Talk:Bobby soxer (subculture)

References?

It would be good to have reliable sources - the term does exist, it can be found roughly 50 pages from the end of "Rabbit at Rest" by John Updike. I just think it would be good to have some newspaper cuttings with it (surely that can be found somewhere by Sinatra fans), and also possibly to find out who coined the term.Zigzig20s 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Mentioned in Tampico (song)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Flemington

Bobby Flemington ought to be identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.208.34 (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC) The article on "bobby sock" treats the term "bobby" as not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.208.34 (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.38.224 (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hyphenated or not?

Is there any consensus as to whether a hyphen is appropriate for this term (and the article title)? Robert K S (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

unexplained term

I went to school in the fifties and sixties and went to a lot of sock hops in our gym, but I have no idea what a "flop dance" is. A search with Google did not help. Can someone either explain or remove this? 37.99.42.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate Photo - Not a "Bobby Soxer" but of a Majorette

This photo should be updated or removed. This is not a bobby soxer in the photo, at least not by her attire. Can we please find a better example? She is not wearing bobby sox, a poodle skirt, and not wearing saddle shoes.

The young woman in the photo is obviously marching in a parade, and dressed in a parade uniform. Again, this is not a photo that illustrates the bobby soxer attire. Discuss. B'H. 69.113.156.172 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeated restoring of information that has been unsourced for 27 months

This article has had a global unsourced tag for 27 months. Any material tagged that long can very legitimately be challenged and removed. Slightmile has repeatedly restored it with no effort to provide a source, in violation of WP:V. How long does the information need to remain in the article unsourced? Another 27 months? Indefinitely? 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you made any effort to improve the article, by trying to find sources, etc.? Are you challenging any of the material for any other reason beside the existence of that tag? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No one has. Are you saying that if no one tries to provide a source, the information should stay in the article indefinitely? 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It's common knowledge of people who lived in the time. Yes it does still need proper sources. If 75.191 wasn't so busy being combative maybe they could help with that. I saw the opinion of Woodroar below. SlightSmile 16:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion about what is "common knowledge" is not a reliable source. Anyone who has been on Wikipedia a few months knows that, much less nine years. If Slightsmile wasn't so busy trying to wikiboss with no regard for policies maybe he could spend a minute or two to find a source instead of reverting. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Why does this movie, song, and band get a special mention? Is the age range actually 13 to 25? Too often there is no source, it's simply "I was listening to [some piece of media] and it mentioned [subject], let's put it on Wikipedia" or "this is how I remembered [subject] some 60-80 years later" (or worse, "this is my interpretation of [subject] via [other people or media]"). Neither of which are in any way appropriate for Wikipedia and I tend to remove unsourced cruft like this on sight. We should let reliable sources guide our content, and if content is removed then it should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Lets be clear, it is not the job of a user who objects to material to prove its relevance and validity for inclusion, it is the job of those who want to include it. It may well be they have tried to find sources (I know it has happened to me) and have been unable to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the baton twirler but maybe it can stay till we find something more accurate. She wearing bobby socks and looks high school age - good enough. SlightSmile 19:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Can information remain in the article unsourced for 27 months?

