Talk:List of ethnic slurs

/Archive: June 8, 2003 - March 23, 2006

Jeff

I agree with the comment below, that this page should not be deleted because it contains (past and present) offensive words. That sort of "politically correct" censorship is misguided and even more repulsive than using these words. Ignorance is never for the best. Nuff said.

Shylock

Just noticed my correction has mysteriously reverted to the old error. I have restored it. Glad to discuss it here if someone actually has a problem with it, but perhaps the reversion was unintended. 66.241.86.57 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to sourcing

The result of the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs was "No consensus". Among those voting to "keep" a large percentage noted that the list needed to be sourced. I think we need to set an overal deadline to finish this job and when that is met to remove, and keep out, all unsourced terms. I think that one month is a reasonable time, specially since the complaints about lack of sources go back to the previous VfD. I will send a note to those who voted to keep asking them to help with the effort, perhaps by picking a letter to work on. -Will Beback 00:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction: 5 of the 26 people who voted to keep the list mentioned removing unsourced material. This is less than 20% of the total. As for deleting the 92% of the terms that are unsourced--that would be an underhanded way of deleting the list, and consensus is to keep it. I also don't think that one month is enough time to source 1,300 terms.--Primetime 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Our vote counts differ because some votes were ineligible. That's why the result was "no consensus". Anyway, some people suggested moving the unsourced material to a sub page where we can work on it. The material wouldn't be deleted, but the only material in the article itself would be sourced. Of course one month isn't enough time to source 1300 entries. But a year hasn't been enough either. Let's say three months, or four. It can be an article improvement drive. (that worked at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and List of groups referred to as cults, articles where every entry must be sourced). We can solicit help from AfD voters, projects, and other pools of editing labor. But we need to have the goal in the definite future of an article that is at least mostly compliant with WP:V and WP:NOR. This list is not exempt from Wikipedia's policies. The payoff is that a fully-sourced article is easier to maintain in the long run. It puts the direct burden of proof on the editor adding the new material. With the provided reference other editors can verify it easily. Like those other lists, this article will be made better by being fully-sourced. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a hundred percent for moving the unsourced stuff to a holding pen. Do that, you don't even have to set a hard date for deletion; we have a legitimate page the very next day, and can take whatever time is needed to rescue whatever else can be sourced. Your work won't be wasted, Primetime; quite the contrary, it's what we'll keep seeing as you validate and restore entries from the holding pen. This is clearly the best solution. 66.241.86.57 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiding the terms from general view would be wrong because most of them are correct. I actually took it upon myself to source all entries beginning with the letter a in February. 75% turned out to be correct and 11% of the unsourced entries were in foreign languages I don't know how to reference (e.g., Chinese). Much of the remainder I'm sure were just too rare or new. I might support removing the suspicious slurs to a holding pen, but removing them simply because they're unsourced would be wrong.

Also, I don't have enough time to source every entry in this article myself. I just copied the list into MS Word, and it took up 104 pages. Anyone advocating sourcing entries should help out, preferably by visiting a library and referencing some of the slang and foreign-language dictionaries there. Many libraries allow patrons to check out such dictionaries, and if they're requested through interlibrary loan (ILL), they can always be brought home. The vote we just endured showed that a majority of voters did not want the list removed, and I consider gutting 93% of the terms the same thing as deleting the list. Us inclusionists shouldn't be burdened with all of the research because we don't care as much about the fact that they're unsourced. It's almost not an issue for me. Think about it: Is there such a thing as an "incorrect" ethnic slur? They're not used because they're accurate. They're slurs regardless of whether they're used by one person or a thousand. An argument might be made for proof of worth of inclusion (notability), but that does not seem worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater over. That's why so many voters (me included) assumed that the list was under assault because of the slurs--not because of policy. Indeed, the "Glossary of anatomical terminology, definitions and abbreviations" page has never been nominated for deletion because of the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" or "Wikipedia: Citing sources" policies.--Primetime 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Not sourced" is not an option. WP:V is our core policy. No, the burden of sourcing should not be on "inclusionists" or "deletionists", the burden should be on the editors who add the material in the first place. That's what we're trying to get to. As we're sitting here talking new unsourced entries are being added, two in the last 24 hours. Who is going to source them? I think we should expect the editor putting it in to do so. But unless we've got a fully-sourced list then we can't refuse unsourced items. You seem to think that the lump in th bathwater is a baby. I think it's excrement and should be thrown out. -Will Beback 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be able to get consensus here on the talk page to allow no NEW unsourced slurs while we work on the backlog of EXISTING unsourced slurs. How about it? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

