Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs (0th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of ethnic slurs[edit]

List of ethnic slurs was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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.

Archive of previous VFD

This page is unencyclopedic and has become a lightning rod for bigoted editors to have a playground to list as many dubious terms as they can. I can't see any value this page adds to the Wikipedia community and could only be hurtful and offensive. There was a previous vote on this page in September and the consenus was to keep, but I request a new vote and discussion. Jewbacca 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Jewbacca 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, highly informative and as encyclopedic as almost any of our gajillion other lists. The page is a jerk magnet and the content is (inevitably) offensive, but these are not reasons to delete it: shall we get rid of every page with offensive content and/or antisocial editors? —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Why should this page be kept? (I know that's not the burden on this page, but I can't think of how it makes Wikipedia better) Jewbacca 08:20, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Already explained: the page is informative and lists are a firmly-established part of Wikipedia. A side benefit is that this page (and the numerous redirects to it) help prevent the constant creation and recreation of miniscule articles devoted to individual slurs—as the page's sheer size (over 70k) may have told you, people like to write about these things. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • So the benefit of having a list of ethnic slurs is that it consolidates all ethnic slurs in one place, people like to write about these things, and after all it's informative and lists are part of Wikipedia? Solid justification for having this trash among us. Jewbacca 08:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
          • Ethnic slurs, as much as they suck, are part of the world; why should we not document them in a coherent, neutral fashion? Genocide is much more offensive than nasty names, but we have a great deal of information on it, including (yes) a big-ass list. This page is far from perfect, but that's no reason to delete it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Genocides are a part of history, these ethnic slurs are not. What does someone learn by reading this article? That he can call an effeminate black man a "Chimp-Pansie"? -- CPS 10:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Assuming the list is accurate, the reader would learn that someone has already used the slur in question. Slurs contribute to the forces that cause genocides. I am afraid that some terms on the list may have been made up. Personaly, I find it unbelievable that anyone in the US would put together a term like "Chimp-Pansie". Fraudulent entries aside, naming a term a slur exposes it to sunlight. -Willmcw 02:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Periodically, you and your friends try to get something deleted that you don't approve of. Unfortunately for you, "I don't like it" is not a reason for deleting a page. I don't like it either but I'll fight for what I don't like as hard as what I do. We call that the NPOV way, dude. Why not try it for once? Keep this.Dr Zen 08:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this, it is highly informative. Naturally it is offensive, it is a list of racial slurs, but as it does nothing to condone their use (only lists them) it is nothing more than a useful reference document. You wouldn't want to delete the page on Neo-Nazism either, even though that offends a lot of people. Brother Dysk 08:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Y'know, the problem with lists like these has been clearly demonstrated by the anti-semitic troll sockpuppet Wiesenthaler. Take a look at WP:VIP#User:Wiesenthaler to get a sense of what he's trying to do. At any rate, I agree: this list has no value unless it is carefully vetted to make sure that what is listed is actual ethnic slurs in common enough usage to warrant encyclopedic treatment. I mean, I could make up something like "Kinkajews: jews that wear Afros" and use it once to insult a friend, and then enter it on the list as an ethnic slur. Is someone going to go and check out every entry on this list for its actual usage? Is someone going to make sure that the definitions themselves are not ethnic slurs? I'm sure not going to, and unless some person or persons wishes to take on this task, I suggest delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't necessarily audit the entire list (being non-American and non-British, my knowledge of racial slurs is not complete, and Google isn't the most useful thing ever for slang that rarely goes to print) but I'll be doing my bit to monitor this - I suggest others do the same - add it to your watchlist, and whenever there's an addition, check it's acceptable. Brother Dysk 09:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Very well, though I can think of a million better uses for our editors' efforts than verifying additions to a list of ethnic slurs. Jewbacca 10:02, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
        • How awfully subjective. If I'm bored, and all other articles on my watchlist are inactive, then should I pick up my guitar or audit racial slurs. What's more useful to the Wikipedia project? Brother Dysk 12:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thoroughly contemptible. Keep anyway. --Korath会話 08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but as at Republican/Democrat In Name Only we should require citation for every reference. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously, but sadly. No censorship here, please. No need for citation for every entry - not a requirement for other articles, and rather unreasonable. Dan100 09:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep.. Xezbeth 09:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I hate the fact that there are ethnic slurs, however this is the only place I can think of that can list them in a neutral fashion. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is a wonderful academic journal called Maledicta that is entirely about how people insult one another. I don't read it regularly, but they have done some fascinating comparative articles on this sort of thing -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Content is offensive by nature, but that is no reason not to document it. (Groaning while placing this one on my watchlist). SWAdair | Talk 10:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the list is suffering from too many not widely used words, they should be weeded out. It would be a pity to deprive people of such a potentially useful list. Ливай | ☺ 10:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep otherwise the practise is clear censorship.