Can information remain in the article that has been tagged as unsourced for 27 months? 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Remove or provide sources - As stated by WP:V and the tag that has been up for 27 months, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• This content was removed for a perfectly valid reason and should not have been restored without an inline citation to a reliable source as required by WP:V. It is now the WP:BURDEN of User:Slightsmile or User:Mdaniels5757 to provide a source. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It can, there is no rule (as such) against it, but there is a rule against re-inserting it after it has been removed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Information can remain in an article unsourced for 27 months. Information can also be removed from an article, but there's not a mandate to do so. Removing good information simply because it's unsourced, from a non-BLP, without making even the slightest effort to find such sources, isn't helpful. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a source for some of the questioned material; the OP could have done exactly the same thing. I do thank the OP for improving the article, directly and indirectly. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say this, if it was so was why the hell did it sit unsourced for 2 years?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh please. There's tags sitting for years all over the place. And some kid is going to come in here and boss us around. I don't think so. The IP was actually emptying out all but two lines - did you look at the diffs? There's rules and there's common sense, unless there's new thinking on this that's been a core philosophy of Wikipedia as long as I remember. SlightSmile 12:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes and common sense led me to wonder why it sat unsourced for two years, with no one bothering to address the issue until "some kid came here to boss us around".Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"Some kid?" Slightsmile, I'm afraid your attitude is showing, and shamefully so. Every IP can be assumed to be a pimply-faced kid trying to destroy Wikipedia. How old do you think I am? How long do you think I have read and edited Wikipedia? And I suppose it goes without saying that someone who has been here for nine years has the right to run roughshod over policies simply because he thinks something is "common knowledge" or "common sense", so WP:V's statement that any unsourced material can be challenged and removed doesn't apply to some special privileged long-term editors on Wikipedia. If "some kid" hadn't started this issue the article would have sat another 27 months with no more sources added. Right now the article is in decent shape, but obviously "some kid" had nothing to do with that and an "experienced" editor rushed in to save the day. Some editors here need to examine their motives and grow up. And don't tell me to put my comments on your talk page because you told me to stay off your talk page. And don't try to hide behind a "you're making personal attacks" argument. If you think that's so go ahead and take it to WP:ANI, but you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG first. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Great comeback. Another point. Even if it had stayed unsourced as it was two days ago, the only iffy detail was the item about the 13-25 age group. Do you see another? The detail about the polished gym floor could have stayed like that until properly sourced without bring down the project. SlightSmile 14:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

And IP : You took an article, needed work but it was a good article and you kept trashing it over a tag. If I was a wiki czar as you say you'd be outta here. SlightSmile 14:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Slightsmile, if I hadn't "trashed it over a tag", you would have done absolutely nothing to improve the article. It's likely no one would. You'll deny that, of course, to save face. But it's OK to admit that. Swallow your pride. Grow up. Stop assuming the worst in every IP who disagrees with you. You'll be a better editor. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually this latest (today) discussion was intended as a response to Slater's "why the hell did it sit unsourced for 2 years" remark. And you are very much part of this story and so of course your involvement here is going to come up in the conversation.

I see IPs do good work all the time and conversely experienced editors be total dicks. You're too combative and you gotta tone it down. I can see you read up on policies here, so do we all.

There's a hundred ways you can help here and I'm sure you'll do good work here. All the best. SlightSmile 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Slightsmile, thank you (and everyone else) for adding sources. Another trivial detail still in the article is the mention of "Bobby Sox to Stockings" and Bob B. Soxx & the Blue Jeans. And by "trivial", I mean indiscriminate trivia that really serves no encyclopedic value. We've got a song that references "bobby sox" more than a decade after the word is coined, and a band mentions the term a few years after that. How or why is that important? (At least The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer is, per the source, "the only film to use the term in its title". That's...something, I guess? It's not much, but it's something.) They're just tacked on like any other piece of trivia. You mentioned that unsourced claims don't bring down the project, but I earnestly disagree. Our core content policies and WP:NOT are what separate us from places like Fandom. I think it's a good thing that we delete cruft, there there's some minimal threshold for inclusion, and that we follow what the sources say. And I think that most editors feel the same way, because our policies are, well, policies. Woodroar (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about the examples. There doesn't need to be a (generally loathsome anyway) "popular culture" section at all; this is an article about a popular culture phenomenon, and as such examples of its use in and by popular culture are useful. How else do you describe a popular culture phenomenon without showing its use and discussion in popular culture? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

What this reveals is the weakness of the tagging paradigm. There are some 210,000 articles tagged as "unreferenced"; there doesn't seem to have naturally formed a body of editors dedicated to fixing these, no "unreferenced page patrol". So, yes, an article that's not particularly important (like this one) can sit for years before anyone gets around to fixing it. But deleting stuff that's right just because nobody has gotten around to fixing it yet seems counter-productive. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

