Talk:Nigga

New updated audio for spoken article

{{editsemiprotected}} New audio has been recorded for the Spoken Article feature of this particular article bringing the current version of the spoken article to match the current version of the article. The audio file has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The URL of the file is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_Nigga_Final_Master.ogg

i.e. Please change Spoken Wikipedia|En-Nigga.ogg|2007-03-15 to Spoken Wikipedia|Wikipedia_Nigga_Final_Master.ogg|2008-11-14

Kenjamin80 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Error in sound bite

Somewhere in Section 2 of the soundbite is discussed the use of "nigga" in pop culture. The reader/speaker notes Tupac's "post-humorous" album.... I believe this should be "posthumous," as the album in question came out after Tupac's death, and not after Tupac ceased being funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.179.166 (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

The word "nigga" is merely a dialectic revision of it's parent word "nigger", and as such this article should be combined with the discussion of that name. The assertion that "nigga" is somehow different than it's parent word is not supported by it's usage in common culture. No matter how it is pronounced, it is still a derogatory word used to describe black people.

The lines: "Some African-Americans express considerable offense when referred to as a nigga by caucasian people, but not if they are called the same by other African-Americans," is indeed correct, but the same could be said of using the term "nigger" or many of the other variations of the word.

By giving this word it's own article, Wikipedia is in many ways legitimizing the practice and usage of it. 12.96.65.14 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.96.65.14 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Whit? They have articles about Nazism and facism too, does their existence legitimise them? 62.31.12.18 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

..I think you mean fascism. And yes, I agree, it's ridiculous to have two articles for the SAME WORD. 12.96.46.209 10:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, nigger and nigga do not mean the same thing,even if "nigga" comes from nigger.In my opinion nigger is a racist word used to say that a black person is worthless or inferior."Nigga" is different, to older people it is offensive,but to people from a younger generation it is acceptable.It depends on the person though. Generally, I would say that a white person using the word "nigga" around black people will cause problems. At my high school, black people will commonly use "nigga" when the they talk to eachother, and it does not have the same meaning as nigger.Nigga has a close meaning to the words man,person,dude when it is used.Im just trying to offer some insight into this, and be helpful.71.127.114.151 (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nigga is a term usually used by the black community, Nigger means Ignorant or Stupid. It is not a derogatory term for a black individual it only became that way due to human interpretation. Also Wikipedia is not censored. As well fascism and Nazism were much different. "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes."Nazism"refers primarily to the ideology and practices of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler; and the policies adopted by the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, a period also known as the Third Reich." Same belief, both wrong and both are wrong, but fascism is more like Nationalism and Nazism is more of and idea cooked up by a mad man. Rgoodermote  00:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nigga is a term usually used by the black community, Nigger means Ignorant or Stupid. It is not a derogatory term for a black individual it only became that way due to human interpretation". Wow, that is a much better summary then what i was trying to explain.Thanks for making things more simple.(not being sarcastic)71.127.114.151 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WOW !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.14.113 (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many African-Americans/Blacks who don't like the term

The article is definitely biased, as many African-Americans, like myself, do not care for the word in any of its forms. Moreover, many believe it a racist term no matter who uses it.

This article definitely needs to be updated in that aspect.--Joel Lindley 01:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article, you would be aware that it makes exactly that point. Hence I'm removing the POV tag. Rockpocket 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the article, and it now shows references. NOTE: There were no references, which is why the tags were put up in the first place. In any event, I applaud the effort to give a well-rounded view of the controversial term.--Joel Lindley 05:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i appreciate when you added the tag, this information may not have been present. Sadly, this article tends to regress pretty quickly. This evening i've worked the article back to around the state it has been in in the past (when there was references). Rockpocket 05:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :)--Joel Lindley 05:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Nigger article or not?

"Nigga" should not be redirected to "nigger" as they are completely different words, spelled completely differently, and have completely different meanings.

I disagree, I propose a redirect to this section of the "nigger" article, which deals with "nigga" much better than this article. -70.130.139.249 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But you can't redirect to a section. This is a defect in MediaWiki, filed as bug 218. If readers are going to want to look up "nigga", and editors are going to want to link to "nigga", would splitting that section off into a new article to replace this article work around the problem until bug 218 is fixed? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:26, 26 April 2006 (UT

I think a better option would be a seperate article like it is now but with a link to Nigger. Nigga and Nigger have different meanings. --RND 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that the word may be the same word just interpreted differently from different points of view. This word is at the very core of the cultural differences between blacks and whites in america. Don't forget that because someone pronounces a word differently because they have an accent doesn't mean they are speaking a different language or using different words. And of course people with different cultural viewpoints have different meanings behind their words. But it still means the same thing. A black person uses often in an endearing way because they are relating with it. For a white person to use it is out of place becuase it is perceived as derogatory, the white person almost can't convincingly use it to relate because of the historical relationship between our cultures. 70.94.40.191 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)MKM