New talk-page look

AdriaDracis added some categories to this page and the instructions. They also archived many discussions. I fiddled with them a little bit. Does everyone like it? I'm not sure if everyone will follow the format, and the archiving could cut off comment on some discussions. I can still change it back, but the sooner we decide, the easier it will be.--Primetime 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a page organized quite like this. I'm not sure where I'd put a new section. Do what you think best. -Will Beback 10:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I object... it's massively more convenient to see "what's new" on the talk page by just checking from where you last left off and going "down". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll go ahead and restore the old layout. What about the archiving thing? I was thinking about at least keeping some old postings from a certain date on (e.g., October 2005), but it would be OK with me if we restored everything, also, as I've seen some discussions drag on for a very long time.--Primetime 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just undid the layout and moved the old discussions previously archived (i.e., before March 23, 2006) back into the archive.--Primetime 02:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Revise Title?

Rather than delete entries not specifically ethnic (for example relating to beliefs, religion, and activism), why don't we just change the overall category and title from List of ethnic slurs to List of slurs. That would simplify and consolidate alot of data and not require excessive deletion of knowledge and information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander (talk • contribs)

It seems that the title should be revised, if only for reasons of accuracy. I noticed "Greasemonkey" included as a slang term for an automotive mechanic, and I'm pretty sure automotive mechanic is not an ethnicity. Nor is homosexuality. I think dropping the word "ethnic" would be a possibility. Or we could split it into two articles... cull-out the non-ethnic slurs and move them to an article called "List of slurs" or "List of non-ethnic slurs." --redjac 16:10, 21 Apr 06 (EST)

Don't let the Politically Correct Thought Police Eliminate or Merge this article

Isn't it ironic that the very same people who want to eliminate or merge this article because "it has no value" or is "racist" are the very same people who scream "censorship" when Jerry Falwell or one of his ilk tries to suppress porn or rap.

Censorship is censorship is censorship. You don't like the word nigger. Too bad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.201 (talk) Note: this is an AOL IP

This article is not being recommended to be merged because it is racist, but because no one as established any guidelines as to the difference between a "racial slur" and a "phrase based on stereotypes."

For example, "nigger-rich" can be used against a person of any race, but is still located in this article rather than the later one. A "dutch bath" doesn't even describe a person. Rather, the term is simply derived from a stereotype. Unfortunately, an individual (Primetime, idiot) has decided it should remain in this article.

Jam packed 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

First, the title of the article you think this should be merged into is "List of common phrases based on stereotypes." However, much of these slurs are not "common". Also, can you please tell me what stereotype "alligator bait" is based on? Finally, if you had read the "List of common phrases based on stereotypes" page, you would have noticed the introduction stated it was for slurs in English only.

In any case, it appears as if consensus is against merging the lists, so I am removing your tag.

Primetime 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Do not call me an "idiot" because that it against Wikipedia's no personal attacks as well as civility policies.

You cannot justify a difference between the two articles. The way they're defined, they are EXACTLY the same. And don't try to talk about a word as subjective as "common". What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why is "chinese fire drill" on the phrases page when its own source admits it hasn't been used since the sixties, but "nigger-rich" is on this page when I heard it last week (and can be a slur against a person of any race -- srsly, you might as well include "dumbass").

And why is "paddy-wagon" and "model minority" over there but not over here? And "indian-giver" is here but not in the phrases article (especially when its own entry admits that it is NEVER actually used against indians now-a-days).