  • Keep. Obviously. Inherently encyclopedic, useful and informative.--Centauri 11:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: As has been stated before, "I don't like it" is not reason enough for deletion. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly good page which has already survived a vote once. The apparent allegation that anyone who adds anything to it must be racist themselves is insulting and bigoted in the extreme. It is not racist to record a fact, and the sad fact is that people use these terms. -- Necrothesp 11:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: DCEdwards1966 14:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only problem is that this list is that it's a target for vandalism but so are th births/deaths sections of the year articles. Should we remove them too? Jeltz talk 16:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list of words per se probably doesn't make an encyclopedia article. If wiktionary deals in lists you could transwiki, I suppose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Clearly encyclopedic, we are not the morality police of the internet. GRider\talk 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Mirv's reasoning is sound. Wikipedia is to reflect the real world, not the way we wish the real world was. If we didn't have a "List of" article, we'd just have individual articles on each slur, and even if you volunteered to watch vigilantly and VfD each one as it was created, it wouldn't be a stable situation -- so that's reason to Keep even besides the fact that yes, it is a fact of life, albeit an unpretty one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's ironic that practically the only editor who wants to delete this page chose an ethnic slur for his User name. --Wiesenthaler 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Voting one time only)
    • The above user is an admitted sockpuppet. This vote should not be counted per Wikipedia:Sockpuppets despite the dubious guarantee of "Voting one time only" Jewbacca 03:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia policy requires that statements be referenced, yet not a single one of these entries lists a source. This means that racist editors could add a list of slurs they had invented, or had heard a few friends use. It is unencylopedic to have an article explaining that "gorilla" is a big, fat black person; "goatfucker" is a word for Muslims; and "German candle" and "German mitt" are terms for Jews. The publication of material like this encourages racial hatred and debases Wikipedia. Slim 19:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
The study of ethnic slurs, or ethnophaulisms, is a valid academic field even if the content offends you. See [1] [2] [3]. There are whole dictionaries on this subject; Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Oxford Dictionary of Slang, The Color of Words: An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias, Dictionary of Contemporary Slang, Dictionary of Euphemisms, American Thesaurus of Slang, etc. To claim that this subject is not encyclopedic is absurd. --Wiesenthaler 20:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If none of the entries have sources, then why can't we just go through them and validate the ones in current use and delete the others, then make it clear that new entries are to be provided with sources? It may be a lot of work, but it doesn't make sense to discard all of them and the very idea of having a list like this just because there's a possibility some racist could add made-up words. Ethnic slurs are a reality, like it or not, and I don't see a reason not to have an article showing what slurs in actual widespread use and to whom they refer. Ливай | ☺ 20:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. This page would be a magnet for creative bigots to add new ethnic slurs and give them a ready-made "source". A2Kafir 21:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and a magnet for bigots. Jayjg 21:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful to dweebs. Wyss 21:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful and encyclopedic. --SPUI 04:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. Some Wikipedians shouldn't be so thin skinned. Wikipedia is not about pandering to "political correctness". Megan1967 23:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep offensive, yes. But I don't think that is a reason for removal. -Ld | talk 00:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Unfortunately Wikipedia attracts a few people who want to write offensive but valid articles. Putting them all together in a list is the best way to defuse the issues they give rise to; it makes them all look stupid. ping 03:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an encyclopedic topic. Acknowledging their existence and explaining them does not imply condoning their use. (Where else