I disagree with you also because the word nigga comes from the root word called nigger and there wouldnt be the word nigga if there wasnt nigger. We know its spelled differently but its still means the same it means an African American person. This days we some poeple use it to refer to your best buddy or somethingt but its not right its a disrespect to African Amercan poeple. Also African American's get offended when they hear a non African American say that word so it really still have some roots to it.!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.161.69.82 (talk • contribs)

True, "nigga" and "nigger" are related (as both < Spanish negro < Latin niger), but that would just make them doublets, not the same word. For example, the words "cow" and "beef" both come from a PIE word approximately *gwou, but they're definitely not the same word. The bone of contention is how far along these etymological twins are on their divergence --Damian Yerrick (☎) 18:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think "Nigga" and "Nigger" should be merged or redirected. They have evolved into two very different words and while sharing a history, have substantial differences in their basis. "Negro" gave us "nigger." "Nigger" eventually brought us to "nigga." At some point, we have to recognize their differences and stop trying to lump every word starting with "nigg..." together. I think a reference to its origins is sufficient, without merging it with "Nigger." Wikipikiliki

No, nigger and nigga are two completely different words - daniel

I think they shouldn't be merged because they have 2 different meanings

"Nigger" is always a racial slur "Nigga" is not-- 69.242.77.127 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The section of Nigger that I suggested be merged into Nigga concerned the word "nigga" and its relationship to "nigger".--Damian Yerrick (☎) 14:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

By combining them it tells people what they both mean and why it is or isnt ok for the word to be said.

And these 2 articles shouldn't be merged.--Bonafide.hustla 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nigga is used normally by black people like "He's my nigga". It's like a guy saying "she's my bitch". Nigger was used as a racial slur to black people by white slave masters. They specifically used that word to disgrace them. Nigga is more friendly. --66.218.22.254 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• The two terms should not be merged, because (as has been already pointed out), they are two different words, with two different connotations. Just because one word comes from the other is no reason to merge the two. Many different words, in many different languages have origins in other words, but are treated as separate words because they have separate meanings. That said, this article could use a good cleanup to make it reach encyclopedic standards.Spylab 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• I deleted the merge tag because the majority here have opposed such a merge.Spylab 21:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I believe the articles should not be merged. The widespread use of the varient, the potential gulf in implied meaning between the two, and the fact that this article is now in quite a decent, stand alone state argues, for me, that they should remain apart. Rockpocket 05:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged, as they are different words and are used in a different way, even though the sound the same. Mobius131186 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be merged, It's ignorant to think a word becomes different by changing a letter. DarthZantetsuken

"nigger" and "bigger" differ in one letter, and they're different. Yes, minimal pairs exist. This article documents the extent to which the public finds this minimal pair distinctive. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the proposal as there is no consensus for it for over a year and the new proposal is based on a logical fallacy, as elucidated by Damian Yerrick above. Rockpocket 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

DarthZantetsuken has replaced the merge template without further comment. In the interests of avoiding an edit war, i'll leave it up to see if it stimulates further discussion towards a consensus to merge. If not then i'll remove it again in a week or two as per the reasoning above. Rockpocket 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I stand by that statement. Since when does misspelling an offensive word make it appropriate/proper. It should actaully be considered less appropriate and displays poor grammar and/or phonics. Misspelling "Fuck" with "Fuk" dosen't change the meaning or intent of the word (unless the context in which the word is used is also changed.) DarthZantetsuken 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a somewhat different (and more sophisticated) argument than "It's ignorant to think a word becomes different by changing a letter." Either way, its not our place to make a decision whether it is "proper" or "appropriate". The reliable sources cited in this article discuss its use multiple meanings or intent. Whether you think that is right or not is not relevent, and neither is it relevent to whether this should be merged. The material here could certainly be a subsection of the nigger article and this be redirected, but I think there is enough content on its use in the modified form to stand alone. Rockpocket 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge nigga with nigger; they are discrete words with very different connotations. This article has enough reasonably well referenced content to stand on its own.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. They are both politicly incorrect words. They have the same roots and meanings. When a white person uses the word "Nigga," it's taken the same way as using the word "Nigger." It's much like a different pronounciation or even just a minor dialect.---DarthZantetsuken 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Except the reliable sources cited say otherwise. Please provide sources for your assertions, otherwise they are nothing but POV. Rockpocket 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that my assertions are just Point-of-View while all of your reliable sources are mere POV articles?---DarthZantetsuken 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated re-insertion of the merge tag is disruptive. See if you can convince some people of your position, then restore the tag. So far, no one else seems convinced.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, out of respect for you and the rest of the Wikipedians, I'll stop adding that tag. As right or wrong as I may be, it's not my place to keep changing an atricle when so many others don't want it changed. I do think the connections should be acknowlegded as should the on-going debate.---DarthZantetsuken 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because you are some random person on the internet, they are published journalists and commenators. Besides, they are not all POV articles, some neutrally report on how the term is be used (or expoited) for other purposes. Others report on how there is public debate on the difference in meaning (or lack thereof) between the words. The point is that this article's purpose is not to legitimize the difference between the terms, but to neutrally report how it is used (according to neutral sources). Rockpocket 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for ignoring my apology... In case you missed it, here it is again:

Fine, out of respect for you and the rest of the Wikipedians, I'll stop adding that tag. As right or wrong as I may be, it's not my place to keep changing an atricle when so many others don't want it changed. I do think the connections should be acknowlegded as should the on-going debate.---DarthZantetsuken 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote my response prior to you making you apology, and thus didn't see it until now. The strange ordering of the comments was due to you deleting your original point and The Fat Man reinstating it. Anyway, I appreciate your acknowledgement and would welcome any contribution you have to improve the article. Its a real struggle finding decent sources for material, but if you have anything then by all means add it. Rockpocket 20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do have a source for my arguement: "ER" to the "A", this is one excuse that would insult the intelligence of a sixth grader. Brother or brotha, sister or sista, n***er or n***a, all have two common denominators. First, they came about as the result of a ghetto vernacular. Second, replacing the "er" with an "a" changes nothing other than the pronunciation [Source 21 from the Nigger Page]DarthZantetsuken 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I have included this, and the other sources in that section of the nigger article, here. I have also pruned down the subsection to a summary. I think this article covers the issue quite nicely now. Rockpocket 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See, everythings better with sources! I might be good for something after all!---DarthZantetsuken 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic-American

Hispanics are of many races: Caucasians (Spaniards, Argentinians, Uruguayans, Chileans), Monogoloids (various Asian areas), and mestizos (mixed peoples of Mexico, Guatemala, etc). So stop putting Hispanic-Americans alongsid races. Hispanic is not a RACE! Casey14 17:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that African American and Asian American are not races either. They - and Hispanics - are ethnicities. Rockpocket 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation, or something.

"As of 2006, the word nigga is used, without intentional prejudice, among all races of people in the USA, including African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and more recently by some Caucasians."

What? This needs to be removed or rwwritten, because it is just... completely untrue. Americans don't walk about casually referring to eachother as, "nigga". In fact, I have only heard this word used in conversations between obvious gang-members; even then, rarely between anyone who is not black. Someone fix this. --67.181.131.193 19:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this statement. When do you hear white people calling africans "niggas" to their faces? Rarely, that is when. It is completely unacceptable. The contributer didn't even cite his/her work. Not to mention that it was ridiculous. This kind of vandilism gives wikipedia a bad name! Therefore , I removed this garbage. If that user wants to put that statement back in the article then they need to find credible sources to support it. J Dogg 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)J Dogg

Being black and asian I don't like either word and darn right it does give wikipedia a bad name.--- the word nigga is used, without intentional prejudice, among all races of people in the USA, including African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and more recently by some Caucasians is just not correct, not at the campus I attend or the area I'm from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.45.169 (talk • contribs)

Please read the comment below. With respect, your opinion or experience has little relevence when there is verifiable sources the say otherwise. Rockpocket 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it isn't cited, does not make it vandalism. Just because you don't associate with people that use the term, it doesn't make it untrue. Please request sources in future before removing content. In this case, there are plenty of verifiable sources that note the word being increasingly used without malice by non African Americans, e.g [1] [2] [3] [4] and every more anecdotal evidence [5] [6]. Therefore i'm going to restore the section. Rockpocket 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Messages to Rockpocket

Dear Rockpocket, I apologize. I had no right to erase your hard work and effort. I admit I got carried away and for this I am sorry. I also agree that you are right, just because I don't agree with the statement doesn't mean that it is vandilism. I was completely wrong. However, I decided to check out your sources and I have a small problem with the statement, "As of 2006, the word nigga is used, without intentional prejudice, among all races of people in the USA, including African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and more recently by some Caucasians." I read the four sources that you provided and while I did see that the usage of the word is on the rise, nowhere that I saw, did any of the articles say that it is used without prejucice other than between africans (and in some cases a small number of non-africans). The fact still remains however, that most africans still see the word as an insult. It is only a minority of the african community that approves of the word's use by non-africans. This view is depicted in the articles that you provided. In the sources you provided, several people of african decent, said that they were completely against the word's use, both by africans and non-africans. Also in the article, a survey done in an American city resulted in mixed feelings about the word's use. The source I am refering to is " "New Word Order" [[7]]

