412  T 17:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Red Slash 17:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as primary topic —PC-XT+ 00:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: Primary topic at en.wiki.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:56, 24 August 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.

I claim the word on behalf of the Brits
There's summink wrong with this article and IMO it's because it's top heavy on Australian usage.. For decades longer than most Wikipedia editors have been around, it's been the standard BE soft slang word for any man, and used throughout the entire spectrum of British society and without any specific regional bias. Of course, I can't say this in the article because it would be OR, and I can't be fished to find any sources - if in fact there were any. 58.10.28.142 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (user:Kudpung not logging in because insecure connection.)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bloke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112191113/http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr_16/pbfr16.html to http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr_16/pbfr16.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328071610/http://www.acmi.net.au/aust_sentimental_bloke.aspx to http://www.acmi.net.au/aust_sentimental_bloke.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible Australian Bias
Have to agree with the above sentiment. Article is very heavy on Australian usage and whatnot - barely any mention of British or New Zealand ("The Real Kiwi Bloke" and all that jazz) usages of the word. Again, difficult to specify this in the page without it being classed as OR - someone decently versed in etymological scholarly research want to have a crack at making this page more well-rounded? TheOneArmedBandit (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the history of this article, it would never exist without me. About two dozen editors deleted it years ago (when it was much shorter) and when I tried recreate it with the top history section they overruled it and deleted it again. They said it was impossible to have an article about bloke because there were no sources, the sources were all dictionary definition or examples of use, they said. So I set out to prove them wrong, and after an extreme amount of research and work - it took me about a month to put this together because a Google search of 'bloke' turns up endless amounts of junk. Eventually with the right search strategies I found a gold mine of sources for Australia (not that I was looking for Australia specifically), and wrote the article, which made it possible, finally, to have a Wikipedia article about bloke. I don't disagree that there might be other sources for other countries, but do you have them? Let's do it. There is no bias. Maybe bloke doesn't have the same national significance/history in those countries like it does in Australia and so no one has seriously documented it. BTW I am not from Australia but from the USA and have no bias against any of these countries.  --  Green  C  13:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)