Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:18, 27 February 2008

Please stop and discuss

In response to the edits regarding an Aggie bandsman:

CC, Whatever you think about me, please stop and just relax for a minute and enjoy the history lesson. "BQ" was originally a term stamped on a cadet's file folder. It stood for "Band Qualified" at that time (the converse of that was "CT" which stood for "Cadet in Training"). Cadets' files were not stamped with both, so the distinction served as a point of contention between cadets. Soon, the cadets came up with nicknames for the others. Cadets not in the band were called Corps Turds and the band members were called Band Queers. Both sides soon simply took pride in these nicknames and called themselves those very things. Take your pick of the websites that back this up and will be sufficient for you since the one provided does not meet your personal standards Band Queer, Corps Turd. — BQZip01 —  04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the edit at this time, but near as I can tell, you have no reason to exclude this valid contribution to Misplaced Pages. — BQZip01 —  04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the reference because it is a perjorative term for homosexuals. While Misplaced Pages isn't censored, we're also not going to advertise neologisms that demean or defame anyone in the process. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

::*I agree that the offensive usage on BQ is not acceptable.

• An additional thought. With the fact that:

1. BQZip01's explanation of his account name on his user page.
2. The derogotory connotation that he has declared on the BQ page.

I suggest that might be the next step, as the username is patently offensive.TomPhan (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC) This user is a sockpuppet — BQZip01 —  16:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a neologism (definition: "a word, term, or phrase that has been recently created (or "coined"), often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary."). This term has been in use for decades, if not a century, and was in use long before the homosexual connotation was added. Queer has many definitions and your selective use of a single definition, is misleading...(where have I seen that before?).

CC already stated it, but Misplaced Pages is not censored and contains many other offensive words, but used in context, they are appropriate. — BQZip01 —  17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To anyone else who does not seem to have a personal bias against me, please read the links I provided. You will see that the term is in wide usage within the Aggie Community. It is in frequent use by people at Texas A&M and its usage is common (feel free to call the band hall if you wish to confirm. Here is their website and phone number 1-979-845-3529). Doctor Rhea is the director and if he osn't busy would likely be glad to talk to you. If not, the secretary will likely be able to answer any questions you have.

If you feel the name is offensive, then you can submit it for removal (threats to take someone to an admin), but don't threaten me as a means to get your way (where have I seen that tactic before...?) — BQZip01 —  17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• It can't be added to this article since it a) doesn't serve a purpose here and b) is an unneccessarily inflammatory remark. You probably need to let this one go. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1. it's a dab page, so it does serve a purpose.

Respectfully, I am not "letting go" of something that is accurate. That you find it offensive, I'm sorry, but perhaps you need to expand your definitions of words beyond what you personally find offensive. I have given you hundreds of sites as examples that it is a common term with no seriously negative connotation. I've made my case here. — BQZip01 —  20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that your rationale shifts as your arguments are shot down one at a time.

"I've removed the reference because it is a perjorative term for homosexuals. While Misplaced Pages isn't censored, we're also not going to advertise neologisms that demean or defame anyone in the process." So I point out it isn't a neologism and it doesn't demean or defame anyone

"It can't be added to this article since it a) doesn't serve a purpose here and b) is an unneccessarily inflammatory remark." Now why exactly should we delete this? It serves a purpose within the dab page as it "disambiguates" a term and as for it being "an unneccessarily inflammatory remark", that isn't a criteria. With a simple narrow mindset (not saying this applies, but used as an example), anyone can be offended at anything. It isn't a remark, it is a statement of fact. — BQZip01 —  20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Band Qualified" is enough for a disambiguation and you don't need to employ an (obviously) derogatory, perjorative term when a non-loaded term will do just as well in its place. It's pretty obvious what the context for the term is so you're going to have a tough time telling me that I'm narrowly interpreting the word. "Band Qualified" is enough so I don't have any idea why you're fighting so hard for this. Can we avoid more lengthy procedure on this issue and just agree to leave it out? Please? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Band Qualified" is not enough for a disambiguation. It is the historical etymology of the word, not the common usage. The only time you hear "Band Qualified" is in discussions of the variety: "you know where 'BQ' comes from?" Please read the provided sources. You will note that "Band Queer" is used far more often than "band qualified". Accordingly I am reverting again. If you would like a source, simply state your choice and I will be happy to include it. — BQZip01 —  03:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I don't really care about the etymological deriviation of a mean nickname for band members at your school, there's no way that "Band Queer" can be substituted for "Band Qualified," no matter how it's phrased. This is only a disambiguation page. At the risk of being beansy, it's not even mentioned in the main article (this is not an invitation to do that, by the way). Why "band qualified" would be on this page is beyond me. There's probably lots of other nasty things people have said about bands all over the country, but I'm not running into a lot of those on disambiguation pages. Please give this one a rest. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• You think it is mean? Most BQs I know are proud of the title. We even wrote a song, (sung to the rice fight song):

We're the Aggie Band Queers

Scum of the earth

Filth of creation

Gone from bad to worse (we're dirty sons of B****s

Found in every bar room

and every whore house too-oo-oo-oo

We're the Aggie Band Queers

from A M C

— BQZip01 —  04:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it is mentioned in the main article. Perhaps you should actually read it... — BQZip01 —  19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Band Queer RS?