You need justification better than "because I decided so". And if no one can articulate a satisfactory explanation (that is, an explanation that does not result in a 90% crossover between the two articles) then they should be merged.

Jam packed 02:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

ps. And "consensus" does not mean "one other dude agrees with me because he completely misinterpreted the intent of merging".

Some slurs belong on both lists, as they are common, slurs, and based on stereotypes. I would not object if you copied and pasted them. I would object if you cut and pasted or deleted them. Also, a possible reason the person above questioned the motivation for the tagging is that when you claimed some slurs belonged elsewhere, you deleted them, and didn't even try to move them. It also looked suspicious when you tried to blank a part of the article without asking anyone if you could do it and even though the terms were neatly entered and well sourced.

As for consensus, there certainly is not any consensus for merging--and you would need that in order to merge the articles. There needs to be acceptance of changes on Wikipedia for them to take place. Your tag has been on the page for over a week now and no one has seconded your motion.--Primetime 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename... Yes, maybe. But the thing is: Most slurs are, like the youth culture they very often spring from, rather shortlived and localised by nature. What one person has experienced as very common in his state need not be known to another person, from the other side of the country, at all. It's a type of Slang, after all. So this article needs either to be deleted completely, because a slur is likely out of fashion before some linguist bothers to compile a new list anyway, or the list will be consistently and hopelessly out of date - or the wikipedian standards will simply need to be applied more loosely in this case, because there is no hard-and-fast resource on common slurs except the people who use them. --TheOtherStephan 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..hey random people...this is just an anonymous non-user (I'm too lazy to get an account) poking in with a comment...So it seems there's a big mess about all these slang lists and how they should be merged...I say, we make a compromise: We merge all of these lists into a "List of slang terms" and then have individual sub-articles that contain different types of these slang terms, with minimal room for overlapping words. If all of the lists were broken down, it would eliminate the sheer hugeness of the lists, as well as making the lists easier to navigate. _From a fellow Wikifreak_

Apache redux

I feel I need to raise this issue again. While the Apache entry is seemingly well-sourced, it is also selectively sourced. A glance at the Apache article proper and a brief amount of research indicates that the origin purported in this list is by no means definitive. Given that the origin is speculative, I am suggesting (again) that Apache be removed from this list. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we just remove the etymology? The "ruffian" sense used in France seems like a slur, and the "savage as an apache sense does, also.--Primetime 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bike Stealer

Is this for real? 71.236.33.191 02:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I know the "Nigga stole my bike" your-the-man-now-dog fad is correct.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} However, I don't know whether anyone calls other people "bike stealers".--Primetime 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This phrase has been around in the UK for a long time, though not actively used and generally in a sarcastic manner, mocking racists rather than black people. For instance, in a Viz Quiz determining how apt you are to be a policeman, one question was "What would you do if you saw a young black boy who had fallen off his bicycle?". The answer that scored most aptitude points was "Arrest the thieving cunt for stealing the bike in the first place".

Ajnabi

Its not really an ethnic slur because it means the same thing as foreigner, should it be removed or should foreigner be added ?

I'm not sure how useful foreigner would be. Ajnabii, on the other hand, would be useful for non-Arabic speakers who visit an Arab country and hear people saying "Ajnabii" near them. It can be a slur when used with adjectives like stupid, etc. So, I wouldn't stop you if you added foreigner to the list, although it might not be very useful.--Primetime 07:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

really necessary?

is this page necessary? i think not. if it MUST be kept then move it to wiktionary rather than it remaining here. i for one am in favour of deleting it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by petemwah (talk • contribs)