I think that the passage,"As of 2006, the word nigga is used, without intentional prejudice, among all races of people in the USA,", needs to be re-worded. Therefore I will be re-wording the sentence, if nobody comes forward within the next day or two and convinces me that it is correct. J Dogg 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)J Dogg

Hi J Dogg. No problem and thanks for your reply. I agree with your analysis regarding the widespread feeling that the word is insulting. However i think that point is aptly covered in the next paragraph:

"Many, however, continue to see the word as pejorative, and its use outside African-American communities remains controversial. Many African-Americans express offence when referred to as a nigga by Caucasian people, but not if they are called the same by other African-Americans. In this case, the term may be seen as a symbol of fraternity and its use outside a defined social group an unwelcome cultural appropriation. "

Perhaps another sentence indicating a lot of people disaprove of the word in any context, would be appropriate?

With regards to the term "without intentional predjudice", in this context i understand it to indicate that a minority of non African Americans using it are not doing so to be intentially insulting. It doesn't mean that others do not find it offensive, nor does it suggest that a majority of non african americans use the term in that way. I think the references back this up, e.g. "Many young blacks — and some young whites — increasingly use the word as a sign of friendship." [8] "I don't like to hear it from white and Spanish people, sounds like they are trying to be black or ghetto. They think they can fit in by using it." [9], "I've also heard some Puerto Ricans at my school use the term-I remember distinctly a Puerto Rican girl referring to her man as "my nigga." [10]. Each of these is a comment on use by non african americans "without intentional predjudice".

That said, if you can reword this article to improve it then please do so. I don't have a problem with that at all and i'm sure it could be worded better. However, i do believe we need some mention that some non African Americans do use the word in a non pejorative manner. Rockpocket 05:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rockpocket, I see your point with the term "without intentional predjudice" and you have convinced me. I also agree that the majority of the paragraph should remain unchanged, maybe even the whole paragraph is fine the way it is. And you are also right about adding another sentence to the paragraph about how many people still object to the word's use in any context. However, I don't really know what to say to improve the sentence. If you have any ideas you can leave them here or at my user page User: J Dogg. You are welcome for my reply and thank-you for your reply. Happy editing! J Dogg 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC) J Dogg

Dear Anyone....

Someone please either rewrite the Mind of Mencia section or cut it from the article. It is horribly written, and certainly does not accurately sum up the point of Carlos Mencia's sketch. I don't feel that I am the person to do this, but someone should. Vandalism is the correct spelling, by the way.

When did it come into use?

I think there should be at least one section on the article explaining when it first became fashionable for blacks to use the term amongst one another, as there seems to be confusion on the issue. Richard Pryor, for instance, used the term "nigger" in the exact same manner as many blacks today use "nigga" (Pryor even had an album called "That Nigger's Crazy!"). This was back in the 70's. It seems that it gradually switched to "nigga" sometimes in the 80's or possibly early 90's. There should be more ifnormation on this.

Sounds like a good idea, if you can find any reliable sources on the evolution of the term, then please feel free to add it. Rockpocket 05:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this help?

Rapper Tupac Shakur was credited with legitimizing the term "nigga" when he came out with the song "N.I.G.G.A.," which he said stood for "Never Ignorant Getting Goals Accomplished. Ala. conference debates use of 'n-word' Yahoo! News Berserkerz Crit 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide view template

I'm a bit puzzled at the presence of a worldwide view bias template on this article. The term is from African American Vernacular English, thus its hardly surprising the focus is on its use among African Americans in particular and Americans in general. If there is no objections here, i'll remove the template over the next few days. Rockpocket 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I cleaned up some of the writing, but this article still needs much improvement to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. One of the things I changed was the use of the word Caucasian as a term for white people. If you click on the Caucasian link, you will see that the term has several precise meanings, and that it is not a technically accurate term for white people.Spylab 21:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Apocryphal Tupac quote

There is no source whatsoever on the alleged Tupac quote "Nigger - a black man with a slavery chain around his neck; Nigga - a black man with a gold chain on his neck." It was never a lyric in any of his songs, nor did he ever say that in any of his interviews. No one has ever found a reliable source for that quote, and, no, UrbanDictionary and geocities are not reliable sources. Until you find a reliable source, please keep it out of the article. 24.199.113.122 06:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in a movie, nigga.

