Talk:List of ethnic slurs

Need for expansion of title

What should it be called? I have heard it said that some of these are merely "slang" others say it's not derogative... Should Vandal, hooligan be included, Jerry, Charlie etc.. The need for the expansion seems important

Jerry i would reckon belong in the 'political slur' article, although im not sure. 'charlie' might be both political and ethnic. vandal and hooligan, those are more political/social/economic than racial or ethnic. besides this was not 'planned out' when we broke up these categories, we just kind of did it.

here's a place where they have a list-http://www.rsdb.org/ Dwarf Kirlston 12:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE INFORM ME OF SOMETHING? CAN SOMEONE PLEASE INFORM ME OF SOMETHING? CAN SOMEONE PLEASE INFORM ME OF SOMETHING?

How offensive/wrong/racially insensitive are the two phrases "Chinaman" and "Jungle Fever"? I used both of these terms at work (in my mind, innocently) and I'm 60000% paranoid that my new co-workers think I was using them pejoratively, which I wasn't. It was only after I saw their reactions that I thought twice about it. How bad are both of these terms? I know there was a movie called Jungle Fever...

---

simple question.... can someone explain the following:

"Bruton - (U.S.) Shit, Africans"

what is the meaning of that?

I just checked two slang dictionaries and couldn't find this meaning for the word bruton. I also checked several very-large general-English dictionaries and couldn't find this meaning, either. It seems to be (1) a last name, (2) a town in England, and (3) another way of saying Briton (a native of Britain). Tomorrow, I can check another couple slang dictionaries, though. --Primetime 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I just checked a couple regional-English dictionaries and another slang one. So, it appears to be incorrect. --Primetime 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Chinaman is definitely offensive. Do not ever use this.

---

Ethopaulisms/Negritude

Deleted reference to"ethnophaulisms" because I cant find it on the internet except in reference to the "n" word. No one uses the word "negritude" on a large scale. Chappelle has a hit show which makes things like saying " bitch" popular right now, But current catch phrases are not the same as a traditionaly qualified ethnic slurs. Also ethnic slurs are slang, but slang is not an ethnic slur. Unless its an important exception, an ethnic slur should be DEROGOTIVE, and ETHNICALLY TINGED. player hater is niether of these. If you have a local ethnic slur that no one else uses Note were its in use at so that it can be verified or disputed. No one says "negritude" in california.

This page was listed for deletion on September 18, 2004. The result of the debate was to keep the article. For an archive of that debate see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs.

I'm uncertain if the term Mohammedan belongs on this list. It was, originally, the accepted terminology in much of Europe for a Muslim person. While it is currently out of favor (and viewed as archaic) it seems that some continue to use it in a deliberately pejorative manner. Any thoughts?

I don't see how Mohammedan's use could be construed as being pejorative. School text books I was using in the 1990s still had "Mohammedans" in them, it was simply what was used before the terms Moslem then Muslim became known of.

Well, it's offensive to certain Muslims because it implies they worship Mohammed. Those who use it because they know Muslims find it offensive are using it pejoratively. --Dante Alighieri 21:08 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I recognize there are people who choose to be offended by it, but Mohammedan no more implies that they worship Mohammed than "Calvinist" implies Calvinists worship Calvin or Lutheran implies Lutherans worship Luther. -- Someone else 21:21 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The point is that it's being used pejoratively. Take a look at Yankee, that has a real definition, but that's not how it's being used. --Dante Alighieri 00:07 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If it's being used perjoratively, it's perjorative. But it still doesn't imply that anyone's worshipping Mohammed. -- Someone else 00:14 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Several other terms on the list were once, and sometimes still are, regarded as neutral descriptive terms (Yankee, Papist, Gypsy). These, and "Mohammedan", might not count as "slurs", but their presence on the list seems correct. Perhaps the title of the list needs to be broadened a bit. Sara

Seems to me that "Mohammedian" is similiar to "Negro" or "colored" - a term which was once respectable and in common usage, but is now archaic and used as somewhat of a slur. Jcam 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we add in the usage of "common" names (Juan to refer to a Mexican person, Boris to refer to a Russian person, etc.) the list will be overrun. What about a few sentences describing the phenomenon and an example or two?

Furthermore, what about phrases like sheep-fucker. This is used by the British and Americans to talk about the Scottish, the Australians to talk about the New Zealanders, the New Zealanders to talk about the Australians, and so on... Should this article try to sort out that sort of thing or stick with more concrete terms? --Dante Alighieri 12:36 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That term probably sees far more use than almost everything else listed in this article, so yes it should be added. A significant percentage of Australians use it as their standard term in reference of New Zealanders. Australian television advertisements feature that theme in them too.

But how to deal with the variation in meaning in different cultures? I'll leave it up to someone more familiar with Commonwealth countries to handle that. --Dante Alighieri 21:08 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I really can't see Charlie and Gerry as ethnic slurs. I've never seen or heard them used in a derogatory fashion. Every military on the planet has thousands of slang words, but suspiciously the words reserved for the enemy are mostly clean while the words used to describe women, for example, are something to write home about. --Markonen 12:54 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough, votes on whether to keep or remove Charlie and Gerry? --Dante Alighieri 21:08 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Charlie isnt a term of disparagement. Pizza Puzzle

Both Charlie and Jerry seem specifically to mean enemy soldiers. They're slang, and they aren't exactly compliments, but they don't appear to be pejorative per se. You wouldn't call someone that as an insult; they don't work like "gook" or "kraut". Their grammar is different: "Charlie" seems to function as a mass noun rather than a count noun; you bomb "Charlie," but I don't think you capture "Charlies." In movies and such, you don't see "Jerry" so much as you see "the Jerries," AFAICR. -- IHCOYC 19:22, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

What of terms that label "evildoers" with ethnic names? The Vandals, for example, -> vandalism, and the British use of "hooligan"? -- not, perhaps, ethnic labels, but neverthess ethnic slurs. -- Someone else 21:38 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good point. I think that vandal has a decent shot at being on the list, but I'm unfamiliar with the British usage of hooligan (here in the States it just means troublemaker). --Dante Alighieri 00:08 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It does just mean troublemaker, usually at a football match, but it does hearken back to the Irish origin of the word, so it's a bit troublesome in, say, Maggie Thatcher's mouth. -- Someone else 00:13 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Jap is not a slur, its an abbreviation. And Yank/Yankee are hardly terms of disparagement. Pizza Puzzle

I don't know anyone who doesn't consider Jap a slur. I've heard people use it sometimes, thinking it was just an abbreviation, but all Japanese I know take insult at it and almost all non-Japanese I know know that. -- Tlotoxl 09:19, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jap is *absolutely* a slur, comparable to "Chink."

---

Yes, Jap is not acceptable as an abbreviation. This is not to be used, and will be regarded as a slur. When referring in shorthand to Japan or Japanese, use JPN or JPNSE.

---

Agree about Yank, I was quite surprised to see it called pejorative; here it's just the normal term for a US citizen (regardless of side of Mason-Dixon line). I wouldn't even call it slang so much as informal. Similarly pom isn't pejorative, it just means British. (The pejorative form is "pommy bastard", which is actually much milder than it sounds - more of a friendly jibe than an insult.) --Roger 17 Aug 2003

At least some people do consider Yank(ee) to be perjorative. Especially Southerners. Though, I suppose that may be more along the lines of, for example, using "English" to refer to Scots and Welsh - that is, offensively incorrect rather than offensive per se Nik42 04:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the American South, it *is* an insulting term. Trust me on this . . . I've had it used in my direction in a hostile manner. Overseas, it may be different, but it still belongs on the list.

Anyone who has lived in the US South can tell you that "Yankee" is a derogatory term as used by "natives".

---

As a Canadian I don't find Canuck to be in the least bit offensive. If someone says, 'You fucking Canuck!' I will take offensive, I guess, but only because of how they said it (i.e., 'You fucking Canadian!' would be just as offensive).

As a foreigner living in Japan, I also don't find gaijin to be very offensive. It's definitely worse than Canuck, but it all depends on context and I don't take offense 95% of the time when someone calls me a gaijin.

Maybe the list should have some sort of rating system to indicate whether a slur is always offensive, offensive when used by an outsider or rarely offensive. It's really ridiculous having 'Canuck' alongside of 'nigger' and 'chink' as if they're somehow even close to being the same thing.

-- Tlotoxl 09:19, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't object, fundamentally, to some sort of rating system, except that I would imagine that doing it in a fully NPOV manner would be difficult. Different people will find different words more or less offensive. That being said, there's already a qualifier at the top of the page that not all terms are equally offensive.

Clearly, however, some distinctions need to be made. While it is perfectly acceptable to have a hockey team named the Canucks, it would be highly offensive to have a team called the Chinks (even assuming that the Chinese were big hockey fans).

What about the Redskins?

There's a bit of controversy about those sort of team names: Redskins, Chiefs, Indians, Braves, etc. Some people take offense to them, some people don't. The obvious argument against them is that they relegate Native Americans (or American Indians, or Amerindians, or First Peoples, or what have you) to the same position as animals (Broncos, Dolphins, Ravens, Rams). Now, there's also a counter-argument against that, since we have the UNLV Running Rebels and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, so its clearly not limited to native peoples. Still, I think that since "Chink" is unambiguously offensive and since the "Canucks" are mostly making fun of themselves, the Redskins et al. don't fall clearly into either category. --Dante Alighieri 05:57, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

too bad the argument doesn't stick, as you note (Vikings, Patriots, Buccaneers, 49ers).

More generally, the trouble with much of the conversation here is that it's being largely held by white people (my guess, not exactly an uneducated one) who don't take exception to their own race being disparaged the way they do to other races being disparaged. In other words, whites are usually FAAAAAAAAR more worried about tiptoing around non-white sensibilities than they ever are about non-whites reciprocating (as for why, I think John Derbyshire is onto the scent with his recent "Hesperophobia" article).

While we're at it, I suppose it might be time to start thinking about renaming the article. Clearly not all the phrases in the article are ethnic slurs, so perhaps List of fighting words might be more appropriate. In any event, I'll await further discussion here on the Talk page before doing anything drastic.

--Dante Alighieri 10:10, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The easiest way might be to rate them with an easily typed symbol system, say, as !, !!, or !!! on degree of offensiveness, with a small explanation at the bottom of the page, so that you would see nigger (!!!) and canuck (!). -- IHCOYC

---

Gin didn't originate as an ethnic slur. Gin actually comes from an Aboriginal dialect where it does mean "woman". So it's inclusion falls into the doubtful category.

---

I'm in the US and I haven't heard anyone use "sars" to refer to a person of ANY ethnicity. Can anyone actually confirm its usage? --Dante Alighieri 19:50, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm in Montreal, and I have heard the term used to refer to one person -- and he adopted the term himself, as a joke. I'd debate this. --Mirv 17:45, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

more annotation per slur

While we have decided to keep this article, why not write more about each slur -- each slur's region where it was commonly used, when it was used, and how common the usage was. I think noting this is significant because some terms on this list may have been just invented or have been dead for a long time.

A Whole Lot of B.S........

I just stumbled across this page of the wikipedia and find it to be very insulting for ANY RACE of people. I find that you people don't find any name calling offensive, which is very scary. This is very troubling and disturbing. I don't think anyone need a damn dictionary full of NAME CALLING to enhance their vocabulary, (if you want to call it that). Perhaps you fools should be concentrating on how to live together, rather than what new word you can come up with to piss someone off. I guess the world is so corrupt until anything goes, and that is the frightening part.....I guess all of you are prejudice...

Lol. I didn't know what "moolie" meant. I'd heard it used in movies and thought it meant "chump" or somesuch. Now I know it's an Italian equivalent of "nigger." Kinda useful info, don'cha think? Who's the fool again?

Same for ofay, I always thought it derived from "fair" or "fey" or somesuch, I never knew it was pig-Latin for "foe."

Reply: There is a fine line between being prejudice and racist, prejudice is a natural aspect, where racism is acts of violence (mentaly or physicaly) when a person knowningly uses "ethnic slurs" normally it is to create hurt (spreading seeds of hatred) , I believe this page offers people who are unaware an opertunity to change the wrong mentality they have been indoctrinated with from corrupt social teachings ****

It's also useful to know what people might be calling you Conch Shell 15:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When people called me names in elementary school (I'm orginally from outside the US), I had absolutely no idea that they were being racist until they kept on saying it in an increasingly derogatory manner. It would have been nice to have a list like this so I could have figured out just what the heck was going on. I certainly tried (and do try) hard to "live together"... I just had no idea my attempts were being repulsed by certain people entirely because I'm not Anglo-Saxon. Political correctness is important and all, but it's the day and night argument - until you know what is wrong, you can't fix it. My two cents. :) Janet13 04:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just showing a list of information. How you use this information is up to you. The data is not inherently bad at all.

