Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engrish

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engrish[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep

Moderator's rant[edit]

Obviously the page will remain, but out of 20 some comments, two or three were constructive while the rest of you, I assume some of the more enlightened members of the wiki community, were abusive. I'm torn: on one hand suppose I should do a mokusatsu but then again, I should tell off a few of you.

  1. If you were born in America or Canada or Australia, what merit have you in speaking English correctly? The article is derogatary and insulting to people the world over studying English as DISTANT second language. But by all means, laugh and insult if it's entertaining you, even if it is an encyclopedic context, rather than a comedic one.
  2. My 15 years here mean that I see the level English here as half full rather than half empty. I mentioned it because someone questioned my familiarity with the article and the topic. This was an ad hominem argument, so I gave an ad hominem defense.
  3. Someone had the bad taste to compare my vote for deletion to one for deleting a page on Jews. It's worth repeating this to make sure people get a grip on it. I hope no further comment is needed, though.

End of wiki rant.Vincent 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Well spoken, Vincent. A big sumimasen for all the abuse thrown at you by my fellow native speakers. Like Andrewa, I vote keep but also see some merit in the reasons for your listing, and would encourage you to participate in the discussion at Talk:Engrish#Is it derogatory? and to edit the article to better take into account the fact that this term is considered offensive by some. I personally don't feel that the article portrays Asians or Japanese as inherently prone to make mistakes in other languages, but if you do, you could probably improve it considerably by removing such implications. Thanks for your patience. Fpahl 16:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vincent, I was one of those who made a joke, and I'm sorry. There were ad hominem statements directed towards you, and they were inappropriate. My vote still stands, but you were not treated very nicely here, and I am one of those to blame, I am very sorry. func(talk) 01:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vincent, like it or not, it is funny. And I bet in every nation 66.7% of population laughs and frowns and becomes pissed off when a foreigner distorts their speech. This is an objedctive fact, and encyclopedia has to portray this. YOu don't like comparison with Jews? How about prostitution and manga? I bet much more people are offended by thse than by the article under discussion. Relaxen and watchen blinkenlights. (Sorry, I meant blinkenlights) :-) Mikkalai 03:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I would say that coming from an English-speaking country and having good English is something to be proud of, even though it should be commonplace. My job involves dealing with letters from the British public, and quite frankly the standard of written English is appalling. Apparently, the average reading age in the UK is 9.0 and falling. I would also challenge you to point out something specific in the article that is derogatory, pejorative, or otherwise offensive?
  • 15 years in Japan does not in itself qualify you as an expert on the sociolinguistics of Japan. Unfortunately, you responded to ad hominem statements with an attempt to foster honour by association. With logical fallacies, just in the real world, two wrongs often do not make a right - your case was no better proved.
  • It's an extreme comparison, but a valid one. The argument was that your nomination was of the general form "I find X offensive, so pages about X should be deleted." - a form which has been tested on VfD many times, and has the rather impressive record of "played n, lost n". The counterargument (which wins 100% of the time) is "I find X offensive, so we should document X for people to see themselves why it might have offended people."

In general, you've blown everything out of proportion. You proposed a VfD, and it got slated, and heavily at that. It's something that happens all the time, and you have to live with it and move on. Chris 04:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


It was I that made the Jews argument. As Chris eloquently put it, it was an analogy and an effective one that made a point. I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way-- I could have as easily said that Doughnuts offended me. The point was not to do one of those ridiculous Nazi/Hitler/Jew/Holocaust ad hominem comparisons that people are so fond of doing to really insult a position. So I apologise for any over-bluntness, I agree that the VfD arguments have been somewhat overrude. Nevertheless, the environment of the debate does not change the facts and position of it.

I'd like to make an additional point, by the way. Before I saw this VfD I had never thought of or heard the word Engrish used as if it were in any way derogatory to anyway, nor would I have imagined it. And to reiterate a point I've made before, it doesn't matter anyway. Vincent brings up how it doesn't have significance in Japan or how some people find that it is nonsense and so on and so forth. But none of that has relevance. Unless it is patent nonsense, there is no justification to say there should not be any article on the topic. Clearly the existence of this debate is (out of much) evidence of how well-known the word is.

Finally, the article itself might be somewhat charged or NPOV or something. In the future, if there's a problem with some wording in an article, please hit the edit button or go on the talk thread if you're unsure how to edit, rather than VfDing it.

