Talk:Gleeking

This article was nominated for deletion on January 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Gaps of teeth

I am concerned with the article's numerous references to gleeking being an action requiring saliva to be forced between the incisors. I do not believe that this is the case. The first reason for this challenge is that I (and presumably anyone) am quite capable of gleeking with said gaps deliberately obstructed, as with, for instance, a piece of chewing gum. Additionally, since sources are important, none of the articles linked to from this page seem to suggest that this is a requirement. Gleeking, in fact, seems to simply be the result of pressure being applied directly to the duct/ gland. As such, no dental gap is required for the shaping of "gleek" into a stream; it simply comes directly out of the duct as a stream if the gleek is performed correctly. As such, the article ought to be editted/ corrected. If I'm wrong about this somehow, please contribute to the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.41.55 (talk • contribs)

The way I was taught, it was always through the teeth. You're probably right, though, that going through the teeth is not essential, and is simply one (common?) technique. Please edit the article as you see fit. dbtfz ^talk 16:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearian gleeking

I removed the Shakespeare quotes, but they're been replaced. I don't think they belong here but I won't get into a revert war about it. The quotes are indeed found in Shakespeare but they're not about gleeking in the sense of this article. "This is not the same as the Shakespearean gleek which means ‘to trick; to make a gibe or jest (at a person).’ ([1]). If this article is going to survive AfD it needs to be a little higher quality that that. —rodii 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I suspect we are being trolled; this article is short on verifiable sources for this; none of the quoted sources shows that this is what Shakespeare meant. -- The Anome 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hypothesis that the Shakespearean gleek is etymologically related to gleek in the sense of the current article is not implausible, and IMHO it deserves mention in the article. Needless to say, neither I nor http://www.doubletongued.org nor anyone else (save, perhaps, The Bard himself) is an infallible authority on this issue. But I do not wish to get into a revert war over this either. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

It seems a stretch to call this article a stub. I'm going to go ahead and delete that, but if you feel it should be reverted or reconsidered, feel free to discuss it here. WesleyPinkham 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeking in animal kingdom

I am going to go ahead and delete the paragraph about gleeking in the animal kingdom until someone can find some sources to establish its relevance to the article. Particularly some citation about marine biologists vis a vis fish gleeking should be a requisite for its reinsertion into the article. Are there actually scientists that research whether fish can gleek? 134.114.59.41 08:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it—I put that in as a joke when I was expanding the article to save it from deletion. Glad someone finally caught it. P.S. There is another piece of blatant BS in the article. Can anyone find it? (Shouldn't be hard.) dbtfz^talk 09:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Rodii deleted the part about "gleek masters." That is indeed an obscure neologism that doesn't belong in the article, but it is not exactly BS. (See [2].) The bollocks I had in mind is still in the article, thus the "prize" is still up for grabs. :) dbtfz^talk 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Curse you, gleek-master! rodii 16:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gleeking on or at someone could be construed as a way of scoffing at him or her, and gleeking is likely to occur involutarily while one is singing. Thus it is possible (though highly unlikely) that the modern usage of gleek derives from the expression used in the quotations above."

I don't know but that sounds pretty BS to me. --Bri 07:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too—and I wrote it! :-) But that's just silly speculation, not the completely fabricated bollocks I'm referring to above. The prize is still up for grabs. (Come on, it's obvious!) dbtfz ^talk 07:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the part about geeks seems like total BS. 70.104.241.223 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

A better picture for the purpose of this article is the one at Salivary gland. Zargulon 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is why i love wikipedia

86.127.186.205 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]