I think these ethnic slurs help enlighten and give info to people. People should know about these terms. What they do with these terms is up to them. But I do know if some racist person utters these slur words like “chink”, “gook”, “coolie”, or “jappo” to an Asian person, “Indio” to a Mexican AmerIndian person, "Polack" to a Polish person, "Kraut"/"Nazi" to a German person, "Mick" to an Irishman, or "spook" and “coon” to Black person, then those words can be fighting words. It might lead to a fistfight. -James 11:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

While I don't find this information particularly dangerous, most of these terms don't seem to be common, interesting, or important enough to include in anything like an encyclopedia. Wachholder0

The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education," or "well-rounded education." Thus, in Wikipedia--the largest encyclopedia ever created--any knowledge can be included. Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged defines an encyclopedia as "a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically". Stroll by a library reference section and you will find encyclopedias of agriculture, of computing, of slang, and so on. This article shows just how much encyclopedic Wikipedia is. --Primetime 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Terms that have become a norm

Years back I was involved with group discussions. These group discussions were moderated by select individuals who were to be unbiased in evaluation of attitudes and beliefs expressed between group members. One day in the midst of discussion I made the statement "I felt as I had been Jew'd." Immediately one of the group members pointed a finger at me and stated "ethnic slur, ethnic slur." My physical and verbal response to was "what the heck or you talking about." I hadn't a clue, as to what was said, that was considered an ethnic slur. At that point one of the moderators spoke up and said "Joe, I am Jewish." As we kept strong eye contact, she could tell I was still bewildered and made another comment along the lines of "You know it is really amazing how select terms are used so much, that after time those terms become a norm and people are completely unaware as to what they are saying." I was still bewildered as the moderator continued with "you said, I was Jew'd." With that statement my words instantly rang out in my memory. I made an apology followed with an excuse that I did not realize. The moderator acknowledged my apology and unawareness based on her understanding of how people so easily fall into the trap of using ethnic slurs as a norm.

To this day people may cry and whine about being called a "Hun" and at the same time those same people will project back similar ethnic slurs without realizing the actual meaning.

For those that do realize actual meaning and continue to utilize terms that are "ethnic slurs", that is something they will have to carry with them. The result is compounded hurt they will continue to try and project onto others. At times they will be successful in dong so giving hatred a means to root itself and grow.

If one elects to continue spreading garbage after they are made aware as to what they are doing, it is their decission to be a "ethnic slur garbage collator."

Consider what has occurred with our families over time the next time you trip up and use any "ethnic slur." I know I do .... and I understand it is our Cajun families/relations who I have insulted besides myself.

Choupiuqe born and raised in the swamps .... bound to family through the waters of the bayou teche.

---

Hi, I think my listing of "hajji" might be a bit POV, I'm not the most patriotic American and maybe that shows.. is there a better term than "occupation forces?" --Pakaran 17:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is someone in Iraq to witness that there is this usage?

It was mentioned in the news, want me to dig up a reference? --Pakaran 17:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I'd dispute that the n*gger word is used in New Zealand in reference to the Maori. I've never once heard that word used in reference to them. Also, including pakeha on this list would be controversial. Crusadeonilliteracy 17:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Removed the following:

*Brit - Ireland, U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, U.K. citizen (nearly always disparaging in Ireland, less clearly so elsewhere)

"Brit" can hardly qualify as a slur, seeing that Brits happily use it to describe themselves. If I say rude things about the Aussies, does that make "Aussie" a slur? 172.187.222.103 23:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Does use of a term by members of the same group disqualify it as an ethnic slur. Many African-Americans use the term "nigger" towards members of their group ? Jcam 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Coonass, swamp n__ger, levee rat > degrading terms projected towards Cajun People.

Please add to list page ....

Choupiuqe born and raised in the swamps .... bound to family through the waters of the bayou teche.

---

Back to the notion of a ratings system, here's an idea for rating the terms from zero to four symbols-yet-to-be-decided (I'll use @ in the example):
(no @s) Slang terms which are not necessarily offensive (Canuck, limey, goy).
@ Historical terms once used descriptively, but now considered incorrect (Mohammedan, Negro, oriental, darkie, Gypsy); terms which are offensive only when used inaccurately (Chinese referring to Asians who are not Chinese).
@@ Moderately offensive slang terms (oreo, frog, most given names used as slurs).
@@@ Highly offensive phrases (porch monkey, towelhead)
@@@@ Highly offensive, highly prevalent "classic" slurs (nigger, wop, chink, spic, honky, dago, and so forth --- literally ad nauseum).

Yes, there are POV issues here, but as long as there's a degree of consensus, and intelligent discussion about what is not agreed on, we should come up on something close to objectivity.

Sara 02:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Any explainaitions when we have to use capital letter for the first word and when not ? All the words in this page are all mixed between words starting with capital letters and some not. --Chmouel Boudjnah 23:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I have a question: is Anglo - US, a white person really an ethnic slur? I've never heard it used as such. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 01:39, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree--I'd think of it as a shorthand form, no more. Meelar 01:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's actually used alot by Latinos, especially when in front of non-Latinos. It makes sense; Since Hispanics are separated from other Americans by language, it would only be natural for the other group (Anglos) to be named linguistically as well.

It's certainly a *label*, but that does not make it a slur. "Hispanic" is a label along very similar lines.

I agree. I have heard it used hundreds of times, and can't recall it being used as a slur ever. -Willmcw 21:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

a

very good site of slurs yet youre missin some

such as :

Keffer: Afrikaan: a black person Wagon- Burner: An Native American

Wagon Burner? Never ever heard that. RickK | Talk 06:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think I might have heard it at one point or other... but don't take this to be definitive validation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Just googled it. It's not terribly popular (although one might imagine it's just not terribly popular on the net) but it does seem to be in use. Here's a link: [1]. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:52, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous! It seems like half the terms on here were just arbitrarily added by people who have no idea what the words mean. An example is "chino". This is NOT an anti-Chinese racial slur that Hispanic Americans use. The truth of the matter is that "chino" means "Chinese" in Spanish! When a Mexican-American calls a Chinese person a "chino", it's no different than when he calls a Hispanic a "latino" or a Mexican-American a "mexicano". "Chino" DOES NOT mean "chink", and it's sort of anti-Spanish racism/ignorance that led someone to post "chino" as a racial slur.

Actually many Latinos use Chino indiscriminately to refer to any Asian, regardless of whether they are Chinese or not. While Chino in Spanish does refer to Chinese, the reality of the matter is that there is indeed much racism in Latino culture towards Asians in spanish-speaking countries, and the use of Chino does come into play to express such sentiments.

Also, "Eskimo" shouldn't be considered a racial slur because of false etymology. I've never referred to Eskimos as Inuits and, in fact, was sometimes led to believe they were two different things. "Inuits" were the Native American tribes who lived in the northern Canada/Alaska area, and Eskimos are but one group/tribe of Inuit people who lived in a typical way (igloos and whatnot).

Also, I'm Italian-American, and I have to say that some of the things on the page are ridiculous. For example, it's offensive to call an Italian-American "Fabio"? I don't think so. If we use that kind of logic than ANYTHING could become a racial slur. For example, is it also an anti-Italian slur if someone were to call me Joe Pesci or Danny Devito? I mean, come on!

Please keep in mind that people in different countries "feel" the words in a different way. Also, it all depends on the intonation. FOr example, "Ivan" is a typical Russian name. But when spoken "These 'Ivans' did this and that" it turns into a slur. And you must agree that "These 'Sergeys' did this and that" doesn't sound the same. The same if for Fabio. Probably in some circles 'Fabio' is pronounced with a derogatory feel. And an Italian must know that when somebody called him "Hey, you, Fabio!", it doesn't necessarily mean that the caller mistook him for some Fabio he thought he knows. After the WWII in Russia almost all common German names Hans, Fritz, etc., became ethnic slurs, guess why. Mikkalai 22:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC

<<<<After the WWII in Russia almost all common German names Hans, Fritz, etc., became ethnic slurs, guess why. Mikkalai 22:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC)>>>>

Right, but that's my point. Almost anything could be considered an ethnic slur, depending on the context. As an Italian, I've never heard the "Fabio" thing. And, IMO, it'd be far more insulting to call me, say, a "Soprano" or something like that. I'm not sure if anyone uses "Soprano" as a racial mafia slur in that way, but I don't see why it wouldn't be. This could also be done with any real-life mafioso names, e.g. "Gotti" or any other fictional mafia characters. IMO, that doesn't make these words racial slurs. Like you said above, would it make sense to list all German names as slurs because Russians MAY use them in a negative way?

Would it make sense to list every Asian name or every African-American-sounding name (i.e., Jamal, Yolanda, Kwaneesha) as slurs because racists might sometimes apply any arbitrary name to a person of a certain ethnic group in order to offend? I don't think it would.

We need to be very careful about folk etymology. I noticed that some for 'pom' has crept onto the list. Secretlondon 01:22, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I find much of this list rather dubious - certainly "kaffir" is used as a slur in Arabic, and is used by some to refer to all non-Muslims; it was picked up by white colonialists in Africa from Arab and Zanzibari slave traders they met there. "Bushie" must surely be a diminutive of Bushman rather than "Coloured". While "paki" is used as a slur, "pak" is used by Pakistani newspapers to save space in their English language headlines and articles, so it seems to be the user rather than the meaning which matters. I don't see the slur in "Soviet" at all, though it is now out of date. And I would have thought "spic" was a shortening of "Hispanic". Many of the others look unlikely to me. Does this page come anywhere near the quality required? --Henrygb 01:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• correction: I'm an Indonesian muslim. In arabic, Kaffir should be written as kafir (one 'f') and its original meaning was someone who cannot accept the truth. Then, it was used to addressed all of non-muslim (although some scholar disagree espescially regarding ahlul-kitab [people of the book]). For a non-muslim in Campa (somewhere between modern Vietnam and Cambodja), 'kafir' is not offensive. It was only used to differentiate between muslim and non-muslim. In Indonesia, it is offensive [imagine if you call someone from other religion as "non-believer"]. Kunderemp 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Is "yuppie" really an ethnic slur? In the UK, it doesn't refer to any particular ethnic origin, though it might in the US. American wikipedians advise? Bonalaw 10:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Differentiation, elaboration

While I wouldn't argue against the inclusion of a list and discussion (!) of racial slurs and the like, I'd wish its quality to improve dramatically, especially given the sensitive nature of the topic. Note that some people may be offended even by reading this page(s).

Being German, my comments will include a 'german' perspective. Some notes: 1) The only word reportedly used by Germans in the list is 'Tommy'. It can still be used today (although it rarely is) referring to British soldiers. Per se, the term is hardly derogatory. Unlike a page you link to claims ("Germans called the Brits this in WWII. They thought Tommy was a common British name.") it refers to the British soldiers' pay books which used the name "Thomas Atkins" as an exemplary signature. Hence the hypocoristic form 'Tommy' was used as a generic term for 'British soldier'. 2) Unlike apparently in the US, the word 'Yankee' is derogatory in German, unless used in historical context: e.g. Yankees vs Southerners. 3) That brings me to the question of context. For this page to be more help- and insightful, I would appreciate more context and historical background. It would, e.g. be interesting to know whether 'Adolf' can still, and in any context be used as generic term for 'Germans' or rather when describing Germans as 'Nazis' (which may, of course coincide, depending on the speakers intentions). How is it used ? "He's an Adolf" = German ? 4) Lastly, I would like to single out the entry 'Nazi' which you gloss as 'a German person'. While I'm aware that some people still like to indiscriminately qualify Germans as Nazis, I think at least in Europe, Nazi does not necessarily mean German. Historically, of course, it is short for 'follower of the doctrine of 'Nationalsozialismus. While this movement came to power in Germany, and its most prominent exponants and, perhaps more importantly, the far-reaching realization of its tenets (e.g. the Holocaust) are inseparably connected with German history, Nazism was never, nor is, either uniquely or exclusively German. Especially Neo-Nazism is widespread today, with major centers, e.g. in North America and various European countries. Hence the current usage of the word, as I know it, is that it refers to a follower of Nazism, whatever nationality he or she has. I'm pretty sure that, at least in Europe 'he's a Nazi' isn't homonymous with 'he's German'. But that may be different in the US or elsewhere. Can anybody clarify ?

P.S. Certainly the usage of the word 'Nazi' depends on each person's historical awareness. After WW II countries like France or the Netherlands undertook great efforts to expunge the memory or their respective Nazi movements and collaboration. The picture given in school books etc. was that all French/ Dutch were in the resistance, while only the Germans were Nazi. Such a clear-cut national divide of course never existed. Suffice it to say that there were thousands of Dutch (and also French) in the Waffen SS. Also, there were quite a few Germans e.g. fighting in the French 'Résistance'. Such 'details' tend to be conveniently forgotten, so, perhaps the equation Nazi = (exlusively) German may live in many heads. I'd be interested to read your comments on that.