It has already been nominated for deletion three times, and the last debate closed three weeks ago. It was kept by a comfortable margin.--Primetime 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few of the keep votes were keep/transwikify, indicating substantial support for moving it. Many other votes were keep/clean up, indicating a dissatisfaction with the sourcing. I think the only objection I've heard from Primetime about moving it to Wiktionary is the effort involved, and the fact that editors there are "more prudish". -Will Beback 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I made quite a few more arguments than that. For a four-paragraph summary of my objections to moving it to Wiktionary, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_slurs. As for the sourcing, I'm working on that. I added nine sources just tonight. In case anyone is about to read my summary on the debate page, one thing I forgot to mention there is that the editors on Wiktionary would probably just delete the list. That's why I mentioned that they're "prudish". I was just being polite. They're jerks.--Primetime 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want it moved then why did you ask me to change my vote to "move", which I did in good faith. -Will Beback 00:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant that if I had the choice between moving it and deleting it, I would rather it be moved. I was willing to take a chance if I had to. I tried adding a few terms from this list a couple weeks ago with three citations each and they deleted them! They do whatever they want over there.--Primetime 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, since I last raised the issues of sources on March 27, by my count 51 new entries have been added, 7 entries have been removed, and 27 new footnotes have been added. So we're losing ground as far as sourcing goes. Again, the answer is to move the unsourced entry to a working page, and to require all new additons to be sourced. It's the only way we'll be able to get a list which adheres to Wikipedia policies. -Will Beback 00:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I had to return most of my slang dictionaries to the library a few weeks ago. That's why it's been slow lately. However, I requested an interlibrary loan for another slang dictionary (a very large one). If it doesn't come (I'm sure it will, though), I'll buy one through eBay.--Primetime 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's generous of you. I think that we need to set a deadline to move the unsourced material out. How about the end of May? -Will Beback 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think the "best" thing we could do would be put a moratorium on NEW unsourced material. I propose we just set a date in the very near future (I don't know, like April 19th at 00:01 UTC) and after that we agree to revert/delete any FURTHER unsourced material as we concentrate on sourcing the EXISTING material. Does that sound like the sort of thing that we could reach consensus on? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That'd work for me. -Will Beback 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Putting the article within context, it is socially acceptable. As a generalization, most slurs mentioned within the article are ethnic slurs and thus the topic should not be merged, nor edited in any form. We should forget our political and ethnocentristic thoughts behind and publish information which is generally correct! None of this scholarlary interference.

I think you meant SOME of this scholarly interference. Both sides agree that vandalism like "british bagler" must be removed (assuming the Irish don't really say that), and one way to determine if such alleged slurs are really used is to require some kind of reference. Art LaPella 17:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

i applaud you

those who voted to keep this page and not delete it. even if things are offensive, they need to be said. Skhatri2005 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain that to me, please? Why do offensive things need to be said? -Will Beback 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

actually, i should explain that better. i mean to say that wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of information, and should not be censored. Skhatri2005 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also not supposed to be a slang dictionary. This one project is not intended to contain all information. Simple definitions of words should be placed in our sister project, Wiktionary. -Will Beback 19:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone can be a sensitive girly bagel dog like you Will Beback

reference for 3/5

That's from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Amendment XIV, Section 2 superseded it. 20:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That could be. But what is the reference for this being a slur? Have you ever heard it used as a put down? I think it is doubtful. -Will Beback 23:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Squaw

Assuming this is a literal translation, why can't it also be a slur? It's at least politically incorrect, and so is most any kind of wordplay with somebody's heritage these days. I would certainly expect to get in trouble if I called a female Native American a "squaw". Art LaPella 19:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mocky

Check this one--I have heard this one BY JEWS used to describe foreigners (basically someone with a foreign accent)

Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged says it's "usually used disparagingly". Here's some quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary, also:

1943 I. Wolfert Tucker’s People xxix. 481 Love thy neighbor if he’s not..a mockie or a slicked-up greaseball from the Argentine.

1931 D. Runyon in Collier’s 10 Jan. 10/3, I consider this..disrespectful, like calling Jewish people mockies, or Heebs, or geese.

--Primetime 06:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This could be split in two.