It was in Tupac: Ressurection (film). Noob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.124.118 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup 2

I've tidied the entire article, removing the apocryphal content that couldn't be sourced, providing references for everything else. Rockpocket 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased

This article is biased and very pro-the use of the word (if it is a word) Nigga. Both sides need to be shown in this article, not just one. Casey14 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that, when used in a pejorative sense, the word nigger tends to be used. Most of the "anti" content is there. Everything here is currently reliably sourced - so please don't remove content - but if you have verifiable content to add then please be bold. Rockpocket 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I think there needs to be a criticism section, for example the last paragraph. I mean, I'm hesitant to actually edit something myself before I bring it up here, so does anyone agree? I personally think it would allow a significant increase in information - but again, I don't feel comfortable just coming in here and editing it. --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we tend to avoid sections of support and criticism because they tend to attract POV pushing. Instead a balanced review of the subject is favoured where notable opinions are recorded in an integrative manner. If you have some sourced criticism that add to the article then by all means add it, but I have found it a struggle to find reliable sources for that sort of thing. Rockpocket 09:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo Nigga

I think this article would be improved by a reference to I Don't Want to be Called Yo Niga by Public Enemy. --24.57.157.81 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article that has a few quotes from Chuck D talking about it (the article is not very in depth though) Public Enemy's Chuck D. comes to Cubberley --24.57.157.81 02:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of this word is quite rare by white people, but very common among African-Americans. I don't think readers get the sense of this as the article is written.

I would have thought the opening line might convey that: "Nigga is a term used in African American Vernacular English..." Rockpocket 02:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mockary

what about the use of the word by non blacks as a mockary of hip hop culture or black people? I'm not saying all non-black people using the term are using it as mockary, but I have heard non-blacks of many races use it as a term of endearment and as a mockary in many different instances.--RA64 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Use in language" section

The editor needs to check their facts and find other sources to site because the information presented is very inaccurate. "Nigga" is still not widely accepted among blacks when used by any other race.--68.201.118.165 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your assertion? If so, list them here and use {{editprotected}} so that we can add information about how different sources disagree. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do I need to find a source on the website when I'm a source of my own? That statement was made with no basis in fact. I can find thousands and thousands of blacks of all ages that will not accept the usage of that word by any other race.--Mphifer254 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the section again, you will notice that it doesn't say the term is "widely accepted" among blacks when used by any other race, so how is it inaccurate? Rockpocket 07:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"A source of my own"? That's not how Wikipedia generally does things. Or has your survey about acceptance of "nigga" among various Black communities been published by a more-or-less reputable source? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Niggas" as bodyguards for controversial figures

The word is increasingly being used to refer to an entourage..perhaps reminiscent of the civil rights movement when figures like MLK, Malcolm X and James Brown required protection from enemies..."where's my niggaz" is a common expression in an urban school environment.

Do you have a source for this? Rockpocket 03:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How Could Wikipedia [Community] Allow This Shoddy Article?

Regarding the article on "nigga..." Wikipedia [community] has a responsibility to present knowledge in a fair and balanced manner. So many people rely upon it as a standard. Peers, you would be remiss in your duties if you permit this article to stand as being on solid ground!

Wasn't there an erroneous post on this Wikipedia site that actor/comedian Sinbad had died of a heart attack? Does this here "nigga" article merit a similar retraction and revision?

Ask yourselves whether the author fairly discusses the issues surrounding the use of the words "nigga" and "nigger". Does this author disproportionately present mostly viewspoints that support in such usage? Are his sources authoritative? Are the surveys that he rely upon statistically and scientifically valid? His logic suffers from rhetorical fallacies such as begging the question and circular reasoning.

Please people, this is such an important topic—with so many ramifications and implications—that it certainly merits fair and balanced treatment. Does anyone else find this article to be extremely biased and slanted?

I challenge you to go beyond the niceties about undotted "i's", un-crossed "t's", and mis-spelled words. It behooves you as peers to debunk, dismantle, and reconstruct this article. Provide the world with a more accurate assessment of the situation. Can you imagine an elementary school student doing a report that quotes this Wikipedia article as if it were the gospel?

I refute the validity of some of the claims made by the author. I maintain that the use of the BBC as the authortity on the culture of black youth-and the African American people as a whole-is nothing more than extreme cherry-picking. Moreover, the author commits a fallacy of small sample by attempting to convince the reader that the relatively isolated acceptance of the "N" word is— in fact—very pervasive throughout all segments of the black population in the United States.