Kiwi and General comment

I see that Kiwi is in the list. Maybe a New Zealander can correct me (perhaps I am an insentitive Australian) but I really doubt that this is a slur as no Kiwi has yet to hit me for using it. On that basis I ought to add Aussie.

This leads to another observation. There are various debates above that discuss whether or not a word should appear and whether or not a slur. How about we solve the problme by chaging the list to a list of names that are slang terms use for an ethnic gourp, nationality, culter or whatever. We could add data to indicate

• An indication of level of offensiveness, preferably validated by a member of the group being offended, otherwise subjective by necessity!
• An indication of whether the term used by others to refer to the group (eg boong): or also used internally (eg Kiwi, wog).
• An indication of the form of english that uses the word: plus any differences between forms of english.

This would allow the list to expand to include other 'alternative' and slang names for groups.

Not sure about sorting or splitting into sub topics: could be by target group or the using group: ideally both.

This is a 'shit load' of work, but may solve the issue. --GPoss 00:59, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

BJAODN time?

Either this has a couple of mistakes in it, or it's a candidate for BJAODN:

Shigga, Sexinese, ; Of Sexinese descent. Highly sexy and irresistable. a must-fuck

The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 02:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This list is chock full of bogosity mainly in the form of a) little-used neologisms and b) terms which are not ethnic slurs and/or only questionably disparaging.

Post-VfD cleanup

Since it's survived, evidently people must be willing to clean up the list in ways other than merely fixing the capitalisation on the entries (some of which should indeed not be capitalised).

phallic-sounding slurs...

Any etymologists know whether or not "chink" and "spic" were originally intended to sound vaguely like phallic references? That's always had my curiosity ever since I first heard them and originally thought those were slang words for the penis.

Removed part of Anglo

I removed part of the "Anglo" listing that referred to the use of that word in Quebec to describe English speakers. That usage is commonly accepted and not perjorative.

"Anglo" shouldn't be listed at all. It's true that it is often used by Hispanic Americans, but it is not an insult - it is a fairly generic term for non-Hispanic white people. "Gringo" is more of an insult.

Non-English words

Some words in this list seem to be words used in other languages. Words like "gringo", which have passed into English usage, I can understand, but do we need, say, "ame-koh", which if I'm interpreting correctly is only used in Japanese? -Branddobbe 03:59, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think it does make sense (in a way) to keep the words that are used by English speakers, and also those that are used to refer to English speakers, but omit other entries... By this criterion, ame-koh would stay, but e.g. I would not add лабус (labus), a slur used by Belorussians in reference to Lithuanians. A useful web reference BTW (if not mentioned elsewhere in this humongous talkpage) is The Alternative Dictionaries. --Theodore Kloba 20:14, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Slurs of unknown character added by anon

• Aggarwal, Rishi – a fat man
• Christofah a canadian fop
• Fay-zai – fat guy in chinese

Do these qualify as ethnic slurs? - Amgine 21:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first and last are certainly not ethnic or anything close to it, the second I would say is a nationality slur, not exactly the same thing. And I've yet to find any evidence "Christofah" is even in use with this meaning. I'm going to just remove them. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 06:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fay-zai, I believe, simply means "fat guy" in Chinese. Certainly not a racial or ethnic slur, it's just a random derogatory term, same way calling someone "fat guy" can be in English. It can also be used in a complimentary (though someone condescending) manner, re: aw, look at the cute little kid. It had already been removed, but just in case anyone's wondering.

More recently, an anon added Aggarwal, Rishi, this time the definition was "retard." I'm guessing this is the name of a person, and this is a childish prank. -Willmcw 18:32, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hoser?

Hoser doesn't mean a Canadian. And 'Gypsy' IS a derrogatory slur referring to the Roma people.

Why is Jewbacca reverting the ethnic slurs against Jews?

This page is an equal opportunity slur festival, in case he missed the point. All races and ethnicities are subject to slurs equally here. Jews don't get a free ride by whining about anti-semitism, at least not on this page. --Wiesenthaler 04:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They do while SlimVirgin has a breath in her body. I think your edits were partly questionable and definitely pose questions about your own priorities, but it does look like you're being censored.Dr Zen 05:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some (Chosen) People are more equal than others. --Wiesenthaler 05:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Listen, I'll fight for NPOV, but I won't support anti-Semitism. Take it elsewhere. Dr Zen 05:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You said yourself they were censoring my edits. The Jewish Wikipedia gangsters think they must revert slurs against Jews but, of course, slurs against everyone else are fair game. They think they are special. It's not anti-Semitism to point out the obvious. Watch your step when you step off your high horse. --Wiesenthaler 05:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiesenthaler's edits

I just reverted Wiesenthaler's latest edit. Some of his entries were described in neutral terms, but others were not, and I don't have time to go through them all so I reverted. I feel this user should be blocked because he is causing a lot of trouble for a second day running; wasting people's time, and being highly abusive. Examples of his recent edit are:

• Nickel nose - U.S., a jew. Refers to facial characteristics and money-centered nature.
  • German candle - U.S., Jew. Refers to incinerated Jews in World War II.
• German oven mitt - U.S., Refers to incinerated Jews in World War II.
• Gargamel – U.S. ,Jews. refers to greedy money-grubbing nature of Smurf by same name.
• Gatemaster – U.S., Jew. As in doomed to Hell.

Although this is a page for ethnic slurs, the descriptions of the slurs should be neutral, and the above are not. I also wrote on the edit summary that the edit contained an insult against an editor, but I was confusing that with the previous edit by someone else. Slim 07:15, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I feel you should be blocked for engaging in revert wars and unjustified biased edits of referenced material. Who do you think you are? --Wiesenthaler 07:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I've fixed Wiesenthaler's additions now (and they needed it badly). All parties to this needless edit war ought to familiarize themselves with the concepts of cooperation and WikiLove: I've found they make one's editing here more productive, not to mention much more pleasant for all concerned. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VirginiaSlim, why are you deleting fully referenced material?

You should not be deleting material just to suit your personal opinions about what is offensive to jews. This page is for ethnic slurs. Of course they are offensive. Your selective bias is more offensive than the slurs. [2] --Wiesenthaler 07:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You must describe them in neutral terms; otherwise I will revert. Slim 07:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

You can edit the article without reverting. Demanding that other editors suit your terms is unreasonable. The terms and tones are as neutral as all the other slurs. You are just biased, Jewish, and self-centered. --Wiesenthaler 07:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Damn Shysters

Mucked up Arabia, the US and now Wikipedia. --Wiesenthaler 07:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did anyone else see this? He added the term "shyster" to List of ethnic slurs and now throws it around here to refer to Jews and Jewish editors. Jewbacca 07:28, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've twice reverted his List of ethnic slurs edits. My problem is that I don't know which, if any, are legitimate edits, although some are clearly not, and are not described in neutral terms, so I'm just reverting. I don't have time to do the research required to find out which are widely used and which are his own invention. He's not editing in good faith, that's all I know. Slim 07:34, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not editing in good faith???????? I did the research and provided the reference. You "don't have time" so you just revert. Looks like you are the bad faith editor here, not me. If you don't like the content, just admit it instead of making excuses. --Wiesenthaler 07:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shyster was already on the list by the way. Why are you taking it personally? I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was referring to dishonest cheating stealing murdering scumbags lawyers/ --Wiesenthaler 07:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was NOT already on the list. Here is your edit of List of ethnic slurs where you added Shyster

Learn to read: "Scheister [Shyster] – U.K. Commonwealth & U.S., a Jew - derived from the character Shylock from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice". However, "shyster" today is also a derogatory reference to lawyers, especially those of questionable ethics, regardless of their ethnic origin. " --Wiesenthaler 07:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See, it doesn't even necessarily mean "Jews". let alone Jewbacca, just like the words "ignorant schmuck." --Wiesenthaler 07:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Descriptions

I've made a few edits to remove some derogatory language in the descriptions. Changed Scheister description to see Shyster. Also delinked a couple of slurs that weren't actually linked to articles of the same name. -Willmcw 11:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of your sanitizing edits deleted important information about the etymological roots of these slurs, such as shyster's origin in Shakespeare's Shylock in Merchant of Venice, so I returned some of the edits to their original state. --Wiesenthaler 17:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for these etymologies? -Willmcw 20:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which ones? Most are here [3], many, like shyster, are also well documented elsewhere. --Wiesenthaler 21:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, let's take Shyster to start with. The site you reference does not include that etymology. Since you have insisted on adding back a number of questionable etymologies, I would ask you to support each re-addition. If they are well-documented then it shouldn't be hard to provide that documentation. -Willmcw 21:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's so easy you could do it yourself if you weren't just interested in harassment.[4]: "Some etymologists believe "shyster" is a derivative of Shakespeare’s character Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, used to describe a devious, scheming person of Jewish background who will try any scam in the book to make a buck. In 1895, Funk’s Standard Dictionary defined a shyster as "a lawyer who practices in an unprofessional or tricky manner; especially one who haunts the prisons and lower courts to prey on petty criminals." In Shakespeare’s play, other characters call Shylock a "currish Jew" whose "desires are wolvish, bloody, starved, and ravenous"; he is accused of being "the devil … in the likeness of a Jew." " --Wiesenthaler 21:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you are the one who insists on having those etymologies included, it is up to you to support them with references. Actually, the source you give offers a different etymology as well. I don't believe that the character Shylock was a lawyer., so the connection is not obvious. How about Gargamel? Does Funk and Wagnal have an entry for that term? -Willmcw 21:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I already gave you the source for all my edits [5] The Slur database, so I will not continue to play your little game. If you weren't so lazy and intent on harassment, you could use Google to search for "Gargamel" and "Jew". You get more than 400 hits including white supremacist sites and an academic paper dating to 1996. It's obviously a real slur with some usage. Nice try at being obdurate though. I'm sure there's a slur that describes that characteristic. Shyster doesn't quite cover it. --Wiesenthaler 22:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that reference. Again, it's up to the editor who adds the material to provide the source. If you are familiar with white supremacist sites, then that puts you in a good position to have those references. Since I don't use ethnic slurs, I admit that I am not conversant with them. Even if a slur exists in the Slur database, that does not mean that the definition here needs to include denigrating language. -Willmcw 22:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

May bee associated with Shylock, but that is probably the incorrect etymology. See http://www.bartleby.com/61/8/S0380800.html.

Derogatory words used in definitions

Do we want to be using derogatory words in the definitions themsleves? Some of the problems with Wiesenthaler's edits were that they involved using slurs in the descriptions of slurs. In that same vein, should we be defining:

• Bigger Thomas – U.S. Blacks, slang for a bad nigger
• Niknok – Netherlands, Dutch word equivalent to nigger
• Mayate - U.S. hispanics, a derogatory Spanish word for African Americans

The first definition seems inappropriate and the second seems appropriate, in my opinion, but the line is too fine. I made a few changes using the third definition, but thought I'd ask here before making any more. Any opinions? -Willmcw 07:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's as complex as you make it sound. If you are using racial slurs in the "mention" sense then they should be in quotes; e.g.

Niknok; Netherlands, Dutch word equivalent to "nigger"

They shouldn't be used in any other sense, as they are in the first example. Agentsoo 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiesenthaler/SLUR

Gosh, just as soon as one username is banned another username appears to take its place. -Willmcw 04:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is a Gargamel?

