Talk:Wankers Corner, Oregon

Deletion discussion
I disagree that this is an sdc. If you still think it should be deleted, I believe that it belongs on the VFD page. -Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 14:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I too think that this page should not be deleted. It's informative, not abusive, if that is the problem. --webkid 14:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Uh, the only reason I mentioned the tavern in this article is to avoid the potential confusion over a placename outside of Wilsonville, & a bar in that town. If a paragraph mentioning a tavern bothers people, it can always be removed. Its existence still draws puzzled queries from people who are aware of the slang word, much as Intercourse, Pennsylvania does. -- llywrch 18:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More double entendre information
While I'm not quite clear exactly how to improve this article to remove the "Clean-up" tag, I took another look at the Wanker's Corner Tavern page & found that they have a new t-shirt for sale. Ready? The shirt proudly states:


 * YOU CAN'T BEAT US ON THE FIELD, BUT YOU CAN BEAT US OFF

Hrm. Except for its name, there really isn't anything worth mentioning about this unincorporated community. The one other event heavily depends on how it is presented: if one describes it as "a notorious crime" or "notorious sex-related crime", it sounds funny; if one includes the very real fact that this crime involved a woman who was shot in the back & paralyzed (by some steroid-crazed guy), it doesn't sound funny. Does anyone have an idea of how to expand the article beyond its current intent of proving that, yes, there really is a place named "Wanker's Corners"? -- llywrch 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. As far as the cleanup is concerned, all this really needs is a tightening up of the language to make it more encyclopedic. I don't think it needs expansion--note the zillions of unincorporated community articles that contain much less info. The place is notable aside from the funny name (Cf. Nimrod, Oregon) insofar as it has a ZIP Code and it's a locality that is listed on maps. Heck, I even added it to WikiProject Oregon. I'm up to my eyeballs straightening out some other stuff, but I hope to get around to cleaning this up eventually. BTW, is that alt.folklore.urban info anywhere on the 'net still? We need a refs section. Katr67 23:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can find a copy of the original a.f.u post on Google's usenet archive here; I'd add it to the article if I knew the proper way to cite a usenet post that is quoted in another usenet post. And yes, that was me to whom "dino" was responding in 2000. (I only hope that this article still can be counted as independent verification that said placename is for real.) -- llywrch 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I live in Wilsonville, OR. The name of the Saloon and Store are both pronounced "Wohn-kers", but over the years has people have accepted "Wankers", yes as in the British term for one who masturbates. There are two locations for the saloon if anyone is confused. If you call the one on Wilsonville road they will answer "Waan-kers" and not "Wohn-kers". The general store did burn down and was rebuilt. The Saloon was actually built after the original proprietor sold the general store at Wankers ("Wohn-kers") corner. My mother and grandfather knew the Wankers ("Wohn-kers") family personally. --HallmanBilly (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name
The quotation from the newsgroup alt.folklore.urban is very amusing but this is hardly a reliable source. Just saying it's "as likely as any explanation" is not good enough: the fact that it can be verified to come from a particular source does not make that source reliable or the assertion verifiable. In particular WP:SPS spells it out -- "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable." Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The key there is "largely not acceptable"; in other words, these sources can be considered reliable in certain cases. The post quoted, when read impartially, was not meant to be misleading or frivolous message; it was the report of an individual's investigation -- IIRC, it was repeated by another a.f.u regular, which indicates that the information is considered generally reliable. Due to the ephemeral nature of much popular culture & urban folklore, sometimes a.f.u is the best & most reliable source. And lastly, do you honestly have any reasonable doubt the place is not named for a local inhabitant? I can't help but suspect that you are simply eager to prove your knowledge of policy to one & all by this crusade upon an otherwise unremarkable assertion. -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kenilworth Terrace on this point. Just because something is repeated doesn't mean it's true.  It sounds like a great project for an investigative reporter in the local newspaper.  Do some off Wikipedia original research, publish it in a reliable source, and then that can be cited here. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  17:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These sources can be considered reliable in certain cases: indeed WP:SPS states that "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources" A Usenet posting would perhaps qualify if it can be established satisfactorily (1) that the posting is by a specific person and (2) that that person is an established expert.  Is it claimed that both of these conditions have been satisfied?  If not, then this is not a reliable source.  The suggestion that information from Usenet becomes reliable if it is supported by a second person is not supported by any policy that I know of and is frankly a ludicrous suggestion -- there must be a thousand crazy notions on Usenet supported by more than one person.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The text we disagree about including in the article reads as follows:


 * Only someone who does not understand Ignore all rules will have a problem understanding why there is no problem with this passage. The rest of humanity who edits & uses Wikipedia will see in an instant that this is perfectly acceptable. I don't know any other way to explain to you why you are 100% wrong & that this citation of Usenet is perfectly acceptable without tedious logical word-wrangling, distasteful WikiLawyering -- or suspecting either your motives or intelligence. I don't know what more I can say about the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. The summary of all that seems to be (1) this material is not from a reliable source (2) it is impossible to explain why it should be included anyway (3) everyone else in the world thinks it should be included (4) anyone who disagrees is malicious and foolish (5) the discussion is over.   I agree with (1), (2) and (5).  I observe that (3) is demonstrably false.  I suggest that (4) is unworthy of comment.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)