Talk:Guido (slang)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Languages (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


"Guido" is much less common now than it used to be, and part of why it was so controversial on the Jersey Shore was that it revived the word for many. The style should describe the style of the time when the word was common not today's style. --Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Intitial comments[edit]

How come no one can refer to the popular "my new haircut" youtube video. This is one of many definitions that doesnt make fun of just italians, but anyone who dresses/acts like that in clubs etc. Stop deleting stuff that doesnt fit your definition.

No Camaros? No mention of hair? No mention of leather jackets? Blasphemy.--Pozole 03:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody please NPOV this? --Anonymous

This article, being listed on, has been subject to large amounts of substandard entry material. If you have a legitimate addition to add, please do so, but refrain from posting your opinions on what "Guido" means to you. and similar sites allow for you an acceptable outlet for that sort of antic. In that vein, i've removed some poorly written additions about usage of the word, as well as an unnecessary and improperly added link. If you object, please discuss it here, on the talk page, rather than starting an edit war. Before posting, please view other Wikipedia pages for style and content. In particular, the revert i have just made pertains to improper use of external links. If you have a SERIOUS addition to make, please do so, but try not to post links to your forum discussions and such.

Archtemplar 05:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Is it necessary? (Jay 07:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

I thought it was a good photo. 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)jcrav2k6

In south western Ontario, Canada, where I grew up, the term "Guido" meant a non-Italian who associated with Italians. Basically, a wanna-be Italian who aspired to their stereotypical image and lifestyle - slicked hair, jewelry, flashy car, etc.

Being a young Italian I find this picture extremely offensive. I understand there is a time and a place for such a photo in a humorous light, but I don't think an encyclopedia should relate Guidos to gays. This would be an equivalent of posting a "History of Evolution" chart on a slang term for African Americans. If you wanna post your sterotypical Guido, that's fine, but do it without comparing Guidos to Homosexuals.

Why is racist, Just asking for a point?--WngLdr34 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even exist anymore. But it grew from a site simply against the stereotype to a site against Italians in general, and for some reason a pro-Irish stance. RSimione 06:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


This is an offensive article utilized by some guys, perhaps by the same author, to discriminate a whole people. What is your next article? Is it about Sambo the negro? jews? arabs? chicanos...?

Michael59 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think its biased, fix it. There's nothing wrong with having articles about racist terms. See kike. The article says nothing bad about guidos, only defines the stereotype.

Does any one else find this offensive to Italian-American? It was funny until I saw the words "humorously and incorrigibly uncultured". What exactly is uncultured? Someone without an Italian Culture, or someone with a very small ancestral descent?


Austrailian Guidos[edit]

This question of mine was removed from this talk page without explaination, and the part of the article I'm questioning is still there. What I'm wondering is...

Okay, I've never been to Australia, but are people who dress and act like guidos there really called wogs? My understanding of the slur "wog" is that in Australia it would be applied to Aboriginals, not a guy with spiked hair and an unbuttoned dress shirt. TJSwoboda 01:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Until the 80s, 'wog' was almost exclusively applied to Italians and Greeks - see the article on wog. After the increase of immigrants from middle-eastern countries in the 80s, it also came to be used for them as well (Lebanese, Iraqis etc). There are plenty of words that have been used to refer to Aboriginal people in a derogatory manner; wog has never been one of them. Natgoo 10:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wog isnt' a slur in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And "certain Russians", I suppose, are native Caucasians, like Chechens or Georgians? --Humanophage (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Expand, merge or redirect[edit]

This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning, eytmology and usage of a slang expression. I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:

  1. Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
  2. Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
  3. Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template).