How does censoring information inform a reader? How does a reader know that a Gargamel is greedy and that's why bigots use it to describe Jews? What is non-neutral about explaining that illiterates used a cross or an X to sign their names while illiterate Jews used a circle, keikle? What is wrong with explaining the origin of shyster is from shylock or from sheisser? What's wrong with explaining that nickel nose has a double meaning and is a play on words? What is wrong with explaining that Wal-People refers to a class of whites and not a supposed frequent shoppers or that Lawn Jockey refers to black people who stay at home and lounge in their front yards and doesn't refer to all blacks? What is your problem? --SLUR 06:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know very well what you're doing so don't pretend. Can you supply references for your claims? I've never heard that shyster comes from Shylock, for example. It comes from the German word, scheissen, so far as I know. As for the other edits, it's the way you describe them. Why not leave them as they are? Not racist enough for you? Slim 06:55, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've only skimmed through the article versions, but at face value SLUR seemed to contribute some very valuable information. The topic is inherently bound to offend, but people use Wikipedia as a tool of education, not as a tool of political correctness. So long as the information is factual (regardless of whether someone may find it offensive), I vote that it should stay. Brownman40 22:14, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason the material can't stay if it's correct, but the slurs should be described in neutral terms, not as an opportunity to introduce more abuse. Willmcw had done a good job of neutralizing the descriptions, but SLUR is a sockpuppet for a user who has tried to cause trouble on this page before. Also, I am disputing the factual accuracy of his "shyster" entry. Slim 22:18, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, Brownman. Perhaps before you 'vote' you should do more than skim. The issue here is twofold - one: should a listing of slurs incorporate other slurs in the definitions? two: should editors who have added strongly POV material again and again and again be taken at face value, even after they use deceptive editing summaries? Is it factual that Jews are greedy? Is it factual that the derivation of shyster is shylock? I guess it depends on what universe you live in. But for this list, it'd be better to stick to objective, NPOV facts. Let's keep the slurs in the left column, not as part of the 'factual' definitions. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see that this revert war is rather “deep” (involving several definitions.) (I’m thinking as I write, so bear with me.) I see your point that on certain definitions there is POV, specifically on Gargamel. On German candle, I get the same information in your definition as I do in SLUR’s, but does this come from my common knowledge of the Holocaust? IOW, would I know that Jews were tortured and burned alive in crematoria by the Nazis if it weren’t spelled out? On lawn jockey, SLUR explains, either truthfully or not, how the word lawn jockey is used. To me, that explanation sounds believable and while this theory may not be scientific, maybe SLUR does know the root of this word because he ‘’is’’ racist. On the word kike, I feel that this dispute would hinge on a factual basis rather than a POV basis, even though there may be some POV in SLUR’s version. If SLUR is factually correct in his definition, I feel we should keep that definition but maybe reword it. The nickel nose definition of SLUR does give more information, but again I see the debate coming as to whether it is factual or not. The walpeople definition I see as a POV dispute, as both versions convey the same information. In essence, SLUR may bring information to the table that maybe as a racist he may actually know more about. However, we should strive to write this list as unemotionally and less offensively as possible while keeping the maximum amount of concrete relevant information in the article. Though as far as your note of slurs being on the left hand side and the definitions on the right hand side, wouldn’t it figure that the definitions would carry some of the offensiveness of the word as it is a definition? -Brownman40 00:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of the problems with this list is that there is no definitive source for information. The "Racial Slur Database" does not have a page describing their criteria for inclusion, and slurs are generally slang, hence they have informal usage. Some supposed slurs appear made-up. I'm not sure that it is necessary to know that crematoria were known as ovens to understand the german candle slur. Yes, these are all derogatory terms, and some of them have interesting etymologies. But since there is so little that can be established as factual, in many cases simply indicating who the slur refers to may be the only NPOV definition possible. - Willmcw 00:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is a link regarding the etymology links of shyster and shylock. It's from a discussion type board, but it supports its discussion with links to dictionary orgins. A discussion of the etymology Brownman40 03:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brownman, could you quote the section that specifically says shyster comes from Shylock so we don't have to wade through the whole discussion? Also, I don't feel Usenet or a discussion group is an authoritative reference. If they give dictionary links, could you supply them here please? Many thanks, Slim 03:28, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I looked at it, it looks like some bizarre and highly speculative attempt to prove that the word "Shylock" has Hebrew roots, and a bald assertion that it's related to Shyster. No evidence provided. There are people who spend a great deal of time trying to prove all English words have Hebrew roots. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry SlimVirgin. I wasn't making an assertion one way or the other. I was just trying to get us some material to make the dispute more substantive. In fact, my impression was that the shyster shylock connection was very weak, if existant at all. Brownman40 05:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brownman, would you like to say here which of SLUR's edits you'd like to keep specifically, then we can discuss them? Slim 05:45, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I want to do more research. I definitely lean to keeping your version of Shyster though. Brownman40 07:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC

Does this help? - "shyster (also earlier shuyster) understod as shy (in earlier sense of "disreputable"), and -ster a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unethical or tricky methods; a pettifogger [Slang]" Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1960. Avalon 13:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving on

What issues are outstanding on this page? In my opinion, these are the specific issues:

• a few contended definitions (gargamel, shyster, kike, german candle, lawn jockey, walmarter, etc)
• a lack of citations for new entries and edits
• the presence on the list of some outlandish and unbelievable slurs (Chimp-Pansie, etc)

We should get this page unprotected asap. The only issue that keeps this page protected is a lack of collaboration on the part of one or more editors. If this is no longer a problem then the protection should be lifted. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Willmcw, I have no objection to the page being unprotected. I think now that SLUR/Wiesenthal have been blocked, everyone currently editing this page is acting in good faith. Slim 03:40, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

US vs U.S.

The manual of style calls for using "U.S." rather than "US" when abbreviating the United States. Wikipedia:Manual of Style

When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used.

I will make a mass change to the existing text. In the future, editors should follow the usual Wiki style. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

RED ALERT!

A bunch of self righteous creeps just shut down the "List of Ethnic Stereotypes" page. We should expect them to target this page next. Gird your loins for battle.

They moved them to List of stereotypical characters in the world of drama. Sweetfreek 21:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sweet, that's not the same list. The creeps made it disappear forever.

I don't have the patience at this exact moment to go and retrieve them from the history, but it's nothing that can't be corrected. Sweetfreek 20:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't think that list was very good. It could have been better, but it was pretty useless in the state that it was in last time I looked. When I tried to think of anything I could add or edit that would improve it, and I found that my stereotypes of people where pretty subjective (australians?), and it would be extremely difficult to keep it unbiased and balenced. But I agree, That we should keep an eye out and be wary of that becoming a precedent for the Pee-Cee creeps to go on a censure spree. -Chas.

Cowboy

On what basis can we say that "Cowboy (Europe) an American (Europeans frequently puzzled that many Americans aren't offended)"? What's our source for what Europeans think that many Americans think? -Willmcw 23:44, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Simple, the Europeans use it so much that we all can't help but notice. Similarly, most Americans regard them a mostly a lot of blue-blooded neat-freaks. It's really more about the derogatory attitude than the words themselves. Sweetfreek 20:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's cool, but those entries go in a different article, List of derogatory attitudes. ;) Anyway, the editor who added it found a source which supported at least the claim that Europeans use the epithet for Americans, and the text was modified to suit. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:10, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Personally Id say that this has been misinterpreted, as it is not used solely for americans and is infact used as a term for any person who does a job half hartedly or very poorly and in doing so ripps someone elce off, usually for money... then im from england...maybe its used differnetly in other areas of Europe?

sauerkrauts

What about Sauerkrauts = Germans?

It's just Kraut, if you use it with Sauer you refer to the dish, at least that's what I think Brother Dysk 14:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. The joke is "Now there's a sour Kraut" Chris 19:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What/who is GIL in the explanation of Kike

Revision as of 02:01, 28 Mar 2005 says: Kike : (U.S.) a Jewish person mainly named GIL. Some call him Poor Ol Gil. Uncertain derivation, possibly derived from the fact that illiterate Jewish immigrants (i.e., those unfamiliar with the Latin or are named GIL/English alphabet: most such immigrants were quite literate in Hebrew/Yiddish and often in Cyrillic/Russian script) / Gil loves to gobble on chodes.

I have no idea what this is talking about. Who or what is GIL, and how is it related to the word "kike"? What are "chodes" and why is it relevant that Gil loves to gobble on them?

I'd like to remove those changes, but I'm pretty new here and figured I'd ask first. --Keeves 19:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was just vandalism by 67.180.82.75. Feel free to remove obvious vandalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chode is a word for penis. --SPUI (talk) 21:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, all! --Keeves 22:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you deleting "Pina Colada" and other slurs?

I don't know who decided with their monarchical wisdom that the slurs like "Won-Ton Pussy" and "Pina Colada" aren't real--I hear people use them at my school in new york all the time. You guys probably haven't heard them because you don't live in as diverse a community as I do. But I don't know what sources you want... people say them, but there's no official database of obscure sources. If "Egg-Roll dick" is acceptable as a slur I don't see why "Won-ton pussy" isn't.

Adding slurs that you have heard is called original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please find a verifiable reference so that other editors who do not attend your school can double check the validity. If such sources do not exist then, to the great loss of culture, we shall have to leave them off of the the list. Thanks. -Willmcw 20:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

While the loss of this information would indeed be a horrific tragedy, at lest we can gain some minor comfort in the knowledge that it will be maintained in the edit history. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Self-loathing Jew" is not an ethnic slur

I'm a jew. I'm a supporter of palestinian rights. I don't believe it was the right of the British to give Israel to the jews in the first place. I do tend to get annoyed when people insinuate that I am a "Self-Loathing Jew." Have I established that I'm not just someone who uses the phrase yet? Anyway, its simply not an ethnic slur. It is used to describe, primarily, people who either support palestine or don't openly practice judaism. In either case, it is the person's actions that are the primary object of the insult, and not their ethnicity. Jew is not an ethnic slur, and self-loathing is simply an adjective. This phrase should not be in this article. --Benna 23:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since that usage appears to be based on a political belief, would it be more approrpiate to include in list of political epithets? Did you see the usage in the link [6]? Or, would it be better to list it as "Self-loathing ____" : a term used for people of various ethnic origins who are accused of being ashamed of their ethnicity", because it could be applied to many ethnicities? -Willmcw 23:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of political epithets isn't perfect, but yes, I think that would be a much better place for it. I wouldn't oppose its addition to that list. --Benna 01:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a day to see if anyone else has an opinion. FWIW, I would think that "self-hating" is a more common usage than "self-loathing." Cheers, -Willmcw 03:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that too. I figured it was just me, but perhaps the political epithets entry should be "self-hating." --Benna 03:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the List of political epithets is the best option there is. It most certainly is not an ethnic slur, it's simply a Jew who does not nesecarily stand with Israel for everything, or one who does not practice Judaism much. They are not being called this for this ethnicity, rather, their beliefs, or their political view, which would put it in the List of political epithets. Aviationwiz 04:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's moved. Thanks everybody. -Willmcw 22:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Hebe" as an alternate spelling for "heeb"

Just a small note, but I think "hebe" should be included as a slur or as an alternative spelling for "heeb." I was pretty surprised when a ctrl F for "hebe" didn't get any results on the page.

I agree and have made the change. In general, you may "be bold" and make edits on your own. If someone doesn't like it then we can deal with that later. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Ami" is not an ethnic slur in German

"Ami" in German is simply a colloquial, sloppy abbreviation for "American". It's not derogatory unless put in a derogatory context.

Ami has been removed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:25, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Intsik"

I removed the following:

Intsik (Philippines) Derogatory term for people of Chinese descent.

It's not a derogatory term, it's just the Filipino word for a Chinese person. My Filipino-English dictionary agrees with me. TheCoffee 16:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please consider putting it back.

It is true that "Intsik" is the Tagalog term for a person of Chinese descent, but it is now considered antiquated and slightly derogatory. The modern, polite term is "Chinese", "Chino", or the cumbersome "Fil-Chi" (short for Filipino-Chinese). I think your dictionary is outdated - which is not surprising, because our dictionaries are in dire need of revision and updating. --219.90.68.111 02:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Dink"

Dink

   (U.S. Vietnam era) North Vietnamese soldiers or guerillas. Possibly based on the Korean word for "foreigner"(a remnant from the Korean War).

No, the Korean word for "foreigner" is "wegookin." I'll delete that part.

terms for Indians

Why is there such a prevalence of the term "East Indians" on this page? I'm an Indian, as in, from India, and I don't like that term when Indian would be enough. Presumably this is to avoid confusion with Native Americans, and if that is true, a distinction has already been made by using the term "Native American". I've never met an Indian who would consider him or herself "East Indian" unless they were actually from the east parts of India, despite the phrase "East Indies".

Thanks.

I will take this opportunity to respond to your query. It is most likely a result of Americans (referring to denizens of the continents of both North and South America) posting these, where Indian is the most common term to refer to the aboriginal peoples (anthropological term).

--Darryl Hamlin 09:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Um no sorry, you are both incorrect. The carribean is the West Indies. India and other countries are where the East Indies are. Thus, when referring to Indian from India, they are East Indian. When referring to carribean people (e.g. Jamaicans) they are West Indian. The West Indies were named "Indies" merely because Christopher Columbus thought he reached India when he really reached the Carribean, but that's why the historically incorrect term is still used today in the term "West Indies." This is why it is important to differentiate West vs East Indians. Enchantedsky 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

BLAD

BLAD

(U.K.) abbreviation for "Brown Lad Acts Darker"a young man of South Asian descent who acts black.

I searhced quite a bit without finding any use of this term. Do we have any source? It seems plausible, but without a source it looks more like a made-up term. Thanks, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Pepsi?