are you going to go to look up information of this nature without getting your butt kicked just for asking, anyway?) Mindspillage 04:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Isn't one unsuccessful VfD enough? The arguments put forth for deleting this article don't really justify such action. We should delete it because it's a troll magnet? But so are a lot of articles. The main page would be a troll magnet if it weren't protected. As for "what value this article adds to the Wikipedia community," "the value it adds" is that it's a source for research into this subject. The ideal situation would be that we wouldn't have this conversation because there were no ethnic slurs. But, in the real world, ethnic slurs are a reprehensible part of life. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be morally uplifting. Some subjects are unpleasant and even offensive, but if Wikipedia is going to be a good, NPOV source of information, it must deal with them. BTW: the last VfD failed by a pretty wide margin; right now, that seems to be happening again. --Szyslak 05:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This really looks like a lightly reworked copyvio. Isn't this basically the Racial Slur Database (cache) ? iMeowbot~Mw 06:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) (clarifying: meaning in its current form. The original 2003 Wikipedia version looks original.)
  • Keep much as I disapprove of its regrettable contents. Sjc 06:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. But as iMeowbot points out, editors must avoid the temptation to make it a rewritten mirror of the www.rsdb.org Racial Slur Database. Another danger with this kind of list is that editors will make up slurs to add, so having additional citations should an expectation for editors. Overall, the list right now needs work but is about as good as can be expected. -Willmcw 08:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I do hope that everyone who votes keep is willing to spend a little time maintaining the page. As some have pointed out, it is a natural POV magnet. (or maybe sacrificial anode) Though I voted keep, and have done some maintenance, don't be surprised if I come back in a month or two asking for VfD, tired of the constant weeding and reverting. -Willmcw 08:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page has no encyclopedic value. Kids aren't out there doing research projects on ethnic slurs. The internet is already filled with racist websites and if people are that desperate for a list of ethnic slurs they can find them there. Anyone buying into this garbage about Wikipedia being an unlimited, neutral source of information needs to get a grip on reality. Wikipedia is made by people and it is read by people. Articles like this are just offensive and serve no purpose. -- CPS 10:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • When I was in middle school, I wrote a paper on race relations where I discussed the issue of racial slurs. I asked my dad if he knew any I didn't IIRC. But I digress. Again, not every article on Wikipedia has to be morally uplifting. --Szyslak 06:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --fvw* 14:30, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
  • Keep, really informative, much of this information is not easy to find elsewhere. -- Note: 24.137.84.198 only has ten edits so far.
  • Weak Keep. Very weak. But let's keep some perspective here: This article was listed for deletion by user 'Jewbacca.' Does nobody else find this ironic? Auto movil 02:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes it is ironic. I've noticed going through the history page that some ethnic slurs that were there last year are now missing. Looks like some user/s have been doing their own creative "deletions" :) Megan1967 03:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. When browsing the internet/wikipedia you sometimes stumble upon seedy webpages with ethnic slurs in them. Not everyone knows those slurs, so for understanding the text you're reading it is useful to have a reference list with ethnic slurs. saturnight 16:28, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Keep". Informative, as these terms have been prevalent throughout history and continue to be. It is important to know them to understand the cultures that produce these terms, as lamentable as the terms are. -- this edit by 209.179.222.31, six of whose seven edits are to the article or to this vote.
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 18:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this page supports racism. 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) -- This unsigned edit by 84.112.11.114, whose two edits are to the article and to this page. The edit was also made at 00:28, 25 Dec 2004, not 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (simultaneous with the creation of the VfD) as claimed.