ec @Woodroar: I had meant that for some things sometimes sources aren't an urgent issue, like removing shoes to not damage gym floors. If you see something in Popular culture that doesn't look right or is unnecessary clutter IMHO I would say sure take out. Isn't that how we've always done it. SlightSmile 00:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: I respectfully disagree. There are lots of problems on Wikipedia that are there because there aren't enough people around to fix the problems. On some articles that don't have a lot of traffic, there is questionable information (even well written vandalism) because no one has gotten around to fixing it. That doesn't mean it should stay there. I see bad information in articles quite frequently, but I don't have time to fix it. That doesn't mean I shouldn't tag it so maybe others can fix it. And if tagged, unsourced information remains in an article for years, I can and should remove it. Sometimes no information is better than bad information. If we didn't have the tagging system, an encyclopedia with some problems would become an encyclopedia with worse problems. The problem is not with the tagging system. The problem is lack of enough humans to manage the problems. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woodroar: I agree that random trivia that has a strained connection (or no connection) to the article's topic other than coincidence usually should go. Based on the two examples you mention, if we take this to it's logical extreme, we should include every song, movie, TV episode, or book that has both the name Bobby/Bob/Bobbie/Robert and the word sock/sox/socks in either the title or the artist's name. So if Bobby Goldsboro had recorded a song "I Like Socks", that would be included. That said, I think a case can be made to include such trivia if there is a reliable source that clearly connects it to the article's topic. As a hypothetical example, if there was a reliable source in which Bob B. Soxx identified bobby sox or bobby sox music as an influence on his selection of a name, that may be worth keeping. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly it. It's not indiscriminate if reliable sources say "[this piece of media] is really important to understanding [subject]" and why. It's the sources that make it discriminate. Unless sources make the claim, it's really just our own original research saying that this song deserves a mention and another song does not. Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem (but this is not really the venue for such a discussion) is that policy says that unsourced material can be deleted. As far as I know there is no requirement to look for sources yourself (there is for AFD).Slatersteven (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we're missing the elephant in the room. It's not about this rule and that rule etc. No one is saying that reliable sources aren't important. Wikipedia isn't Fandom.

That non registered users can come and edit here is a strength of Wikipedia - what's the phrase - accumulation of world knowledge. But I've seen more than once an aggressive IP coming here and enforcing their interpretation of the rules. Isn't that what we (don't) pay admins for. And when this does happen I see editors scurrying away tails between their legs.

Someone implied I was trying to game this "content dispute" at Page Protection. What I was seeing here is trolling bordering on vandalism. There's not one editor in this discussion here that hasn't reverted hundreds of these (not everyone is a recent patroller). SlightSmile 15:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Look, here's the thing. WP:V says that "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". Sure, it gives some additional steps that editors may take, but policy doesn't require those steps to be taken. If a claim is unsourced, any editor can remove it. Full stop. That's policy. The same policy also states that "[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." There aren't exceptions because the editor is anonymous or they didn't seek consensus or you didn't like their reasoning. If you thought 75.191 was a troll or vandal, there are ways to deal with that: escalating warnings, AIV, ANI, etc. But you went for page protection, despite the fact that 75.191 (a) had policy on their side, (b) was the first to Talk, and (c) warned you for edit warring, especially since (d) you hit and passed 3RR first. From here, that looked like gaming page protection to win a content dispute. I'm sorry if that was not your intent.

I should note that I don't think 75.191 is blameless, either. They should have come to talk after the first revert and they shouldn't have kept restoring warnings after you removed them the first time. I asked them to knock that off and they did.

This was a mess but I'm glad the article is in better shape now. I'm going to remove the trivial name-drop of the song and band as mentioned a couple times above. Anyone can feel free to restore the claim with a reliable source or sources, of course. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woodroar: I agree that both Slightsmile and I are to blame. We both edit warred. If we had both been blocked that would have been justified. And you're right I should have brought the matter here after the first revert, as should Slightsmile. I also agree with everything you say about WP:V. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Slightsmile: I again must discuss things with you here, which is not the appropriate venue, since you told me not to post on your talk page. But maybe that's a good thing so that others here who are familiar with you can read this. You're on record referring to me as "a kid who bosses us around", "combative", and "trashing" an article. Are you now stating that I am "trolling bordering on vandalism"? If not me, then specifically to whom are you referring? 75.191.40.148 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we not discuss users conduct, if you have an issue take it to ANI (this is to the pairs of you).Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, but sometimes matters aren't serious enough to go to ANI. I'm trying to figure that out, but Slightsmile told me not to message his talk page. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding content as part of an assignment

Hi everybody, I am a student who is editing this stub as part of an educational assignment. My class is centred around Wikipedia, which has been a great experience so far! I will be adding 2000 words to this page and editing up until May 31, 2021. I appreciate and welcome any feedback! Sydneygirlbigworld (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)