Pepsi - (Anglophone Canadian) a Quebecer (or "French-Canadian") (from popularity of Pepsi-Cola in Quebec, where this soft drink outsells Coca-Cola — possibly the only place in the world where this is true). As used in Quebec, it means that the intended recipient is, like a pepsi bottle, "empty from the neck up." It also refers to black people in America. Many years ago, Pepsi was cheaper than Coca-Cola. So, the lower income black people drank Pepsi because it was more affordable. Hence, the term 'Pepsi' used for black people.

Is this a fact? I suppose this is why there is pretty much 1 pepsi machine for every coca cola machine in The States. Have any proof to back up that claim?

As for East-Indian, I know white americans that will use this term to distinguish 'East' Indians and American Indians. I've known 'Native Americans' that preferred to either go by 'Indian' or their particular Indian nation. We'll never reach a concensus unless there is a real poll on this subject.

There are plenty of Americans that dislike using the Your Race Here-American. I don't believe we ever voted on it.

I also move to add 'OREO'. It can be used to describe a black that acts white. 'OREO' can also mean a person who is of black/white heritage. 'Cracker' can also mean a black that acts white.-Wijiwang 15:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC);

removed 'cefran'

'Céfran' is not a racist slur, and is not even a common 'verlan' word. Because this entry had no value, I removed it. Adidas 00:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

AS a U.K resident for 33 years I have never heard the term "10% off" as a reference the Jewish community - where do you get your information?

Fish and Chips?

What the hell's wrong with fish and chips, It's not just white people who eat it actually, Plus in Britain it is highly-prized, It is also brain food so why the low intelligence reference, plus saying fish and chips is low taste comes across as snobbish to me.

Schwarzer

"Schwarzer" isn't considered a racist slur in the German speaking countries since schwarz is the German word for the color black. "Schwarze" are blacks and "Schwarzer" is a black person. It's therefore equally offensive as the word "blacks" is in America. I added a comment and the German ethnic slur of "Neger".

CACA

Why does the definition of Caca keep getting taken down? I lived in Saudi Arabia for ~10 years and I always heard Caca used to describe NIGGERS who were born in the middle east. Do I have to use NIGGERS instead of COLORED or BLACK people to make it sound legitimate? I have seen some honestly very stupid slurs on here that I can hardly believe 'COME ON, YAHOODI AND THE BLOWFISH???' Thats so just some random fucking clowns made up term that he thought sounded funny. this is for real

"Bög" and "bøsser"

Both words translate simply to "fag" and can't be introduced into a context and be perceived as ethnic without the very specific mention of or allusion to nationality. No one could simply blurt out "bög" and make a stranger (whether a homophobe, nationalist or both) go "yeah, how about those Swedes". Whether a majority of Finns, Danes or Norwegians actually think of Swedish men as pansies or not is completely irrelevant. The exact same could just as well be used in reverse or to just about any other nationality. Any homophobic nationalist of any country would probably claim that the nationals of any random number of other countries are a bunch of homosexuals. In a lot of cases probably all other countries. It would be just as pointless as listing "dyke" or "fag" here.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Where does the info for this word "bög" as an offensive word in Finland come from anyway? I have never heard of it, it doesn't fit the language in its swedish form (would have to be corrupted), and Google.fi doesn't find it in finnish usage in the web or in the Usenet. It might be used by the swedish speaking minority or by gay underculture, and if so, it should be pointed out. But it is certainly not on common usage, so I'll remove it. 213.243.181.205 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Sickening"

Why, in this day and age do we need such a list? Just delete it please.

Because this is an encyclopedia. You may not agree with every entry, and some may be controversial, but that doesn't mean they dont belong. --Threatis 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll give a reason: I used to work in a restaurant, and one day a customer called my (Vietnamese) friend "Zipperhead" in a moment of frustration. I had no idea it was a racial slur, and I called him that for months. (I just thought it meant "stupid". Haven't you ever called your friends stupid? Dumbass?) I only recently heard the term again, and from the context I started to wonder about the term. Dao, I'm really sorry. If you knew that was a racial slur, I wish you had told me. --Imperpay 00:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bozgor

The word "bozgor", which is Romanian slang for a Hungarian, does not come from the verb "boscorodi" (to babble incoherently). It actually comes from the Hungarian word for "person without a country", as it was originally used by ethnic Hungarians (who lived in Hungary) to refer to Transylvania-based Hungarians after Transylvania (who was originally a Romanian territory that was annexed into the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was reclaimed by Romania after World War 1. Subsequently, it has been often used by Romanians as an ethnic slur against Hungarians, especially those who live in Transylvania and display separatist/irredentist political opinions. Voievod 19:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bean-Eater

A few days ago I added the fact that some people refer to Bostonians as well as Mexicans as "bean eaters". This was removed. I see no reason why because I know a great many people who use this expression. I'll leave this in hopes that 155.84.57.253 will explain himself, but this seems unlikely. As such, I'm going to put it back in a few days unless objections are raised. unixslug 03:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Guiri

I would like to know where the person who wrote this fact entry received his information? For one thing, the phrase asking where something is in Spanish is Donde está ---, which doesn't sound any thing like guiri. Second, guiri has three meanings in Spanish, one of which is "turist." That, I assume, is the meaning of the word in this context. So, I'm going to revise this entry a bit right now. 67.165.217.42 02:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

In Gibraltar, it is a derogatory expression for people from the UK - maybe it is in Spain too.Quiensabe 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Abo/Abbo

This term is still in exceptionally common use by indigenous people all over Australia, it is arguable that it is 'racist' or derrogatory as it's an abbreviation of aboriginie. The contraversy around this nomenclature is moot due to the primary majority of aboriginal decendants using the nomenclature and having no social problems with non-aboriginals using the term also.

REPLY I live in Victoria and would definately say that this is treated as a degrading term.

ANOTHER REPLY: I also live in Victoria and have lived in Tasmania and it is treated as a derogatory term. HOWEVER the term blackfella can be argued that it's not that offensive, seeing as though many Aboriginal's refer to themselves as a blackfella in good humour for example "can't a blackfella get a break?", however said by a non-Aboriginal person it CAN be offensive.

420

I'm removing this - while very interesting, it can't be described as an 'ethnic slur', unless it were used by Indians to describe Pakistanis or Pakistanis to describe Indians.

(India, Pakistan) a person acting fraudulently to cheat somebody out of their belongings; a confidence trickster. From Section 420 of the Penal Codes of both India and Pakistan covering such activity. The Penal Codes of both countries are inherited from the Indian Penal Code of 1860 instituted by the British rulers of the Indian Subcontinent, which then included the present-day countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. A popular 1955 Hindi film from India, Shri 420 (in English: Mr. 420) has a central character who, though innocent, is regarded by many as a con man, hence "Mr. 420". Not to be confused with the association of '420' with marijuana in the USA.

Quiensabe 2005-10-13 04:54 UTC

• I suspect-- the reason someone may added 420 was for the double meaning. That being it is also Adolf Hitler's birthday. April-20 4/20 Not- that that's an ethnic slur but I suspect that is another reason why it might be here. CaribDigita 04:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am moving this into another article, and linking to it from the Indian Penal Code entry168.209.98.35 19:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Argentine ethnic slurs

• Pirata: British (after the alleged stealing of the Malvinas Islands)
• Paragua: Paraguayan (short from "paraguayo", while "paraguas" means also umbrella)
• Bolita: Bolivian (small ball, playing marble)
• Chilote: Chilean (from the adjective used to refer to people from Chiloe island)
• Brasuca: Brazilian
• Note: Some Argentine press insisted on calling Brazilians, esp. soccer teams, macacos (monkeys) but the term never caught with the general populace
• Peruca: Peruvian
• Yanqui (pron. "junkie"): Yankee, US person
• Cabecita negra, morocho, groncho: person of mestizo stock
• Aluvión zoológico: a mass of poor people, including mestizo stock, originally used for the protesting masses on 17 October 1945 in Plaza de Mayo
• Negro de mierda, negro puto: strongly offensive, equivalent to "nigger", used not necessarily for Africans, but to insult any person with dark skin. Used liberally by soccer fans
• Ruso, ruso de mierda: Jew (after the Russian passport most immigrant Jews carried)
• Cortado: Jew ("cut off")
• Note: the use of turco ("Turk") for Arabs and Armenians is based on the passport that immigrants carried, and is not intentionally offensive. Armenian-Argentines were offended when so addressed, but this seldom happens any more.
• Gallego: Spaniard (after Galicia, Spain). Used in derogatory jokes but also as a term of endearment
• Note: "tano" for Italian derives from "napolitano" and is never a slur
• Note: oriental, yurugua or charrúa for an Uruguayan -- are not slurs. "Oriental" is the correct way of saying "Uruguayan", see the Uruguayan anthem.

Israeli ethnic slurs

• Frenk: Jew of North African (esp Moroccan) origin
• Sakeen: Jew of Moroccan origin (Hebrew: "knife"). Not in use anymore
• Sandwich: Tunisian (after a specialty sandwich)
• Shateeah: Iranian jew ("carpet")
• Parsi: Persian, Iranian jew; also used for "miser"
• Polani: Pole, also a person of meddlesome character
• Arabush (meant to be highly offensive): Arab
• Ben Dod: Arab (lit. "cousin", after the family ties between Israelites and Ishmaelites mentioned in the Book of Genesis)
• Sabon: Ashkenazi (used by some Oriental Jews)
• Buzbuz: Ashkenazi (used by Oriental Jews and sometimes by Ashkenazis themselves)
• Note: the term "sand nazi" that was featured on this page is never used in Israel

666

(International) a biblical reference to the Mark of the Beast or the Antichrist. Routinely used by various racist groups for other races or ethnicities: The KKK uses it to refer to black people, Islamic fundamentalists use it to refer to white people, Neo-Nazis use it to refer to Jews, and others use it to refer to Arabs.

Shouldn't "Islamic fundamentalists" say, "members of NOI"? Or shouldn't "white people" say, "Non-Mulism"?--220.238.238.21 01:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never once in my life heard of this slur being used as highlighted above, and I have a 100% Middle-Eastern Muslim background. Could I see a source? Or some notable speech, movie, or something like that where it was used? Muslims don't even believe in the mark of the beast.

Being a muslim from Pakistani background, I had never heard about the offensive meaning/refernce (i.e. Mark of the Beast) of 666 until I began to use internet. The number 555 was a brand of cigarettes in Pakistan. This number gained a popularity. Once, instead of 555 I used 666 in my e-mail address just for a change. I had some very bad reactions from western christians. I have done some research among Pakistani christians (second majority in Pakistan after Muslims). They have no problem with this number neither they consider it "the Mark of the Beast ". The dfinition of 666 definitely needs mass editing.

Edited Thai entries

Farang. Removed (it is not a slur).

Khek. Added.

Ay Hua Daeng. Gave details of formation.

Derogatory?

I'm not sure "Desi" is a pejorative term - I've never heard it used that way - and I'm also questioning "Bangla" which is the Bengali term for the language/ethnicity. Does anyone have any sources that these are used pejoratively? Thanks. Bruxism 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep This Out

Raisin Head

(Arabs) a black person/person of subsaharan African origin/descent - attributed to Mohammed [7]

I have removed where it says this is attributed to Muhammad. I expect it to STAY that way this time. This is slander, and taken out of context. Muhammad was delivering an ANTI-RACIST message when he stated this, and this article attempts to portray him as a racist. I have tried multiple times to get rid of this, but someone keeps replacing it. KEEP IT OUT. If there are any site administrators, please work with me and see to it that this does not return, thank you. -Niz

I see that my wishes have been ignored. There is obviously vandalsim going on here, and I am going to make sure it is prosecuted to the highest ability of the law. -Niz

I've attempted something that should make both sides happy, by providing a full story. If THAT's edited, someone is obviously letting their bias run the encyclopedia. --S.M. 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

S.M.'s edit looks good to me. JackyR 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out that it's not slander because Muhammad is dead. Soo 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this guy does not want to discuss it. He just keeps switching it back to his one-sided point of view, and putting up a forum post (presumably his) as "proof." I highly doubt a post on a forum is a primary source of any value.

Well, just keep reverting it if you see this anonymous user's change. His whole plan is to mercilessly change it back until everyone just gives up, without reaching any sort of compromise or middle ground. I myself don't plan on caving in to such childish methods. --S.M. 05:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Alabama Blue Gums and Boon removed?

Why did they get removed? They are extremely common especially the first. Buzda 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Great Satan"

These two items in the list:

• Great Satan, Satan (Islamic World - esp Iran) the United States, American (Note: almost never used by Iranian minorities: Jews, Christians, Armenians, Baha'is, Zoroastrians)

• Shaytan-e-Bozorg (Iran) An American from the U.S.A. meaning Great Devil.

Simply do not qualify as an ethnic slurs. They are not used to refer to an indiviual American. It's just a term used by Iranian politicians to refer to the American Government, and its policies, NOT the American people. I lived in Iran for years and I never, ever, heard anyone refer to an American by these terms or anything like them.