Not Wikipedia Administrator 01:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Votes[edit]

Keep - Enough said. --81.77.136.134 21:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Frankly, IMO it is a ridiculous nomination. A large, informative aticle, with plenty of backlinks, and last but not the least, no explanation of the nomination. Mikkalai 04:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's because I was writing the nomination when you stumpled on the page. Ridiculous, eh? Vincent 07:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wonder who nominated this. "Engrish" is a well known term with well known ideas behind it, all well described in the informative article. There's no "theory" involved. Is this just being deleted because the deleter isn't familiar with the article? I could submit Quantum mechanics to VfD too just because I don't understand or am interested in it, but I don't. Why? Because I'm not an arse pirate. 207.99.6.125 04:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I nominated it, thank you. I live in Japan, and it's a mocking, derisive, condescending term. OK as a (lame) joke. Do you think it's used in serious discussions? It's at best light hearted, but does not merit its own article, IMHO.Vincent 07:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point of order, Mr. Chairman, (i.e. Vincent} point of order. I don't believe I see a proper nomination giving a reason for deletion. Do I? If not, there should be one... please supply it. Just add it at the very top, above all the chitchat. Your signature will show the chronology if anybody cares. You can delete this comment after you've added it. Maybe you think it's obvious from your comments above, but let's have it on the record. It does not merit an article because... why? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. Indeed, instructions for VfD say that the nomination has to have a reason. It also says that all votes must be signed and indicate a reason. For my money (and that's not much), a signature only vote is as invalid as an unsigned one, and a nomination without justification is out. (I am too conflicted about this article to vote.) Geogre 17:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I am familiar with the article, and I've lived in Japan 15 years. And while I don't disagree with everything the article says, I think it's a rant, not an encyclopedic article. Vincent 04:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Rant? No, it's most definitely not a rant. Keep. -- Necrothesp 13:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If it is a rant, why not just fic it? This is the Wikipedia. -Litefantastic 12:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You've lived in Japan 15 years. Therefore (the reasoning goes) you of all should know whether it's a well known term or not. Except wait, this isn't the jp.wikipedia. So that's irrelevant. It is in fact a term of wide use, for several meanings of the word wide. Wikipedia could restrict itself to topics that are listed in the dictionary, except wait, that's idiotic. This is the English wikipedia and as such that's the basis. Anyway, such a piddling basis for deleting an article like Engrish is insufficient.
      • This is an encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia for English. There's a difference. That being said, the subject is worthy of an encyclopedia entry, so Keep. --Improv 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Engrish" is not a generally received term for bad English. Wikipedia may be a place to archive a variety of theories and scholarly pursuits, if they already exist elsewhere, but it is not a forum to 'develop' them. The term used is simply "bad English". Vincent 04:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Engrish" has gone beyond merely being "bad English". It is a part of Internet, Usenet, IRC, and video gaming culture. The article is not developing anything, it is explaining the phenomenon. I thought perhaps you were going to suggest that it was a racist term, but in fact, many Japanese are aware of the iconic nature of Engrish in primarily English-speaking countries, and they don't tend to be all that bothered by it. func(talk) 04:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No case to answer, term is well enough known. - RedWordSmith 04:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely keep. There's even a hilariously funny website at [1]. This is no neologism but an accepted term. - Lucky 6.9 04:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Of course keep. RickK 05:04, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. IMO not a neologism; I've heard it for years. Timbo 05:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jayjg 05:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I doubt it needs saying: keep. TPK 05:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's not just a term for general bad english of any type, it has more specific meanings. It is generally a known term with the possibility of an article talking about many aspects of it's usage. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. –Andre (talk) 08:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: this is a rather well known term. [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 08:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obvious keep. The term is currently in widespread use in the U. S. It may well be, or be perceived as, mildly derogatory, insensitive but, if so the article can state that. It looks to me like a good article, but if people see POV issues with it or inaccuracies, they can be corrected. It's a perfectly legitimate phenomenon. The word is not in AHD4 but I would not be surprised to see it in the next edition. 102,000 Google hits! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Others have said it all. (How many keeps do we need before this listing can be rescinded?) -- Hadal 15:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Q: Why was placed on VFD?
A: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Q: How should Zig vote?
A: Keep... for great justice!
Q: What you say ?!
A: All your vote are belong to us
(this is how I should have voted the first time ;-) ) func(talk) 16:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I doubt you need yet another, but what the heck. Keep. Antandrus 17:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have we achieved consensus yet? Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding me? Keep. Pyrop 19:26, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • So to sum up one single person (Vincent) thinks that the article should be deleted, not for any specificly thought out reason that was mentioned, but because it is "derogatory" and so forth. Give me a moment. I'm going to go submit Abortion to VfD. And Jew. I really don't like Jews! Not Wikipedia Administrator 19:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Informative, well written article on a subject that might be insulting to some, but I don;t think that is a reason for deletion, is it not?