The article wants people to believe that as of a certain date—officially determined by the BBC—the use of the word "nigga" all of a sudden reach some magic threshhold such that it thereafter became an acceptable and benign word for youths of all races. Such a statement is so laughable and sad at the same time. And that is just the introduction. Why does the article not present the reader with information concerning what does the USA Today, New York Times, Washington Post, or any other major U.S. news media outfit conclude in their studies if any? What do U.S. governmental, academic, or private foundation studies say about this subject?

Instead, the author has to go all the way across the ocean to find a major media entity to support a particular agenda. The author makes it seem as if the BBC is widely respected as reliable source for such a topic. The first line in the article begins with a statement designed to cause the reader to believe that the BBC has issued some sort of offical pronouncement—or edict—concerning notably the American blacks. Since when has the BBC become the decider or barometer concerning the status of the use of the word "nigga?" This usage has been occuring in the U.S. for well over a century. Only a statistically valid scienctific survey would substantiate the claims concerning the relative acceptance—or rejection—of "N-word" (in all of its forms).

Furthermore, how does this supposed widespread youth acceptance relate to the many inter-racial incidents that occur in inner-city neighborhoods and schools: involving blacks against whites and latinos? This author used a few statistically insignificant examples in an attempt to convince the reader that they accurately reflect the use of the "nigga" and race relations in the U.S.. Anyway, since when is it scientific or logical to infer that because a certain group of kids do something, then that particular act is also acceptable by a majority of its people. Does this apply to drug use, under-aged drinking, drug use, dropping out of school, etc.?

In addition, the author of this article disproportionately spews forth views that support the acceptance of using the word "nigga." But, what about all the people who object to its use? These groups get only a few lines worth of space! Such dimissive and perfunctory treatment is hardly the hallmark of a fair and balance article!

Isn't the use of the word "nigga" extremely divisive and controversial? The author makes it seem as if it is a slam dunk case—in support of its use. Has the author pushed a hidden agenda, and selectively included content in support of such agenda. Do his ostensible motives conceal his true ones? I wonder if he is ever so proud of himself?

The author states, "... the word nigga is used, without intentional prejudice </wiki/Prejudice>, among younger members[2] of all races..."

This is a universal statement: "all races". Where is this documentation of each and every race, whose cross-section was scientifically and statistically sampled in order to reach such conclusions? It is ambiguous. Do these members of all the races call each other "niggas", or just the blacks?

Can it not be argued that, in the United States, most Caucasian, Hispanic, and Asian youths know very well that, almost invariably,-to call a black a nigger or nigga is tantamount to an insult? I concede that there are always exceptions. But is this phenomonon so widespread as to merit the implication that the acceptable use of the "N" word is ever so pervasive throughout the United States? Can one persuasively argue that the author has confused the exception with the rule?

Another quote from the article: "There is conflicting popular opinion on whether there is any meaningful difference between nigga and nigger as a spoken term..."

Does the author really think that when a black youth is called a the "N-word," that he/she checks to find out if that is with an "a" or an "er" at the end of the word?

Furthermore, where is the evidence that a majority of blacks do base their sense of who they are-and what they stand for-based upon the deeds and words of a few black recording artists and comedians? If none is forthcoming, then why is this article so heavily ladden with content that supports such views? What about the black professionals' views, the laborers, and all of the proud black American's viewpoints? Once again, what about the more representative viewpoints?

How does this article treat any instances where individuals who were well-known for having been "pioneering," gratuitous users of the word(s) "nigger" and/or "nigga," but have subsequently renounced such use? It is ironic that the more representative views of blacks—as reflected in the major black political, social, and economic organizations—were only given brief recognition. Apparently, the same amount of [in]attention was given to local, state, and federal government positions concerning the use of nigger and nigga.

What are the standards? Can one publish such an article, and sit back snugly proclaiming that because there is some nexus between the sources and the assertions in the article—therefore the article is sound? What if the sources are flawed? What if there is an egregiously unbalanced treatment of the subject matter, notwithstanding the sources? Wow! Lawyers would have a field day on this site, if that were indeed the only standard!