I suggest we remove them completely. Alex 04:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I removed those two "slurs". Please, if you're going to put them back, please discuss it here first. Alex 06:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

about 155.84.57.253

user with IP address 155.84.57.253 has been vandalising this article, i assume its a single user who uses public computers to carry out such activities. it clearly shows this person is an american soldier who resides/resided in east asia. well, keep your opinion out of it, its YOUR opinion certain foreign food/diet has unpleasant smell, but its not the case for everyone. as for parasite, i never heard of it as referring to a parisian, perhaps your american military brain has alot against the french.

• If you really want people to take you seriously, then you should sign your name/number/handle, and date your entries. Otherwise you are just being anonymous and cowardly. Rather than vandalizing this article, I am one of its toughest critics, keeping it from becoming a dumping ground for personal rants. Based on your ramblings, you are obviously the one with the bias. 155.84.57.253 14:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Splitting into multiple articles

As per the new tag, perhaps we should consider splitting this into multiple articles. The most obvious way to do it would be to split "Ethnic Slurs used in North America and the British Commonwealth", from other "Ethnic Slurs used in Spain, Portugal and Latin America", "Ethnic Slurs used in Continental Europe and Asia", and "Ethnic slurs used in Africa and the Afro-Caribbean." Just a stab. Of course there will be some overlap. 155.84.57.253 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That would make the slurs much harder to find. The 32kb convention is not a one-size-fits-all. This is a list, anyway, not an article written in prose (see Wikipedia:Article size to see why that makes it different). Even if it were in prose, articles in online encyclopedias are very often longer than 32kb. For example, Britannica's "China" article is 952kb, not counting formatting characters. World Book Online's "United States of America" article is 85kb.

Primetime 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

JOJ

This article was missing the term JOJ (just off the jet) --Shell 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Yellow Kid

Sorry, but this term has little to do with Racism For the source of the term, look at this website, which is more accurate: R. F. Outcault, The Father of the American Sunday Comics, and the Truth About the Creation of the Yellow Kid

CORNELIUSSEON 01:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Italian Slurs

Never heard a word like "giairo" even if I live in northern Italy, and I can't find any use of it with a google search, it should be deleted. (Rather, "giaurro" is a historical pejorative term for non-muslims) "Giargianese" is another word i never heard... it is shown with the same meaning on www.neologismi.it but it could be derived from Wiki. Rather, it seems to be used in some parts of southern Italy to refer to a non-comprensible northern dialect speaker. (From "cartaginese", Carthago). Vù Cumpra is used both for north African and sub-saharian people, while "animale" is a term I never heard used against English people. Mameluke (Mammalucco) hasn't got a racist meaning today in Italy: it's still reminiscent of Ottoman soldiers, but it's a very mild word for "stupid", without any racial meaning.

Deadpunk 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Content lost due to revert

Please review anon revert [8]. I noted that at least some good content was lost and new edits were already made on top. This needs to be either explained or fixed. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Upon review it appears 155.84.57.253 has reverted the edits of several users giving the explanation non-notables, repairs, version by ---, last credible version, or reliable [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (as if one can distinguish reliable versions in an article with almost no citations). And this is only in the last 12 days! Thus, it appears as if many quite possibly valid entries have been deleted. This anon has been editing just this page since November, 2004 [20]--they have to know that this is vandalism by now. --Primetime 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, it appears as if the anon has deleted comments on their talk page warning them to stop reverting other people's changes [21]. It also appears as if they were given a 24-hour ban at one time [22]. --Primetime 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been restoring some of the entries deleted by the anon. Deletions which were unexplained and were not blatantly implausible are the principal reinsertions. However, it's now only authentic from October of last year. I may need some help. --Primetime 14:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

155 stuck again; fortunately nobody editied since his revert, so I was able to revert quickly. I put a test3 on his user page. --EngineerScotty 17:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:CITE

Ok, so there's a lot of content here, but none of it is referenced. Time to change that - this is an encyclopaedia, we need sources. Guettarda 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unsourced material should be removed. -Will Beback 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I disgree that unsourced material should be removed. The vast majority of material in Wikipedia is uncited. It is especially difficult to cite words found on this page that are mostly spoken (not written) by certain groups of people (some small, and some in non-English-speaking countries). I think the {{fact}} tags are a great idea, but removing content just because it is uncited is a bit drastic, in my opinion. --Primetime 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not simply that the material is uncited, but that it is unverifiable. If I added a made-up term, how could anybody know it? If the terms are not so well-known that they are written down, then they don't need to be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. As it stands, virtually every entry would have {fact} on it. The only current source for some material is the dubious http://gyral.blackshell.com/names.html, itself copied from another unsourced website. -Will Beback 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education," or "well-rounded education." In a general reference book with almost no size constraints, almost anything can be included. In any case, most of the contributions of everyone participating in this thread are uncited. As Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." --Primetime 01:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Official policy -> Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. Almost anything could be included, except that we choose not to include some material. The idea that because not everything is cited that nothing needs to be cited is faulty logic, and would result in the policy being meaningless. -Will Beback 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument that because it's a policy, it's right, is faulty as well. --Primetime 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that none of the policies matter? Noe WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:NOT? I don't understand your reasoning. However, if you wish to have those polices changed or revoked, this is not the place to do so. Until they are changed or revoked, we should try to comply with them as they are. -Will Beback 01:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I am saying that they aren't meant to be enforced in all circumstances. This is an example of a spirit of the law (i.e., an intent of the lawmaker--or in this case--the policy maker). This illustrates the difference between a rule and a regualtion. A rule is an interpretation of a regulation. All regulations have to be interpreted because life is too complex to regulate. To live one's life based on regulations makes one a simpleton. For example, a police officer will not write a person a ticket for jaywalking, except when the person is almost hit by a car. The reason is that the law is designed to discourage reckless jaywalking. The police officer's practice is his own rule of thumb. --Primetime 01:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So how does the spirit of the law tell us that some articles don't need to be cited or verified? And that the clear letter of a policy, "Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide", does not apply to this slang guide? On the contrary, this article demonstrates the need for all of those rules. I suggest you take up this cause on the talk pages of those policies. If they are merely guidelines then they should be altered to reflect that. Until then, they are policies and should be followed. Thanks for discussing the matter here, but you haven't given any good reasons for having an article with scores of uncited, unverifiable entries. All you've said is that they can't be verified, and that many other articles aren't fully cited either. -Will Beback 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, use your common sense. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education," or "well-rounded education." In a general reference book with almost no size constraints, almost anything can be included. Further, most of the contributions of everyone participating in this thread are uncited. As Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." In any case, it's not enough for you to simply criticize what has been written. You have to give a detailed alternative to convince me to sign on. --Primetime 01:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Jesus in this matter won't help, he is not a Wikipedian. The alternative is to have an article that is verifiable and sourced, and that follows Wikipedia policies. Have you read WP:NOT? Do you acknowledge its existence? What alternative are you suggesting?  ;) -Will Beback 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you pushed the issue, so the burden of proof is on you--and you have to give a detailed alternative to convince me to sign on. --Primetime 01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on any editor who wishes to keep the current, unsourced info. -Will Beback 02:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of wikipedia is that something being unverified doesn't automatically get it removed, it's only if a wikipedian doubts the accuracy of the information and no-one provides verification. Andjam 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference between your point and Will's? Why wouldn't you doubt material which cannot be verified? WP:V and WP:CITE are policy, not guidelines. While this policy is not uniformly enforced, if we want to have any shred of credibility, we cannot have material which cannot be verified. Guettarda 05:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of keeping stuff that cannot be verified, only keeping stuff that hasn't been verified yet. Andjam 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting position - how do you tell the difference between the two ;) Guettarda 14:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed--vote here to keep or delete entries

These entries, though "common", have no sources:

10% Off

(U.S., UK) a Jew; refers to circumcision and consumerism (i.e., never paying retail). The term is most widely used in the UK where circumcision among non-Jews or non-Muslims is rarer, but also in the United States, where circumcision is very common, it can be considered insulting to many non-Jewish males as well.

1/4

(Libya) a black person; The term reflects the false and unscientific notion that black Africans have only 1/4 of the normal human brain.

1/16 or 16'er

(U.S.) a person with little or no Irish ancestory but "acts" and claims to be Irish. Especially common on St. Patrick's Day. Also sometimes used by Italian Americans in the same context.

Unless we can find sources for them, they should be removed. -Will Beback 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep all so far except "previous country stealer," as zero Google hits is compelling enough evidence to prove that it really isn't a phrase in use. --Primetime 02:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So you don't care that they are unsourced, and unverifiable? -Will Beback 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting them will do more harm than good, possibly creating hundreds of disgruntled vandals and sowing ill will throughout the world. It would also be deleting possibly the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of ethnic slurs available. Further, it sets a bad precedent, thus threatening to change Wikipedia from the largest encyclopedia ever written into one of the smallest. Also, the current insistence on verifiability was instituted after many of these definitions were written, discouraging others from writing articles in the future for fear that a future policy will result in their contributions being deleted. --Primetime 02:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I tell you what. I'me going to remove them. When you find a source you can re-add them. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You must have community consensus before acting. I would revert your deletion per Wikipedia policy. --Primetime 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will. I have tried to find a reference for these, without much luck. I find the "Libyan" one especially suspect - I've heard that joke before. In addition, if it's Libyan you have to ask the question whether it belongs in the English Wikipedia at all - I am unaware of any indigenous use of English in Libya. Guettarda 03:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education," or "well-rounded education." Thus, anything that helps readers understand the world, in my opinion, should be included. --Primetime 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The etymology of the word encyclopaedia does not overrule policy. Unverifiable (and potentially untrue) material does not help anyone understand the world. Guettarda 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, we cannot vote on one page to exempt the page from Wikipedia policy. In addition, the excuse that we must violate policy in order that we not offend "hundreds of disgruntled vandals" is ridiculous. On those grounds we should delete the block policy and the arbcomm, and ban RC patrol. Guettarda 05:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We must have community consensus before acting to ensure that we have interpreted policy correctly. As for the vandal thing, I'm worried about creating hundreds of vandals. Those tools you just listed actually help solve the problem. --Primetime 15:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We do have consensus - it's called policy. WP:V and WP:CITE. Guettarda 15:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep on procedural grounds per my reasoning above. Andjam 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What procedural grounds allow us to keep unverifiable material? Guettarda 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of keeping unverifiable material, as per above. Andjam 11:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Those "voting" keep (not that this is the place for a vote) seem to be missing the point. (BTW, the etymology was nice, but pointless). All encyclopedias -- at least those accepted in the academic community -- assure that their information is adequately sourced and verified. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge, not of slop alleged to be true. Jim62sch 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Another listing:

Previous country stealer

(international) any European Person, and especially Europeans located outside Europe like Americans, Canadians, Argentineans, New Zealanders and Australians, somewhat offensive.

This phrase gets zero google hits. Guettarda 05:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there are some terms which are widely used. It'd be better if we stuck to the best-known examples, rather than trying to catalog every slur in every language. That'd take a whole Wiki unto itself, with different standards than here. But the most prominent ones, in English, should be easy. I found a source for half of 925. Any others? -Will Beback 10:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While we should stick to some level of notability, actually it's the non-American/British/Australian ones that are interesting. But we should really stick to usages in English-speaking populations. Guettarda 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

More to consider

Zalama

(Libyan Arabic) a Syrian man or a generally a Levantine. The term in Syrian Arabic vernacular means man and is used in Libya to mean Syrian.

Zambo

(Latin America) a person of mixed African and Amerindian heritage

Zol

(Libyan)a Sudanese man. the term in Sudanese arabic vernacular means man and is used in Libyan to mean Sudanese.

None of these terms assert that they are offensive. We have an entire article on Zambo that nowhere suggests that it is offensive. Guettarda 15:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Since they chose to list them in a list of slurs, we have to assume that they're implying that. --Primetime 18:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Undesirables

(Nazi Germany) those who were considered inferior to white Germans and "Aryans," especially Jews and Africans (similar to Untermensch); most if not all minorities or "alien races" were completely barred from breeding with those of "German blood" with the passage of the Nuremberg race laws, and other "undesirables" plus mentally-ill Germans were killed when the T-4 Euthanasia Program was implemented

This is an English translation, so it cannot be an "ethnic slur"

WASP

(North America) White Anglo-Saxon Protestant - offensiveness questionable as many "wasps" self-identify as such (originated as shorthand term in sociology)

Wap, also Wapanese

(U.S.) White person who likes anime or other parts of Japanese culture

Welsh

A person from Wales (also pejorative). The term originally meant stranger / foreigner in Anglo-Saxon, but can hardly be termed pejorative these days. However, in its verb form To Welch, meaning to renege on something, it most certainly is.