--Martin Wisse 19:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, for many reasons already listed above. But I also think the listing here was reasonable, and that Vincent has shown commendable grace and forebearance in his replies. Andrewa 19:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic. The phenomenon of "Engrish" is pretty well-known net-wide. The article IMO does a reasonably good job of documenting it without endorsing it. Needs work, but so do a lot of articles. — Gwalla | Talk 21:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, just in case someone makes a few dozen socks and a few dozen delete votes. Livajo 21:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't approve of the use of the term either, I view it as quite linguistically uninformed. Regardless, however, it has a widespread currency. Lacrimosus 23:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What you say !? Keep, for sure, widely used term, and a good article. —Stormie 01:48, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am say Kep. "Japanglish" just as goofy. Denni☯
  • Keep. Can we speedy-keep it yet? --Yath 04:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - in widespread use. -Litefantastic 12:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • All your Keep are belong to us. Average Earthman 13:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is some nitwit going to outlaw Franglais next? --Phil | Talk 13:42, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm astonished that anyone would nominate this for deletion. I think what we have here is a case of one crusty deletionist who thinks he can delete any article just because it upsets him or because he doesn't like the font or some other asinine reason. Binadot 15:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Engrish"? "Chingrish"? This is so wrong. I swear it must have been written as a joke and it's a joke to keep it. - Tεxτurε 17:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think it's a deplorable term, being, as I said linguistically uninformed. Nevertheless, the term itself has been around for decades, descriptions working their way into (eg.) my copy of The Story of English. Of course it's a joke, and a mildly offensive one at that. Still, its spread is inescabable, and its prominence is very high. Lacrimosus 22:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - 99,500 hits for engrish on Google. Nuff said. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - What's wrong with educating people on what their English should NOT be like? Plus, some people might not understand what Engrish is, and will check here to see what it is. Evice 23:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to say, the term is in very widespread use, and I'm not aware of a body of Asians who are incensed by it. The term refers to not just bad English, but a specific sort of bad English, and one that is especially found in advertising, published materials, and other non-casual works, and especially when the bad translation results in a humorous entendre. Therefore equating it with "bad english" is inadequate. As the interest in the phenomenona is itself a cultural phenomenon, it is notable, so that's no argument. Basically -- this is a widely used term, that deserves explanation, and the article does a suitable job of NPOVing the phenomenon, the interest in it, and its cultural popularity. So, uh, keep. - KeithTyler 23:23, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I almost feel like someone should put this article up on the ja: VFD, so it isn't just en: editors determining the suitability. - KeithTyler
    I'd love to see the result from a non-english wiki. Perhaps we'd learn something. - Tεxτurε 00:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • K Accurate article from NPOV describing an actual cultural phenomenon. Chris 00:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This word has currency.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 07:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Question for Talk:Engrish: is the use of the term "Engrish" in fact a slur or offensive? I was thinking that perhaps the article needs to be NPOVed to reflect this, but was rather surprised by the small number of Google hits for Engrish slur offensive (29) and Engrish slur derogatory (9). Even "Engrish derogatory" gets only 352 and most of them are not directly relevant. If the "Engrish" is regarded as derogatory or insensitive or insulting, the article should say this—but in fact a very quick look didn't turn up any obvious evidence of this. Please continue discussion at Talk:Engrish#Is it derogatory? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Given the currency and popularity of the term (and length of and amount of work in the article), and given that there is no shortage of Asians on the Internet, and given that there is no movement against the use of this term by the allegedly wronged party that even the proponents of deletion (including one who has lived in Japan for 15 years!) can show evidence of, I don't consider any argument on the offensiveness of this term valid unless it comes from a native Japanese person and speaker. Even the submitter admitted that he did not totally disagree with what is said in the article. However, instead of cleanup, he submitted for deletion -- even though by his own admission he believes the article is partially valid! In itself, that practice IMO approaches abuse of VFD. - KeithTyler 17:13, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC) (Note: Some previous statements alleging deletion of comments have been retracted as they were incorrect. - KeithTyler)
  • Keep, obviously. James F. (talk) 22:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, like it or not it is a noteworthy phrase in widespread use (100,000+ google hits), and censorship isn't going to make it go away. StuartH 13:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable phrase. Mackensen 05:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Do I dare say ummm, keep? Kim Bruning 17:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure of why this is happening, but whoever thinks this article should be deleted clearly doesn't understand what it is really about. If anyone thinks the arguments got a little "racist" at some point in the article, that part should be edited and turned milder. Deleting the entire thing sounds just way too extreme. – Kaonashi 04:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As mentioned above, the phrase is part of the lexicon and needs to be explained. If anything offensive is in the article, it can be reworded, but the term is in widespread use. If the term is considered offensive, then this needs to be included in the article. 23skidoo 08:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Engrish&oldid=1137829296"