Trosoft 04:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article. I have a few comments in reply. Firstly, this is a wiki. Therefore there is no single author, there are many, many authors. Secondly, this is a wiki, if you think there is a problem with this article, be bold and make the changes yourself. None of us are paid to do this, I imagine few if any of us are experts on ebonics or african american social history, so we have found the reliable information we could on the topic, and added it. I'm sorry if that is not acceptable to you. So, if you don't think the BBC is a reliable source, and have information from the "New York Times, Washington Post, or any other major U.S. news media outfit" then add that information, or at least provide the source so someone else can. The sentences you quote are sourced. Read the sources and, if the information is not backed up by the sources, then change them so they do. I'd be very happy to help you improve this article, but you need to provide the sources that we can use to attribute the information you mention. Finally, calling the good faith work of others "shoddy" is hardly constructive. How about you actually do something to improve the article, rather than criticise from the sidelines? Thanks. Rockpocket 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also it is both impolite and misleading to significantly edit your comments after someone has replied to them. For the record these edits were made to the orginal critique after my reply above. Rockpocket 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, enough already. I'll revert this whole thread if you don't stop reworking your rant. Discuss in good faith, if you wish to change something strike it out or clarify it below. See WP:TALK#Editing comments. Thank you. Rockpocket 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this how you bully and intimidate people? Sure, you are entitled to regard my article as a "rant." Well sir, as an Administrator, you threaten to "revert" my whole thread. Moreover, this is not a rant, Mr. Rockport.

This is not an actual article. It is a talking point. I thought the editing protocol referred to actual articles, not "talking points." I shall pro-actively select the edit checkbox, if that will appease you. Moreover, sir, I shall study up on how to better edit my talking point. For the most part of I have sought to correct errors in punctuation and grammar. In other places I sought to make my use of terminology more consistent.

I believe that you have taken most of your "source's" contents out of context. You article is so patently biased. I see that many other readers feel the same way. Why are you singling me out for persecution?

You tell people that they can revise "your" article if they have proper sourcing, well I shall research the available, credible sources, and seek out relevant, substantive, and publishable material!

Well, I am extremely troubled by the article that you have written on "nigga." I have looked at a number of your sources. Most tend to be simply the point of view of the writer. That is vastly different from looking citing peer-group validated studies—that were done by some prestigious sociological, anthopological, or related organization.

If there is a dearth of such information available, then you ought to inform the reader of the limitations of your knowleddge. In the cases where you do cite specific sources, some of those sources are merely articles that express POV, or are about a few relatively isolated incidences. If all that you know is that a particular phenomonon occurs, but you do not have hard statistics as to what how often it occurs, then you can still write about the incident. However, in all fairness, you ought to mention that in your article that you don't know to what extent the incidents occur. But you ought not state nor imply that the occurences constitute a societal norm.

You wrote: "With respect, your opinion or experience has little relevence when there is verifiable sources the say otherwise."

In response to this: "How can you say that my assertions are just Point-of-View while all of your reliable sources are mere POV articles?---DarthZantetsuken"

You replied: "Because you are some random person on the internet, they are published journalists and commenators. Besides, they are not all POV articles,..."

What would satisify you as grounds to edit your article?

Your logic seems to be that any even if an article is POV, because it is in print, that that suffices as a source—because you cited it. I want to use the BBC article as an example here. The columinist mentions several types of incidents that occur in the United States. There is no mention of the pervasivess of the frequency of these occurences. However, your article quotes them—out of context—as if they are extremely widespread.

This type of selective inclusionary/exclusionary tactics is counter-productive to being fair and balanced.

So you have placed your peers in a sort of Catch-22 situation.

If they attempt to follow your suggestions that they can revise as long as they source, then how can their source "out-trump" or supercede any claim that you have made in your articles—which is itself based upon a source? And then again, there is your ego to deal with.

I realize that claims supported by reliable statistics definitely should be regarded as being vastly more valid over those claims that are based upon mere points of views or isolated incidents. I don't approve of using isolated incidents, unless it is mentioned that they are just that—isolated. Else, such incidences can be taken out of context or use to exaggerate their actual importance.

I also think that articles by highly-respected think-tanks and government bodies carry significant weight. In addition, so do the views of organizations that actually specialize in studying such matters, i.e., leading sociological organizations.

A likely interpretation of your article: News flash! As announced by the BBC, the use of word "nigga" is now widely acceptable all throughout the entire United States—by all races—as a term of endearment. And those few, old-fashioned blacks who are offended by it—had better get with the times; they should stop being such cry-babies by trying to be so politically correct.

Trosoft 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to deal with "my ego", because I'm not interested in discussing this issue with you if you insist on commenting on the contributor instead of the contributions. You keen mentioning that have sources better than those quoted in the article - great, lets see them. If you can improve the article by better reworking the material there, do so. You don't need my permission. You have yet to provide a single sourced fact, instead preferring to criticize those that have. Feel free to come back when you have something constructive contribute. Rockpocket 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are 2000 words of poorly written rhetorical questions persuasive to anyone? Do they tax the attention and the sympathy of the reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.105.30 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Amendment

I have amended the first line of this article as it CONFLICTED with the close... Let me explain: the first line stated in no uncertain terms that usage of NIGGA was acceptable for all races, however, the pattening of this term has yet to be allowed based on the terms that it remains "offensive." So inversely it CANNOT be widely accepted in usage, only "sought to be" as attempts cannot be gauged only certainties.