These are not ethnic slurs.

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines ethnic in this way:

of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background. ^[23]

That's a pretty broad definition--meaning an ethnicity is not the same as a race. --Primetime 18:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yokel

(U.S.) an unrefined white person.

I am unaware of Yokel being used as a racial terms - it's a class-based insult

See the dictionary definition above. Ethnicity is broader than race. --Primetime 20:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yooper

(Northern U.S.) A resident of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, an area considered to be vastly different from the Lower Peninsula. Not necessarily considered derogatory.

As it says in the entry, not really a derogatory term (except insofar as people from the UP are looked upon as, well, Yokels. Guettarda 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily derogatory. That implies that sometimes, it is. --Primetime 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In my experience (7 years in MI), generally not derogatory (I dispute the idea that it is commonly used as a slur, let alone an "ethnic" slur). Guettarda 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're right about it not being ethnic, as where one lives in a country as diverse as America does not imply ethnicity. --Primetime 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the edit summary: If anyone wants to remove anything from the article, they should add a {{mfd}} tag to it for a vote, per Wikipedia policy - this is totally not what MFD is for. Guettarda 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Holding area for new, unsourced additions

Swamp Yankee

(U.S.:New England) refers to rural white, anglo-saxon, protestant farmers in New England, particularly in Rhode Island and eastern Connecticut.

References requested - Guettarda 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The only entries that we have consensus to delete are "previous country stealer," and "yooper." --Primetime 20:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to remove anything from the article, they should add an {{mfd}} or {{disputed-section}} tag to it for a vote per Wikipedia policy. Most visitors were unaware that there was even a debate occurring on the talk page. --Primetime 01:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would we add this template:

{{mfd}}

For entries that need to be removed for lack of source? Do you mean another template? -Will Beback 01:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like that template, then you can use this one:

(although I think {{mfd}} is fine, as well.) --Primetime 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We should probably also discuss each section at Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute after we decide that we can't reach a resolution here. --Primetime 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have {fact}. Entries which haven't been cited after that template has been on them for a few days will be deleted. No votes here, no going to five other pages for voting. The Wikipedia standard is that unsourced material may be removed by any editor. Please stop obstructing our attempts to make this article verifiable. If you'd like to take this dispute through resolution, or file an RFC, fine, but don't hold the page hostage. -Will Beback 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, we should add a {{disputed-section}} tag, because most readers were unaware a debate was even occuring here. We can't violate Wikipedia policy. --Primetime 01:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the dispute is not limited to any one section, I've added the general {disputed} tag. -Will Beback 02:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that material which has already been tagged as unsourced, and for which no source has been found, then needs to be brought to the talk page for a vote? On Wikipedia:Reliable sources it says:

• If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor.

It seems as if unnecessary obstacles are being erected that will keep this article from being cleaned up. -Will Beback 02:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Be patient, as the status quo prevails until there is consensus for chage. --Primetime 02:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia policies prevail. -Will Beback 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this policy:

If you come across an article with an accuracy warning, please do the following:

• don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it.
• visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
• correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primetime (talk • contribs) .

Anyone who clicks edit this page or clicks [edit] on a section is faced with <!--Wikipedia policy requires that matieral must be verifiable and supported by citations. Please provide citations for all new additions, and helpus find citations for existing entries -->. It also says at the bottom of the edit box: Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. Anyone who adds unverified information is intentionally disregarding policy.

We haven't tried to verify them yet. We should give their contributors time to come forward. We should also make an effort to verify them ourselves. --Primetime 03:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The anon who added the information (1) ignored the information at the top of the section, (2) made no response to my request for verification, and (3) has made almost 50 edits to Wikipedia since adding this material, but has made no attempt to correct the problem. The material is correctly removed pending verification. Guettarda 03:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material

An editor just added back these unreferenced entries, which have each been tage as needing sources for several days, and which have been listed on this page as unsourced.:

• 10% Off
• 1/4
• 1/16 or 16'er

Please provide your sources or they will be removed again. -Will Beback 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Making this stuff up

PLease, user:Primetime, explain how you know that

Skat, a poor white trash hillbilly, whos whore of a mother sucks cock(s) to provide the box they live in behind the pizza shack.

is actually:

Skat, a poor hillbilly.

Since there is no source, it appears to me that you are making it up. -Will Beback 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Because they said that it was a poor hillbilly in their original edit. I just edited it to comply with civility rules. --Primetime 02:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they didn't say anything when they made the edit. [24]. So how can I verify your edit, user:Primetime? How do we know that "Skat" means what you wrote, and not what user:24.176.1.229 wrote? -Will Beback 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an shortened version of what they wrote. --Primetime 05:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But how do you know that the shortened version is still accurate? The original version seems quite specific, and by shortening it you are making the supposed epithet apply to all poor hillbillys, not just much smaller subset included in the original entry. -Will Beback 06:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Delete it, if you want. --Primetime 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I searched for a source, but couldn't find one. -Will Beback 07:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've started to make an effort to verify the entries. Now, you should help verify entries as well. I understand it's really easy for you to delete other people's work, but you will find that it's harder to do reasearch yourself for articles. If you don't try to verify them also, then we won't know whether they are or not and they won't be able to be removed. --Primetime 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, considering that you insist on assuming good faith with regards to contributors who refuse to cite sources despite being asked for them, that's a pretty shocking assumption of bad faith with regards to Will and me. What the heck do you think I did with the first set of stuff that Will posted here?!! I am seriously offended by your failure to extent the same courtesy to your fellow editors that you extend to people who post things like Skat, a poor white trash hillbilly, whos whore of a mother sucks cock(s) to provide the box they live in behind the pizza shack. Guettarda 22:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to Will, because I noticed that he has not made any known verification efforts. Thank you for trying to verify the entries. --Primetime

What? Will has provided far more evidence of trying to verify material than I have. He actually added the one citation that was added. Regardless of who you are talking about, I'm amazed that you would not only assume such bad faith, but that you would defend your behaviour. Do you really value the contributions of anons who place obscenity-laced, unverifed entries over that of one of Wikipedia's best editors? Rather than laying on more insults, you should be striking through your text and apologising to Will for your unacceptable behaviour. You really have some nerve. Guettarda 23:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'll take delete my most recent remarks if you delete your most recent ones. --Primetime 23:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, when you insult other people you apologise, you don't make demands. Has this quaint old habits fallen by the wayside? Guettarda 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed a word's meaning

Greetings. I made some changes to the word gook. I got my info from real Korean and Vietnam War veterans I know. You can talk to some veterans about it at American Legion halls or VFW halls about the word. They never heard of it originally used for Filipinos. I also got this info about migook, hangook, and han quoc from some kyopos (Korean Americans) and Vietnamese I know. The meaning is more associated to Koreans and Vietnamese in the Korean War and Vietnam War out of ignorance than in the Philippine American War in the early 1900’s where many of those later veteran’s parents weren’t born yet. Later on it’s placed on all Asians except for Japanese who are called “Japs” or “Jappos" casually. I never heard of the word “gugus” in tagalog meaning "tutelary spirit" or whatever the heck that is from the original meaning in wikipedia. I never heard of any Vietnam veterans I know or my former high school math teacher (a Korean War veteran) derive any word from tagalog or 120 ethnolinguistic languages from the Philippines for gook. There’s a word in tagalog spelled “gugo” which is a kind of vine or shampoo used in washing hair or “guguan” which is a verb to clean hair. There’s also two other words in tagalog called “gugol” which means expenses and “gugulan” which is a verb meaning “to finance” or “invest money”. -James 07:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I changed the definition of the word Gook back to what I originally wrote. Someone completely rewrote what I changed. Filipinos and Japanese were never called gooks by American troops. American troops had good praises to the Filipinos because of their fight against the Japanese during WW2 (from what WW2 veterans told me) and Japanese were called “Japs”, and “Nips” during WW2. There’s no documentation, movies, cartoons or propaganda poster that uses the words “gook” for Filipinos and Japanese during the Philippine American War and World War 2. I’ve seen the racist posters from these wars before and I haven’t seen the word "gook" for Filipinos or Okinawan/Japanese. Some of the WW2 posters were drawn by Dr. Seuss. It came from the Korean War and Vietnam War because it more likely came from the words "HanGook"=Korean Country and "MiGook"=Beautiful country and Vietnamese have a word "Han Quoc" for country . I'll come back from time to time in case someone changes again what I originally wrote. -James 07:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

New unsourced additions

Chosenjin

(Japan) Derogatory term used for Koreans (citation requested at User talk:168.103.235.154)

Snow Flake (2)

(U.S.) an offensive term for jews, stemming from how ashes would fall from the crematoriums. (citation requested at User talk:67.165.74.183)

Branch Manager

(U.S.) Offensive term for blacks (Monkeys manage trees.) (citation requested at User talk:67.165.74.183)

Guettarda 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Stan or Stani

(U.K.) A person of Pakistani descent or, more than likely, anyone of Indian sub-continent or other Asian descent (citation requested [25])

Guettarda 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• The term was used widely in schools around Britain in the 1980s (and beyond). I heard it used in a college of FE just the other day, which prompted its addition to the category. Documentation from another source can be found here. Many thanks Griffin147

Monday

(New Jersey) slang for a negro or person of African origin, in reference to most people not liking the first day of the working week, which is Monday. ("New Jersey" altered to "US" - citation requested at User talk:24.168.154.3)

;Monday : (US) slang for a negro or person of African origin, in reference to most people not liking the first day of the working week, which is Monday. ("NUS" altered to "New Jersey" - citation requested at User talk:Primetime)

Guettarda 01:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted a change, so I don't need to source anything. --Primetime 02:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to source it. If nobody does then it should be removed. -Will Beback 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Freshy

(Aus) A 'fresh' or new immigrant. see FOB.: (Aus) A 'fresh' or new immigrant. see FOB. (Citation requested at User talk:Paulscf.

Guettarda 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Kuromboh

(Japan) A black person. VERY derogatory. Equivalent to "nigger" in English. Pronounced 'krom-boh' or 'kurum-boh'. previously used in reference to Japanese who have a very dark tan, now primarily refers to blacks. (Citation requested at User talk:72.234.15.173)

Kettoh

(Japan) a derogatory word for non-Japanese, primarily whites & blacks. Meaning 'mutt' or 'without pedigree' used in Japanese condescendingly in reference to non-Japanese, who are not one 'pure' race, but rather, mixed-race. Very offensive. (Citation requested at User talk:72.234.15.173)

Guettarda 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Blacky Chan

(USA) an African-American studying martial arts

BLT

(USA) "Big Lips Tyrone" - an African-American

- citations requestion from User talk:130.216.191.183 Guettarda 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Count Blackula

(CAN) synonomous with the term 'nigger'.

Listerine Drain

(CAN) An Aboriginal; based on their large amounts of mouthwash consumed.

Darkness

(N. America) An extremely dark skinned negro; gained popularity from its use on 'Chappelle's Show'.

- citations requestion from User talk:70.29.238.100 Guettarda 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cake eaters

(U.S.) WASPs, plays on the stereotype of the idle rich class - citation requested at User talk:Great Scott.

