Talk:Jury rig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Etymology source 2 Tiger Tanks? 3 Should we change the word "Often"? 4 Appropriateness of racial epithets in an encyclopedia 5 Additional information == Trivia section? 6 Who Watches the Watchman ? 7 Jerry Rigging 8 You spelled it wrong

[edit] Etymology source

I've removed the cryptic reference to Skeat in Jury rig because it doesn't provide any concrete information. If users Palapala or Prosfilaes (who added or refined the info), or anyone else for that matter, know in what work Skeat (first) provides this argument, please add it back with an appropriate citation in the References section. Thank you. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger Tanks?

Maybe panzers in general, but the Tiger tanks, to the best of my knowledge, were Soviet T-34s. You'd expect that with the Soviets also on the scene and also fighting the Germans, that the allied soliders would be taught how to tell the difference between a Nazi and Soviet operated T-34... So I'm changing it to say "Panzer" to generalize it, as the soldiers probably would've known that the Tigers weren't German made.

Tigers were T-34s? I don't think so! In any case, this whole part of the article is a red herring. "Jerry-built" is a separate expression whose history predates the use of the term Jerry for Germans, as the article cited in the reference points out. The use of "jerry-rigged" (including at least twice in the last few months by the otherwise well-edited New Yorker magazine) clearly stems from confusion between the two terms. Skookumpete 22:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jerry-rigged is simply wrong and should be removed from this article. Should Doggy Dog (Dog Eat Dog) and French (Fringe) benefits get some mention? ;-)

And no, Tiger tanks have no similiary to Soviet T-34s other than the fact they are tanks.

Jimberg98 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we change the word "Often"?

The article says 'Often bastardized in English to "nigger rig" (offensive)'. I'd hardly say that this is "often" given that I've never heard this bastardization in my life. Also, the "in English" part is sort of weak -- what other language are we going to be talking about in the English version of this page, Dutch? My recommendation is that this portion be either dropped entirely, or qualified like 'Sometimes bastardized in the southern United States as...'. I would change it myself, but I am a complete wiki-newbie and thought it might be more polite to post my comment here instead.

I agree. I don't see how this particular portion of the entry is in the best interest of the article. 66.253.36.140 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I've heard the term used by several people and I've used it as well. The term is meant as a joke, so no need to get uppity and politically correct. Infact, suggesting that the term is from the "southern United States" is tantamount to the reason the next guy feels 'nigger rig' as "this particular portion of the entry is in the best interest of the article."

If it's useful information (and I don't think it is; this is not a dictionary, after all), it belongs in the "Other forms" section along with "Jimmy rig". Skookumpete 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of racial epithets in an encyclopedia

During recent work on the article, I've refactored what is now the "Similar phrases" section. If you look at the article history there's been quite a few reverts regarding the inclusion the term "nigger-rig" in the article. I completely understand why people reading the article might have a gut reaction and remove it; I too find it offensive. However, given WP guidelines on offensive speech and the term's apparent use in the real world in contexts similar to "jury-rig" or "jerry-rig" it does seem to warrant inclusion on the grounds of relevance.

My feeling is that having a well-written, properly referenced statement about the phrase is the best way to stabilize the article. I have made a first pass at this, but feel free to discuss and improve. Someone with a reputable slang dictionary could help in this regard... --Dfred (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional information == Trivia section?

I've removed the following recently added section from the article on same grounds one would remove a Trivia section: WP:TRIVIA... My specific comments are included inline below.

==Additional Information==

• "Breadboard" or "Breadboarding", from the practise of inventors, usually experimenting with electrics or electronics, of fixing componenets to a flat surface of (non-conductive) wood similar to an actual breadboard until such time as the device can be perfected to the point of application, by which time the mechanism may be given some type of permanent housing, such as a radio case or purpose built shell. The term is now used in the sense of 'knocking together' components into a working machine. Plastic Breadboards are now commercially available, allowing inventors and engineers to construct projects with ease, before mass producing their devices, or simply to make a professional job of a single project.

This information about breadboarding is probably more appropriate in the mock-up or prototype articles rather than here.

• Cartoonist Heath Robinson and his American counterpart Rube Goldberg are both worthy of mention, as their names have also entered the popular lexicon; Both men devised impractical, fantastic machinary designed to do unlikely tasks, which appeared to be home built contraptions of drain pipes, knotted string etc (rather like the board of the Mouse Trap (board game), actually inspired by Goldberg's work) rather than professional constructions. They are recalled in such phrases as "It's a bit Heath Robinson, but it'll do for now".