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:SingularX12 has fixed up the article quite well. The etymology section adds a lot of substance to it. All it needs is a tiny bit of de-POVing and maybe a few sources, but I think it's ready for an article. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Etymologies are lexical content. They are the sort of thing that you would typically expect in a dictionary. Wiktionary accepts and even encourages such etymological discussions and is open to any editor to add or expand. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia. Content here must rise above the level of merely lexical content. Until the article does that, it's not ready. Rossami (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rossami, your opinion is not law. Etymology is beyond the scope of a dictionary and appears in many articles across wikipedia. This article is appropriate. You clearly have some personal feelings about this term, but that does not justify blanking the page. You are harming wikipedia by censoring it. (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology is not outside the scope of a dictionary. In fact, it's a primary feature of a good dictionary entry. Look at the Wiktionary entry for this slang term for proof. Yes, etymologies can also appear in Wikipedia articles but those articles must also have some encyclopedic content - that is, something that goes clearly beyond the merely lexical content.
To your accusation, I have nothing against this term per se. I make similar mergers and cross-wiki redirects for lots of dictionary entries. There is nothing special about this one. And I am definitely not "censoring" it. It just belongs at Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because something can be covered in part by Wiktionary doesn't mean it should be covered in full by Wiktionary. (More to the point, show me the policy that says anything remotely like that) Yes, etymology is not outside the scope of a dictionary, unless the etymology is of a complex nature (check) or otherwise cannot be adequately explained by a few sentences. (also check) There is ample sourcing and information here suitable for a Wikipedia article; it passes all measures: WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and any other relevant policy or guideline you can think of.
Also, I'd like to skirt the edges of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a moment to bring up the article Wop, which is far less detailed than this article, lacking even an Etymology section. The reason why it's relevant that this article still exists is because rather than trans-wiki'ng the article you opted to improve it instead. What quality exactly does "wop" have (that "guido" apparently lacks) which made you deem it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's deal with the easy part first. I did not "opt to repair" the Wop article other than to make some trivial link repairs in order to prevent the continued recreation of inappropriate articles of topics which had already been cleaned up. Wop is further down in the alphabet and we simply haven't gotten there yet. (And the cleanup effort has been temporarily delayed while they're working on repairs to the TranswikiBot.) Give it time - we'll get to the rest.
To your more substantive points, definition, usage and etymology can be covered in an encyclopedia article but the encyclopedia article must at some point go beyond a mere dictionary definition to be covered here. WP:V, et al don't apply to this question because they've never been challenged. I've never said that the content was untrue or unbalanced, only that it's nothing more than merely lexical content. This was and has become a true and balanced definition over at Wiktionary. The policy that says things must go beyond merely lexical content is synopsized at WP:NOT and discussed in greater detail at WP:WINAD.
You further assert that a complex etymology is sufficient to justify the retention of a page at Wikipedia. I disagree. I have seen some excellent and very detailed etymological discussions at Wiktionary. Remember that Wiktionary is also not paper. They can go into as much detail as necessary to cover the topic. (And if you don't think the current etymology is detailed enough be bold and expand it. Wiktionary is also open to all users.)
So the question again becomes "What content is there on this page that goes beyond the merely lexical?" Without something that goes beyond mere dictionary definition material, this doesn't belong here. Rossami (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between a stub and a soft redirect? Is there something wrong with this article that it doesn't deserve to be an article, let alone a stub, even though the last AfD discussion was closed as KEEP? If this article shouldn't exist on wikipedia, it should probably be taken to AfD again to secure the community consensus. Blanking the article content, and replacing it with an off-wikipedia redirect is a de facto way of deleting the article, and personally, I think it is a "clever" way to avoid a community discussion (and, in fact, completely ignore the last AfD's consensus). While I'm not commenting on the content of this article (it very well may not meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria) I am critically commenting on the processes, and feel an individual's desire to remove the content of the article (aka delete the article) and replace it with a soft-redirect isn't too far removed from a vandal blanking an article instead of taking it to AfD. In my opinion, soft-redirects should be a measure taken after AfD, not before in the case of pre-existing articles. (Soft redirects for redlinks could be helpful and are another situation completely).-Andrew c [talk] 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply on the process: AfD is the wrong forum for a decision on whether or not to merge and redirect a page. It is "Articles for Deletion, not "articles for redirect". Replacing content with a redirect (even when the redirect is to one of our sister projects) is not deletion in the deliberately narrow way we use that term at Wikipedia.
If you will remember the the last Jesus H. Christ AfD discussion, it was closed only as "keep the pagehistory" with no closure on whether or not the page should be redirected to a better target. While an AfD decision may occasionally recommend a merger or redirect, that part of the decision is not binding in the way that the decision to delete the pagehistory is. Those decisions are deliberately left to be worked out on the respective article's Talk pages (which is exactly what we are trying to do here). This is the appropriate process and place. (If you don't believe me, go ask some of the other experienced admins who've worked on deletions, redirects and transwikis. They'll tell you the same. Turning a page into a redirect is not deletion.)
So let's please discuss the merits of this page. Where is the content that goes beyond the merely lexical content? Rossami (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, well if that's where we do it, then let's count the arguments: we have one (1) argument ("it's a dictionary definition") supported by one editor, versus numerous arguments -- none of which have been addressed -- supported by numerous editors. If this is supposed to somehow support your viewpoint, I don't think you thought this all the way through.
I'm restoring the article, and will continue to do so until you or someone else can come up with a more convincing argument. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 04:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Please itemize the arguments in favor of keeping it. I see only "it has an etymology therefore it's not a dictionary definition" (addressed), a variation of "I like it" (can't be addressed because it's not an argument) and "wrong forum" (addressed). I'm asking a simple question and have yet to get an answer. What content in this article exceeds what you would expect to find in a truly great, unabridged dictionary? Rossami (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In Popular Culture, rise to use, prominent instances where it was used (like this)... basically everything articles about other such slurs have. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Mere examples of usage are common in dictionary articles. See, for example, the bullets under the definitions here, here or here to pick three quick examples from recent featured words at Wiktionary. Lots of words are commonly used. Being used is not, by itself, enough to make a page more than a dictionary entry. Now, if you had real social commentary about the word (like you see at nigger), that would be different. I can find nothing about this word beyond examples of usage. Rossami (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Then it seems highly unlikely I'll be able to change your mind on this then. However, you've not made much progress in changing my mind or anybody else's here, so I think this is one of those "agree to disagree" situations. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 06:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Has any research been done into the history of the term? Being from MA, when I was growing up, guido didn't have the same associations it did now. Namely, the emphasis was more on the working class image rather than fake tans, muscles, club music, hair gel, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Exuse me, i can't understand the Etimology esplication about the verb "guidare".