Guettarda 06:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-English terms

Since this is the "English-language" Wikipedia, it seems reasonable to restrict this list to words used in this language. We have no way of determining the accuracy of descriptins of words in other languages, which would be better included in the Wikipedia's of their respective languages. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 00:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about that with the two Japanese entries (above). It isn't just the issue of accuracy, it's the issue of being the English Wikipedia. Guettarda 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is written in English does not mean that it only concerns issues directly relating to English-speaking people. That is an offensive concept to some. Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged defines an encyclopedia as "a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically". Thus, in Wikipedia--the largest encyclopedia ever created--any knowledge can be included. Stroll by a library reference section and you will find encyclopedias of agriculture, of computing, of slang, and so on. This article shows just how much encyclopedic Wikipedia is. --Primetime 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You really need to read policy and the manual of style. We are bound by policy - we aren't free to ignore policy. Guettarda 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia policy and the Manual of Style. The problem for your argument is that they aren't Gospel. In any case, you seem to have failed to relate policy directly to a rebuttal of my remarks above. --Primetime 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you just trolling now? What do you think Wikipedia:Policy is? Try Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_eight_words. Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts. Notable and verifiable are the important policies here. Also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. It is not the case that "any knowledge can be included" - if that were the case there would be no AFD. This article shows Wikipedia at its worst - a random collection of unverifiable information, unsupported by references, pretty much a free-for-all for anyone who wants to come up with their own new slur. If it doesn't have a published source it is original research, which is forbidden (see Wikipedia:No original research. If you want a random collection of facts, find consensus to change Wikipedia's fundamental policies. If you can't be bothered to try to change policy at an official level, quit trying to browbeat other editors into violating policy. Guettarda 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Your calling me a troll says more about you than me. In any case, I'd encourage you not to live your life based on regulations, because life is too complicated to regulate. To do so makes one a simpleton. In any case, regulations must be interpreted, and the consensus of the Wikipedia community appears to be that these rules should not be enforced. Since you are the first editor I have ever met to actually try to enforce the rules in question, you are in uncharted terrritory, for sure. --Primetime 05:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call you a troll - I asked if that was a serioius question, because it appears to be trolling. If you cannot work within structure and cannot abide by policy, then I suspect that Wikipedia is not for you. This is not a model anarchic community, it's a project to build an encyclopaedia. I'm shocked that you have never come across anyone trying to hold the content up to any sort of standard or trying to enforce policy. "The consensus of the Wikipedia community appears to be that the rules should not be enforced". Wow. Boggles the mind. Guettarda 06:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the question of non-English entries: many of the terms in the list are in non-English languages and pertain to non-English-speaking countries. If these were terms for currency, say, or body parts, then we'd be able to verify them. But since this is just slang there's probably no way to verify them at all, with a few famous exceptions. (Yes, I know, that doesn't bother some editors). And as Guettarda has pointed out, defining foreign slang words is not the purpose of English Wikipedia. We've got enough work to do just finding sources for entries in one language. -Will Beback 10:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Foreign terms which refer to (or can refer to) English-speaking persons (such as "gringo", "gweilo", or "gaijin") probably should be included. On the other hand, I wouldn't object if "char siu bau"--a Cantonese insult for Indians (from India, not Native Americans), and a term that I myself added to the list, were removed on the grounds of irrelevance to an English-speaking audience. On the other other hand; English is widely used in India... --EngineerScotty 17:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an inherent problem with the non-English terms. As Scotty indicates, there are many places other than the US and UK where English is widely spoken, and it is reasonable to include slurs both from and in reference to those regions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the commonality of English to non-English terms? That seems like a non-sequitor. How shall we verify unsourced Japanese or Cantonese slurs? -Will Beback 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If a term is in use in COUNTRY, for example... or is used to refer to COUNTRY... and English language use is common in COUNTRY, then it seems reasonable to include the term, even if it's not an English term. We can verify unsourced Japanese and Cantonese slurs (for example) by asking for help from Wikipedians who speak (natively or fluently) Japanese or Cantonese... or who have friends that they can ask. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first part - a term in common use in a country in which English is in common local use would be acceptable - but the usage should have currency in the English used in the country (e.g., a loan word used in Indian English would be fine; a slur used in India which has no t made it into Indian English would probably not be a good choice). A term about that people from that country would be much too broad, IMO. Guettarda 03:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Terms that have entered the English language, like "gringo" are now part of this language. I dispute the idea that we can or should verify information by asking other Wikipedia editors to ask their friends. Would we accept that for other articles? I hope not. "User:Joe's sister says it's true, so it is verifiable" doesn't cut it. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what we do on Wiktionary. Words in foreign languages are given more time to be verified and if two native speakers who are regular users vouch for the word, then it's considered verified. In any case, Wikipedia isn't about the English-speaking world. For example, if the logic above prevailed, there wouldn't be an article on Genghis Khan. He had pretty much no impact on the history of English-speaking people. Likewise, there would be no Russian language article. --Primetime 21:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe most of these terms really belong in Wiktionary. Why do they belong here instead? "Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary". -Will Beback 23:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have changed the subject in order to avoid addressing the issues I just raised. In any case, moving an article would require a much more-formal vote than this. It would also require Will to copy and format each entry manually. (Wiktionary's format is very different from ours.) --Primetime 00:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than the work involved, I don't see an objection from you, or an argument to keep them here. Further, the standards used on Wiktionary do not apply to Wikipedia. Regarding your earlier point about the "English-speaking world". We do have articles about foreign people, places, languages, and concepts. We don't have articles on foreign terms that are not used in English. -Will Beback 00:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a man; and nothing human is foreign to me.

--Terence, Heauton Timoroumenos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primetime (talk • contribs) .

Apache

Whether or not the Apache consider the term a slur (a claim which has not been backed up by evidence, to my knowledge) is irrelevant. The etymology of the name is unclear and even if it were the purported "enemy" variant, that wouldn't qualify as a slur, but rather be descriptive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A slur is an insulting remark. ^[26] If the Apache find it insulting, then why wouldn't it meet the definition of an insulting remark? There is no such thing as the Apache--they're made up of different groups ^[27] and the word Apache is not even an Apache word. As the entry says, it's Zuni for "enemy."^[28]--Primetime 00:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because a group of people CONSIDER something insulting, does not MAKE it insulting. However much SOME people may wish their own subjective opinions dictate consensual reality, it is not so. Aside from that, there is no evidence offered that the Apache community DOES consider it insulting. Conversely, there are several native organizations that seem to use the term without qualification and no indication of disapproval. [29] [30] [31]

Since you like Merriam-Webster so much, here's their definition for "insult": "a gross indignity". Thus, a slur is a remark that is a gross indignity.

Aside from that, you seem to have ignored the research I've done (reference in the Apache article) which indicates that the etymology is NOT certain and is not necessarily from the Zuni 'apachu'. Again, even if it WERE, calling your enemies "enemies" is hardly a gross indignity. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we qualify the entry, replacing "it is a slur" with "considered by some to be offensive"? It's impossible that no one would be offended by replacing their preferred name with enemy. It's also impossible that no one wouldn't be offended by mistaking them for being a member of another Indian tribe. I know I'm offended when people call me Irish (I'm Scottish) and I don't like being called Celtic, either. I know that Japanese people don't like being accidentally called Chinese, either. I can see that you have done a lot of research, but I think whoever wrote the entry has a point, also. --Primetime 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I understand that you're attempting to be sensitive to a perceived affront, but please reflect that there is ZERO evidence of any Apache finding the term offensive, and I've offered substantial evidence questioning the origin as "enemy" as well as documenting Apache organizations that use the term. If you can find a source stating that Apache people find the name offensive, I'd support the "considered by some to be offensive" bit... otherwise, it'd just be speculation. Anyone else have a thought? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 03:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What Dante has to say makes sense. Guettarda 03:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As a side-note... aren't the Scots Celtic? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We are. However, I prefer that people refer to me as Scottish. There are certain key differences between the two groups. Scottish people are Presbyterian, while Irish people are usually Catholic. Scottish people like Englishmen more than the Irish, as well. The IRA was an Irish organization. Many Scottish people in Northern Ireland as well as some English people were killed by the IRA. Finally, our two versions of Gaelic are mutually unintelligable.

As another sidenote, I actually live in the United States. However, there are many more Irish people and Scottish people living here than in their home countries. There are Irish bars everywhere where I live and Saint Patrick's Day parades are very popular. However, I am offended by such displays as I see them as too flamboyant and insensitive to my heritage. --Primetime 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another call for sources

I won't paste them here, but almost all of the entries starting with the letter "A" need sources. Let's spend a week trying to find them. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed many of the numerical slurs. Can you please give the sources you consulted in trying to verify them? --Primetime 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding some sources for those. Eventually we'll need a source for every entry. -Will Beback 06:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if you want to keep pressing this issue, then you should make an effort to verify them as well. Since most of the material written about slurs is in print--not online--this means visiting your local library. What city do you live in? --Primetime 09:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll see that I have in fact made efforts to source some of this material. Everything should be sourced, ideally by those who add new entries. I am not interested in visiting the library to do so, but if you are willing to then more power to you. One way or another the entries have to be sourced or deleted. Let's do what we can for the "A"s, and what we haven't sourced we'll remove before going on to the "B"s. -Will Beback 10:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Before I added some material, there were 44 entries that started with the letter a. Of those, 13.6% were either too obscure or too new to be verified--or they were incorrect--and 11.4% were in foreign languages I don't know how to verify. That means that, at most, ¼ are incorrect. About 49% of the verified entries were verified from print sources.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to research all of the obscure entries at a library. For that, I will need help. If we aren't able to try to verify the entries for Section B properly, we won't know if they are verifiable or not, and they won't be able to be deleted. In other words, you can't delete words that are obviously correct simply because you're not willing to check them. This is your project. --Primetime 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So, according to your own findings, the foreign, obscure, and new slurs are unverifiable, amounting to a quarter of the entries you checked. As discussed above, that is a reason to delete them. In their place, you've added a bunch of verifiable slurs from a hundred years ago that are no longer used. I don't think that's progress either. Before we all put much more work into this article, maybe we should first see if it can survive an AfD. Since it seems to violate some guidelines, it might not. -Will Beback 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all of the slurs I added originated in the 1900s. I have a couple dozen definitions starting with the letter a from this slur book printed in 1944 that I'm considering adding, though. As for deleting entries from Section A, I believe that the the unverified entries in English and the "Ammazochristo" entry should be deleted. Ammozochristo is misspelled and grammatically malformed. Animali and the words in Chinese and Thai I think should be given more time, though. --Primetime 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Amerikanaki

An english-language citation to support the definition of the "Amerikanaki" slur is: http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/ninny The source gives "Αμερικανάκι" (Amerikanaki) as a Greek synonym of "ninny."

Most of these arent even ethnic

This article suffers from LOTS of problems, the most basic of which is that the content and the title just dont match at all.

Most of the entries are ethnic. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines ethnic as "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background."^[32] Thus, ethnicity includes much more than just race. --Primetime 08:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not the poster who raised this complaint just above you, but I agree with him.)

Yes, but not all of the terms here are ethnic. I think the article is slightly mis-titled.

Very local terms like "Masshole" and "F.I.B." (a WI term meaning "Fucking Illinois Bastard") are not quite ethnic slurs; they refer to a person's state of residence, which is often purely a matter of personal choice and economics; a slur that a CT person uses to describe someone from MA is less "ethnic" than one a Northerner uses to describe a Southerner. Nor are social-class slurs like "blueblood" or "loser-fucker" ethnic.

Also, the article contains quite a range of "slurs", from the light and generally nonoffensive ("Canuck") to the moderate slurs that are still often used in self-description ("blueblood", "redneck", "white trash") but sometimes offensive, to those that would get a person beaten up. It doesn't really seem to make a distinction, and while I might be opening a can of worms by suggesting this, but perhaps it would be a good idea to indicate which of these are most severe and which are not. Mike Church 17:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends. Many states of the U.S. have their own subculture (e.g., Alabama is heavily Baptist, while Massachusetts is heavily Catholic.) I agree that many geographic locations in a country as diverse as the U.S. do not imply an ethnicity, though (e.g., California is too diverse to imply one).

However, I disagree strongly that "blueblood" is not ethnic. Ethnicity includes culture, and in many countries (as in England) upper classes of society form their own subculture. --Primetime 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The following nonsense terms

Bjork

An Icelander, in allusion to their most popular pop-songstress.✗

Britch

(International) a pejorative term for British women.✗

Butter Stinker

(Ancient Japan) A European. Derived from the fact that at the time, the traditional Japanese diet was not as rich in dairy prodcts as was the European diet. The Japanese would claim that the Europeans stank of butter.✓

Cocksauce

A white person.✗

Dreamcatcher

Native Americans.✗

Dumb Dutchman

(Anglo-Celtic Pennsylvanians) A Pennsylvania German, "Dutch" being corrupted from the Pennsylvania German self-descriptive word Deitsch✓

Can we get some consensus on eliminating this nonsense? For example, Europeans couldn't even take butter to the orient before the development of commercial refrigeration. Hardly ancient. Additionally, adding "Dumb" in front of any ethnic group's name may produce an insult, but this can be done with any ethnicity and is hardly and ethnic slur. This is a crazy, having to cut BS by committee. 155.84.57.253 22:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. What we do is add a {{fact}} tag to the entries in question and give them some time to be verified. Give me a couple of days and I will go to a library to check out the slurs. If I can't find any info on them, then they're probably unverifiable. --Primetime 22:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Dumb Dutchman

In Pennsylvania, the term "Dumb Dutchman" is hardly nonsense, though not heard nearly as often as in past generations. The Wikipedia article on Pennsylvania German people says that they are also known as "Pennsylvania Dutch" and "Pennsylvania Deitsch." I am of heavily Pennsylvania German ancestry and should know about what is meant by a "Dumb Dutchman." The name reflected a dated stereotype of the ethnic group as being simple-minded and uneducated. Today there are Pennsylvania Germans in all walks of life.

differentiate this page more

There's a lot of overlap with Offensive terms per nationality. Perhaps the pages should be merged, if they can't maintain their own distinction. Schizombie 05:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

Just a request. If you're going to add racial slurs from your undoubtedly limitless library thereof, kindly ensure that they are in the correct alphabetical order. This will make it far easier for aspiring racists to find the slur they wish to add to their arsenal.