Talk:Jim Crow (disambiguation)

Requested move
move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Jim Crow → Jim Crow (disambiguation) &mdash; This page should be moved so that Jim Crow can be redirected to Jim Crow laws, which clearly seems to be the primary topic for the term Jim Crow, as evidenced by the incoming links. And traffic statistics show that Jim Crow laws gets many times more page hits than all the other uses combined. Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The laws are the primary use of the term. Station1 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Station1.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Jim Crow laws is not the primary topic for Jim Crow; a Jim Crow law is not called a Jim Crow, any more than an Orange soft drink is called an orange. --Una Smith (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that if someone links the term orange, it is highly unlikely that they intend to refer to orange soft drink, but I think the case is different here. When Jim Crow is used as an adjective, as in the common phrase "the Jim Crow South", or when editors link just the first two words of the phrase Jim Crow laws, they do mean to link to the topic Jim Crow laws. The question is not whether the term names the topic, but what editors intend to refer to when they link the term.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jim Crow" by itself does in fact name the topic, even as a noun. The phrase primarily refers to not only the laws but more broadly the entire system of segregation they engendered, evidenced not only by the numerous incoming links but also the article Jim Crow laws itself (just see the headers) and a quick Google search. "Jim Crow laws" could probably be renamed "Jim Crow". Station1 (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I disagree with the analogy as well. People do say things like "under Jim Crow" when they mean to refer to Jim Crow laws; "Jim Crow law" is often shortened to "Jim Crow". Dekimasu よ! 10:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * support - Jim Crow definitely usually refers to the laws. Bssc81 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchtower
As navigation pages, disambiguation pages are not intended to be indexes of every possible use of a term; they are meant to point to content that appears in Wikipedia articles. Or, to put it another way, a dab page is not the place to add new content (and references) that should instead be added to an appropriate article, then listed on the dab page. Also, in this particular case, I'm wondering about the reliability of the source you cite. OED makes no mention of this definition; the closest meaning is one coined by Winston Chuchill for WWII plane spotters. And I couldn't turn up any information in an online search to support this use.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a term for the tower and the lookout person as well. There is also the use of it on the web here. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A children's book and a user-posted message about a Lego tower are not convincing sources. But in any case, the point remains that the information & references should be added to an article; then the use, sans reference, can be listed here with a link to the relevant article.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * MOS:DABSY indicates that synonyms are good to include, but that I have not formated it correctly.
 * So is your concern that the Oxford English Dictionary is incabable of making omissions and that Jim Pipe and Kreg Ertman are each trying to introduce new meaning for the term so as to avoid doing proper research, or to make the item seem more exciting and increase buzz, etc.? şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Synonyms are appropriate if the term is supported by the linked article, or if the synonymy is so common that no support is required. Neither is the case here. As far as the sources, I have no idea why Pipe and Ertman have used that term, or where their information comes from (for all you or I know, Ertman also could have gotten the term from Pipe's book), but I don't think either citation constitutes a reliable source. This is one good reason why information must first be included in an article: So it will come under the scrutiny of editors who know something about the subject and who can either support it--perhaps just by letting it stand, or with further information and sources--or reject it.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  20:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)