My sense is that these Robinson/Golberg solutions are more jerry-built than jury-rigged; often being unnecessarily complex and bordering on ridiculous. Jury rigging indicates a solution to an unexpected or temporary problem. It may be reasonable to add these as items in the "Similar phrases" section. References would be appreciated.

• MacGuyver. The TV show MacGuyver, whose weekly plots revolved around the eponymous hero using handy materials (as in the A-Team) and a Swiss Army knife to think up practical solutions to deadly problems, has provided the post-modern term 'To Macguyver' a gadget/repair/device etc.

MacGyverisms are referenced in the "See also" section. His makeshift and often elegant (if far-fetched) solutions to problems do seem to fit with jury rigging, perhaps something could be worked into the lead about modern examples of jury rigging.

--Dfred (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Watches the Watchman ?

With apologies to all offended parties, I have returned the edits to their rightful place; The article is about the term 'Jury Rig'and is not about interesting knots; I understand how it feels when you have an article site just the way you want it (I really do !) and somebody else adds to "Your" article- when one feels himself to be its 'watchman', as it were. It can be irritating. I understand. However, given the true nature of the article, ie. the meaning of a word and its relevant variations on the same theme, the information is valid and belongs in place, due to its correct context. It is not for us to judge or decide what is or is not relevant because we "Feel" it does not enhance "our" site. The information is a useful addition to the entry, and should stay for that reason. Again, apologies to those who feel offended. It is not my intention to tread on toes or upset those of a sensitive nature.

STEALTH RANGER 09:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's about the concept of jury rig; adding other stuff bloats the article. It is for every editor to try and reach consensus on what enhances or detracts from the page, and stuff that doesn't enhance the page shouldn't be added.--Prosfilaes 14:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We feel it does in fact add to an overall understanding of the term, and allow people the opportunity to make a comparative examination of similar and relevant terms in order to expand said understanding. For example, somebody wondering about "jerry built" may find their way to the site and realise that "jury rig" isn't the same thing. Similarly, people reading the article may find the "Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg" reference explanatory, as a term often heard but never understood until pointed in the right direction. When things are linked- unless said link is completely tenuous- these connections deserve to be shown; and Wiki readers desrve to be informed. Its removal demonstrates the worst kind of closed mind "If I didn't say it, it can't be true! stop spoiling my page!!". Such an outlook increases the criticism of Wiki pages as being a 'Fanboy Club' wherein the writers will cling to their opinions regardless of the input of others. The inability to expand and evolve will ulitimately bring about it's own extinction. A tragedy in the making. Consider this, before denying readers the chance to make connections and expand their own understanding, please.

STEALTH RANGER 10:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If they wonder about "jerry built", they'll go to that page. Please read WP:AGF; your arguments are discouraging people from trying to achieve consensus with you. I didn't write this page, but I still think your changes are not an improvement.--Prosfilaes 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm traveling at the moment and my computer access is somewhat limited, but I'll chime-in here since, apparently, I'm the alleged watchman/fanboy.  :) STEALTH RANGER, I'm sorry I may have caused offense by my move of your work from the article to the talk page. Mainly I was acting on a sense that "general information" sections (e.g. Trivia, Additional information, etc.) rarely are good for articles. Take a look at the WP guidline on why Trivia sections should be avoided. The information you added is informative and potentially useful, but I just thought some of it is probably more appropriate for articles closer to the subject matter. Since interlinking is so easy, I think it really does make sense to try to keep articles reasonably well-focused on their specific subject. I moved the information here to spur a discussion regarding which information does make sense to integrate into the rest of the article. I still stand by my comments above regarding the specifics. I think some of it can be integrated, but some of the links probably belong in the "See also" section. As I said above, the lead of the article needs expansion and clarification. I think that brief allusions to other articles and similar concepts could help put this article in context. And, as you said, it might help users who have arrived on this page but are really looking for something related. --Dfred (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Rigging

I don't feel like looking up a good source to cite, but I'm pretty sure the "Jerry Rigging" variation on this term actually originates from a skit Jerry Lewis would do, named after himself, where he would jury rig various things in comic fashion. --TheCynic 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You spelled it wrong

I edited the article to say "jerry rigged" because thats what the saying is. Jury rigged is incorrect and is not what I learned first. Since I am more familiar with it and it sounds better, I am god and edited the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.151.133 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)