I think is obvious that the etimology is the person name "Guido", whereas is a popolar name in Italian community. So i think it would be logic and proper if "guido" was first a nickname for italian people (maybe for an anglosaxon ear all italian names sounds like it), and then used for a type of person mainly italians. How can you think that the term has to do something with a verb wich means "drive" ??? In fact, the girl under says that canadians called them "GINO", wich is another popular italian name!




I think in Canada we use the term "Gino" for this.--Sonjaaa (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In french too, Gino refers to this definition, although the term "guido" is catching on to describe the new spiked-haired, Ed-Hardy-wearing generation - also including non-italian of the same style. zubrowka74 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This page and another has been maliciously vandalised by user "Poiuyt;lk"[edit]

I don't know how to provide him or her with a warning. The last two revisions of this page clearly need to be removed by an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMoonshine (talkcontribs) 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

i know i was doing the right thing[edit]

when i fought "rossami" (does that sound italian to anyone?) to keep this up. yes, that was before this jersey shore stuff i thankfully only saw clips of or heard about, but is THAT what made it valid? i think/hope not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Not that it matters, but my ethnic background is a mix of Swedish, German and Jamaican. My username is a hash of first and last names. And, no, I still do not consider this page any more than a particularly well-written dictionary definition which would be a better fit at Wiktionary. Rossami (talk)