Hello. I've reverted you edits for the following reasons. Firstly, the first line does not suggest that "that usage of NIGGA was acceptable for all races". I says, explicitly, "the word nigga is used, without intentional prejudice, among younger members of all races and ethnicities in the United States...". This means that it is used by all without the intent to offend, it does not mean its use is not offensive or that it is "widely accepted". The sources provided back up this assertion. Your change suggests the non-African Americans seek to use it "in the hip hop form" (whatever that means) while african americans don't. This implies there is an inherent difference in intent between races. I don't see any suggestion of that in the references. Rockpocket 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

use of nigga in 1884

This is a 1884 print http://www.albion.edu/library/specialcollections/images/AnAffairOfHonor_StrayShot.jpg and the caption read "AN AFFAIR OF HONOR - Whar yer gwine to Nigga? Yer done shot old Sawbones!" clearly proves that the word nigga is not new and is just a mispronounciation of the standard nigger by black people. 70.22.210.47 02:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? This passage appears to use "yer gwine" as eye dialect for the Standard English verb phrase "you're going", which forms the prospective aspect. It's likely that "nigga" here is eye dialect for a nonrhotic "nigger" as well. To persuade us more, cite a passage that uses "nigga" among words spelled as in Standard English. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That comes off as intresting to me. It should at least be mentioned in the article. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Audio Version

The Latin word "niger" is not pronounced "neye-gurr". It is correctly pronounced "nee-gair", thus the audio of the article is incorrect. --79.73.237.40 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, whoever did the audio fucked up big time. He says "post-humorous" instead of "posthumous" and "perjorative", a mispronunciation of "pejorative". He also at one point said something like "ethniticities" instead of "ethnicities". 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO the main problem is that it's read by a clearly white person. A person of African descent reading it would add a nice bit of flavour. They could even read the article to a hip-hop beat. No, seriously. 79.114.169.48 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rap music

Shall we mention the difference in pronunciation between nigger and nigga?

Richard Tony Thompson claims on the basis of research that rap artists never use the word nigger (pronounced with final 'R') sound but rather the similar word nigga. Thompson attributes an anaphoric use to it, i.e. nigga means "he" or "she" or "that person". [11] --Uncle Ed 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

don't see why not. Yahel Guhan 01:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP NIGGA

I think that the word nigga is part of the African-American heritage & should not be deleted from a prestigious free online encyclopedia (Wikipedia) nor should it be banned in any place together with its more prejudicial relative Nigger. Even people of non-African origin are using the word nigga with persons who are not "niggas" and use insults of "nigga" to non-niggas. Almost every slur has its own article in Wikipedia, so live with it. If you don't want to see and/or hear "nigga", then don't. iaNLOPEZ1115 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete nigga

U dont need it on the site wiki encyclopedia for info not for slang go to urban dictionary 71.10.88.69 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you're gauging consensus for an AFD request. --Clippy

Some articles that discuss etymology and usage can be encyclopedic. From WP:DICT: "Articles with information on how a word is used include singular they, homophobia, sexism, and SNAFU." --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NWA

NWA did a song called 'niggaz 4 life' directly addressing the use of the word 'nigga' amongst black people, and people of other races.

I think its worth a mention here -- one of eazy e's lines goes 'niggas say nigga we cool, but cracka say nigga, nigga not to fuck up' -- Meaning that the use of 'nigga' is considered acceptable among some black circles, but not when used by white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoopooman (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More Gratutitous Use of "Nigga" by rappers...

The song "Real Nigga Roll Call" uses the word as part of it's chorus, and is used 107 times... Lil Jon features in this song and uses "nigga" in every song... I personally don't think a word should be taken so seriously... A word is only a word; whatever a person makes it is an different matter entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.181.213 (talk) 2008-05-23T03:15:52 (UTC)

I personally agree, but most African Americans don't, but well, almost all of us have different opinions about this word, have a nice day homie--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigga should be used more in rap music

Wikiproject

Well since NIGGA is a word widely used in the hip hop community, and also started to be used in this community, and well, also hiphop community made it an everyday word for most of the African American Community, im going to add the word to the wikiproject hiphop, nobody have a problem with that?,ok, have a nice day homies--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigga

Nigga is a word used by tupac, towards other people, meaning Never Ignorant Getting Goals Accomplished. [12] It is a completely different word to "Nigger". 9:30 10/11/08 JakeRB (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stating crap you were too lazy to read above your post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Idiotic

This has to be the worst article on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.234.49 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)