What RS are there for the band queer reference? Lawrence § t/e 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, if you will be so kind as to look above, in the first paragraph, there were two google links in the article. Please select the reference you find most accurate/apropos. Furthermore, there is a link hidden in comments in the main article. Specifics of the term were cited, but were removed (but left in comments) for brevity. — BQZip01 —  04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I have proposed several variations and they all keep getting reverted by CC. What needs to be done? I have provided references galore, altered wording, etc. all at your request with no result other than "no you can't do that". I'm sorry, but your personal standards aren't Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. Please offer something. — BQZip01 —  23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• How about "Band Qualified." Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is the reason I have such a problem with your edits. This is no compromise at all. I offer numerous phrasing/variations and you offer, 'Let's just change it to what I wrote.' This is not consensus-building, it is stubbornness and a violation of WP:OWN. Your edits do not reflect reality and cited references. I have asked for your input regarding which source to use since the one provided is not to your liking, but instead, you say, 'No, we're going to do it my way.' Please offer something other than this tripe. — BQZip01 —  05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is not a situation where an alternative is readily available, and thus it makes "compromise" very difficult. Either the term is included in the article or it isn't. This is a disambiguation page, and you have included "BQ" as a reference to the Fightin Texas Aggie Band, that people may be searching for when they type "BQ" into the box. I'm not sure how often this happens, but it doesn't hurt to have it there. You want to include "Band Queer" in the text for the disambiguation because it's the traditional term for "BQ" (I think anyway, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth). I don't want to include it because it's A) a very visible, perjorative term for homosexuals, B) easily replaceable by "Band Qualified" and C) not necessary in the context of a disambiguation page. I appreciate that you've cited sources for the terms but again, for the reasons I've described, it's just not necessary here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also, just fyi, punctuation marks go within the quotation marks, not outside of them. It's not a huge deal so I'm not going to fix it because that might run us astray of the recent 3RR mandate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The location of punctuation marks varies based on what is used and how it is used. See WP:MoS#Quotation_marks (please stop citing your personal beliefs as a reason to do something).
2. "Band Queer" should be in there because it is the term most associated with it, not "Band Qualified".
3. Just because it is visible or pejorative doesn't mean it can't be included. Once again, this is your own personal beliefs interfering with Misplaced Pages. This is not one of the rules of Misplaced Pages. Stop trying to impose your sense of morality on Misplaced Pages, please.
4. It is not "easily replaceable" at all and does not serve to explain the term appropriately; again, this is your personal belief and does not reflect reality. In short, it is wrong when stated this way, or at the very least grossly incomplete and needs to be rephrased.

By not representing reality and the cited sources, the way it is currently phrased violates WP:NPOV, WP:RS, & WP:V/WP:UNDUE.

— BQZip01 —  21:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Compromise (take 2)

How about this? It is well referenced (if it is such a derogatory term, why is it stated on the organization's website?) and has links to articles/lists it is in? — BQZip01 —  00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• But isn't "BQ" also an acronym for "Band Qualified" which, in the context of a disambiguation page, serves exactly the same purpose? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• And I should add that at this point Band Qualified wouldn't need any sources and would probably never be challenged by anyone. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, it is, but that is mostly a footnote into history. Its common usage is almost exclusively meant as "Band Queer", whether used by detractors or supporters. Citing "Band Qualified" makes no sense when somebody says "Way to go, BQs!" or "Stupid BQs."
2. WP:V still applies. Though fewer people of the populous would "object", Misplaced Pages isn't censored.

— BQZip01 —  03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• This debate isn't getting us anywhere. Until such time that somebody else objects to having it there, I won't attempt to remove it again. This doesn't mean I agree with you, just that I don't believe either of us are being very productive right now in an argument that doesn't appear to affect anyone else except you and I. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I intend to mainly stay out of this dispute at this time, but just in case this helps: you might consider getting a third opinion. I'm just a friendly reminder. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Term

Please develope consensus before attempting to add an item that may be offensive to others. justification to include this term should be agreed upon before it is added. This is not a list for anyone to add items based on POV. 207.195.244.106 (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also not a place for you to push an agenda. Misplaced Pages isn't censored and, therefore, your removal of this term is against WP policy and Arbcom. We do not need consensus to add things to Misplaced Pages. — BQZip01 —  18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus should be build. The term has created too much disruption. If it is beneficial to the encyclopedia, the community should agree, and then put it back in. Otherwise it appears as if a single user is going against the grain to push for some other agenda. 151.32.202.218 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. An IP adding the first contribution claiming knowledge of the previous history. Pardon me for not believing your sincerity. — BQZip01 —  19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Page is protected on m:The Wrong Version, see Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details. If you are unable to find an agreeable solution yourselves, please follow Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution process, starting with WP:RFC, WP:3O. `'Míkka>t 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)