Talk:Nigger

missing links

some of these are links that are no longer active 71.223.65.91 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Should this talk page be permanently semi-protected?

Per a request at RFPP I have semi-protected this page for two weeks. I am tempted to suggest permanent semi-protection for this talk page. Over the past several months it appears that almost every edit by an IP has been reverted as unconstructive, and about a third of them had to be revdel'ed. I know we are reluctant to protect talk pages because it prevents all input from unregistered users, but I think it may be called for in this case. On the other hand, two reasonable edits by IPs appear above this note. Is that enough to keep the page open? @Callanecc, Alexf, GeneralNotability, Lofty abyss, and Acroterion: Looking for opinions from other admins who have recently been active on this page. MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue isn't it. My gut says permanent protection because of the subject and effect of the worst of the unconstructive edits. But if we effectively block IPs from contributing to this article, we're countering a cornerstone of the project. Perhaps a solution might be to place a header and edit-notice describing how "because of the situation..." IP editors wishing to request edits should make the request on their own talk page, using {{help me}} to call attention to their request? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree with @Fred Gandt:. Gut says semi-protect, but we must make every effort to keep it open. A request-in would work better. An EditNotice saying that due to the subject matter, this is a one-vandal edit, immediate block situation, would work for me. If that does not deter and reduce vandalism/racism, then we would have to take stronger measures. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! And I agree that it's something we are always reluctant to do. The "header and edit notice" is a great idea except that in my experience, such notices are always ignored. Is there any way to make them effective? Are you suggesting that we semi-protect the page in connection with the "put it on your own talk page and say help me" notice? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

CSS animation can certainly get some attention if used to pulse a colored background or border, but is that something we'd ever want to do? I don't suggest this as a joke BTW; movement is more likely to get attention than color alone; the best camouflage is keeping still. As noted; editors with ill intent don't seem to generally care less if there's a warning before, during or after the offense, so we'd only be annoying the good guys by amping-up the visual alarm. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

An alternative to warnings might be appealing to better natures with reminders and education. Explaining clearly and concisely that bigotry and hatred are damaging and degrading to individuals and society as a whole could give pause to some who were perhaps just taking a chance, and not really thinking about what they were doing. It would likely not stop anyone with an axe to grind and could, by them, be seen as a goad. Just a thought. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

CSS is not a good idea. I added a prominent edit notice It is now basically like 1RR. Any vandalism or racism will lead to an immediate block. The page can and will be semi-protected again if needed, but we try to keep at least the Talk Page open if possible. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I now think pending changes is a better safeguard, allowing IP users to make legitimate edits that can be checked by other users, while keeping vandalism hidden from logged-out users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the attitude that bigoted remarks should bring a block, so I've just been blocking them as they appear. It's not like they need to be warned that they're doing something wrong - they know that already. I've not seen pending changes used on a talkpage, but that might be worth a try. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the pending changes suggestion; an effective way to maintain ability to contribute while putting up a technical wall against some negative effects. In addition to the new notice and thereby policy, we might see a real improvement. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt and LaundryPizza03: Unfortunately, pending changes is not configured to be used on talk pages so isn't an option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with indefinite semi-protection of this talk page. I don't think an edit notice threatening blocks as the IPs who are making these edits aren't aware what that means, don't care because they'll still have made the comment or won't read an edit notice. Even if it's extremely obvious, the type of vandalism we're seeing likely won't be affected at all by an edit notice which leaves us semi-protection as the next option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • That would bring us back to IP editors wishing to request edits should make the request on their own talk page, using {{help me}} to call attention to their request yes? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Or an alternative or adjustment to {{request edit}}. Without some mechanism for unregistered editors to affect the article content, we'd be taking a sledgehammer to the assumption of good faith and other fundamental principles. Whether justifiable or not; this would not be even close to uncontroversial. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Not that controversial, here are some examples of indefinitely semi-protected talk pages: Talk:Keith Henson, Talk:Sol Trujillo, Talk:Chester Yorton, Talk:Perizaad Zorabian, Talk:Fashion Bomb, Talk:Duke of San Donato, Talk:Illeana Douglas, Talk:Yelena Dembo, Talk:Chaz Bono, Talk:Alison Weir, Talk:Huizhou University, Talk:Inspire (magazine), Talk:Causes of autism, Talk:Australian flag debate, Talk:Al-Shuhada Street, Talk:Rick Alan Ross, Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), Talk:Anita Sarkeesian, and (potentially relevant to this page) Talk:Poop. The protection template says If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account but there's also WP:RFED. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks for this very helpful research, Callanecc. These are examples of talk pages that are perennial targets for inappropriate edits - like this page. They combine indef-protection of the page with the notice in the protection template; that is pretty much what I had in mind. I also note that some of these perennially-vandalized pages have had this protection for years: Poop since 2015, for example, or Chaz Bono since 2012. IMO this page above all attracts not just vandalism, but vandalism of a particularly abhorrent nature. Such that about a third of the reverted edits have to be revdel'ed. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm surprised so many articles have been effectively shut to unregistered editors; like you say then; not so controversial. Evidentially, leaving the door open is just asking for trouble, and the result is often, as Melanie says, abhorrent. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this settled then; permanent protection? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We seem to have an alternative solution in place for good-faith editors; WP:Requests for page protection/Edit is another option if they are seeking to make an uncontroversial edit. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all. This is looking like pretty clear consensus for permanent semi-protection. I will set it, but first I would like advice about what the top-of-the-page note should say. I think this could be appropriate: {{pp-vandalism|small=no}}. That is the note at Talk:Poop. I think that's better than the generic {{pp-semi-indef}} which is used on several of the permanently-protected pages. Anyone got any other suggestions? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That certainly looks like the most specific option right now; all the common options appear to utilise Module:Protection banner, which itself offers a limited set of possible reasons, and vandalism is the reason. Stating |small=no appears unnecessary; that's the default. If indefinitely protected; the edit notice will be redundant. On a personal note: I watch this and Nigga (along with some other pages) purely because they are sensitive and subject to these problems; it will be nice to not feel a rush of dread every time this pops up in my watchlist changes. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be over with, so I am going to go ahead and indef-protect the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good job 👍 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Use in popular media not mentioned

Clawfinger named a song Nigger (lyrics from Musixmatch.com) on their debut-album Deaf Dumb Blind, which became a semi-hitsong in Norway, Sweden and some other countries. Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 16:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)