It is way too long. I tried to split it but was reverted. --Quentin Smith 08:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I usually let others decide such issues, but you could each do a better job of explaining yourselves. First, here are three relevant Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages#…but don't be reckless!, and Wikipedia:Article size. The article size here is 251 KB, way over the 32 KB limit in the policy, but that limit hasn't been updated in years and is routinely exceeded. This is still one of Wikipedia's longest articles. It takes longer to download, especially when Wikipedia's servers slow down, and it presumably overloads the servers further (I don't know for sure). Primetime says "it makes it easier to reference terms if they're all on one page" - does that mean adding references (citations) for each term? If so, why is it any harder to add a reference to a sublist than to one big list? It does add a level of complexity to make a user understand that he has to choose between A-M or N-Z. Making 26 subpages, one for each letter, would simplify that choice while staying under 32 KB. But realistically, more people may read or skim the whole article rather than use it like a dictionary, which argues for one big list. So I'm not declaring for or against, just explaining both sides. Art LaPella 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We can't leave it like it is - people have made edits to each sublist without editing the big list to match. Art LaPella 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that making people reference the main table of contents to find the letter they want, then visit the subpage is unecessarily complicated. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:Article size: "For stylistic purposes, external links, further reading, references, see also, and similar sections; tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting should not be counted toward an article's total size since the point is to limit readable prose." Another reason the page says the guideline came about was to accommodate "now rarely used browsers". All respectable online encyclopedia articles (e.g., from World Book Online, Encyclopaedia Britannica Premium Service, Encyclopedia Americana Online, or Encarta) use a single table of contents. You can click once and get there, or click to view the full article and scroll down. Articles in full view are up to 1.9 MB in size (e.g., Encyclopedia Americana, "United States of America"). Also, the fact that this is one of the largest encyclopedia entries on Wikipedia is a matter of pride for me and possibly others. It makes my contributions feel more worthwhile and helps motivate me. I hope that someday our list will be at the top of the list of largest articles so many more people can see it. Finally, there should always be a single reference list for any work or article. Initial references are always given fully, but subsequent items are abbreviated. This saves the writer time. He can write Ibid. or the author's name followed by "op. cit." instead of "Tim Johnson, A Dict . . ." I might consider breaking it up if it gets to 500kb or so, though.--Primetime 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. If Quentin Smith has nothing to add, we can delete both half-articles using Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Art LaPella 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the following categories of terms could be removed to separate lists:

(1) terms based on other languages that are not used in English (e.g. the Hungarian word for "Rumanian").

(2) terms that are one-time creations (often weak attempts at humor) but never gained any currency. (Is "spink" really a live word?)

(3) terms that are archaic (may have been in active use at one point, but have fallen out of use).

06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)WikiFlier

What would that accomplish? It seems to me like that would make the terms harder to find. "List of Hungarian ethnic slurs" seems like a much-less intuitive name than "List of ethnic slurs". It also makes contributions seem more worthwhile if they are posted to a larger list than if they are posted to an obscure one that no one ever reads.--Primetime 06:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article on "Hungarisn ethnic slurs" should appear, if anywhere, in the Hungarian Wikipedia. We are utterly unable to provide verifiablity for foriegn-language slang words, except the most famous and well-sourced. The matter of archaic terms is tricky, since those are the ones most likely to be sourced. We could split them out, but how do we decide which qualify? As for one-time creations, how do we tell? Again, as I've said before, the only answer is to clear out the unsourced material and require all future contributions to be realiably sourced. -Will Beback 08:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian ethnic slurs translated into English should appear in the Hungarian Wikipedia? The vast majority of foreign terms can be sourced because there are some very large English-to-foreign-language dictionaries available. Many are available for check-out from libraries. For example, I was able to take home my 2140-page Spanish dictionary from 2003. That's pretty up-to-date as well, by the way. That dictionary has quite a few Spanish slang terms in it. The main limitation on sourcing is the type of alphabet the language uses. I have a hard time distinguishing letters in certain languages like Arabic or Hindi and matching them to the Latinized spellings used in the list. You raised the issue of sourcing in mid-January. Thus, in three-and-a-half months, we've sourced 241 slurs. That's pretty-good progress. I estimate that before the year is up, we will know which terms can be sourced and which cannot. There's no reason to push so hard so soon.--Primetime 09:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Blackfella

Blackfella is not an ethnic slur in Australia. It is used by black people to describe themselves, and good naturedly by whitefellas. mgekelly 05:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)