  • "delete" Although this page gives information, there is no use, or need for it. what is the point of having it? If anything, it simply arms racists with more ammunition. It also humiliates jus about every race there is. This page serves as a reminder of racism in the world. We would be better off without it. -- Note: This is 82.32.26.215's only edit.
  • Keep the arguments against this little page are hilarious. Scary but hilarious. Actually, as a kike myself I am more offended by your arguments against this page then by any of the words on here! Since when is a mature non-condoning presentation of knowledge offensive? Are you suggesting Jewbacca that we burn all history books that mention the word "holoucost"? No. Do you know why? Because to not chronicle them is to deny there existance. And Jewbacca, I think we can both agree that listening to people who deny the holoucost happened is a million times worse than learning about it. Furthermore this is not in the least bit racist, and the author takes a much mature attitude towards the whole thing than you appear to be doing. If this were racist I would want it taken down. It's not. What is offensive however is your suggestions of censorship. Thats just my opinion. -- Note: This is 216.175.85.162's only edit.
  • Keep I would understand a movement for deletion if the terms listed here were used derisively on the page itself. However, the terms are listed in an objective way: the contributors have not written that they agree with them, or that they encourage their use. It's current form is informative, not derogatory, and it should be kept that way.>--Jordanperryuk 19:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- Note: Jordanperryuk has four edits, two of which are to this VfD.
  • I've already voted, but I spent another few minutes looking at the page, and at Jewbacca's user page, and it would seem that we're dealing with a right-wing zealot whose most avid contribution to Wikipedia is in policing articles for content he doesn't agree with. My own work here is mainly in writing (or rewriting) articles from the ground up, which leads me to take a strong position on unwarranted deletions, and sometimes on users who appoint themselves as deletors or censors. I'm modifying my vote to Strong Keep. The article is flawed in that it seems, at least in part, to be a repository for invented ethnic slurs, but there's nothing inherently wrong with having such an article here. I think there is something inherently wrong with having such an article bounced into VfD by an activist user. Auto movil 05:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, useful and informative. As long as the terms are in use , however regrettable this may be, indexing and documenting them from a NPOV perspective has indisputable value.
  • Keep. Odious, but legit. Needs diligent monitoring not deletion Icundell 00:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand by adding references. Ethnic slurs are real and notable: people have gone to jail or worse because of them. Compare with list of fictional curse words, which are not even real, yet we're not voting on whether to delete that article. --MarkSweep 06:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons MarkSweep has stated. Provide sources for the ones where possible, monitor carefully, but it has every reason to be here even though the subject matter is offensive to some. -- asciident 16:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the subject matter is offensive to some like Asciident has mentioned, it provides sources for the slurs mentioned and what they mean. Wikipedia articles are here for a reason (vandalism included, but most vandalism is reverted within 5 minutes.) Scott Gall 20:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Certainly useful information, especially if it includes information on origins of words, etc, that aren't long enough for their own articles. Just because something offends someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. I think our society needs a slightly higher tolerance for being offended. Besides, the only way to deal with things like this is to walk headlong into them, not hide, censor, Bowdlerize them, or pretend they don't exist. That will just make it worse. - Omegatron 02:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, useful and informative. Hiding our eyes from racism and "ethnicism" solves nothing. One must know the enemy to fight it.MasterJ 13:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) Note: this vote was actually made by 155.84.57.253.
  • Keep If someone thinks it should be deleted, they should instead rework the article up to encyclopedic standards. There is no reason we can't have a list of ethnic slurs. They exist, people use them, they have a history, and we are neutral. --Alterego 04:53, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree it's a sad page but closing our eyes to reality is the real unencyclopedic approach. Anyway, the huge variety of this article shows that derogatory terms against "the other one" go in all possible directions in Homo sapiens. It shows a lot about what we are as a global community. - Piolinfax 12:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    It's good for people who use them to see that there are ones about them, too. - Omegatron 14:26, Dec 30, 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 on 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/List_of_ethnic_slurs_(0th_nomination)&oldid=1138009678"