Talk:Chink/Archive 1

Trim down
I cannot see any benefit to the article to trim down one of the meanings of chink to what we have now, from the original below. Improvements are possible, but to render less clear by removing contexts is surely not in the interests of clarity. Here is what was before: "I can see a chink in his armour" with reference to someone who has the potential for a hole in an argument during a debate "There was a chink of light between the curtains" to describe a small gap between curtains allowing a shaft of light through --JRL 04:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Chink can also refer to a small gap, or by a small margin, with reference to the closeness of objects or debating positions. For example, the following phrases are commonplace in the UK:
 * I think the current definition is clear and understandable. Your definition adds additional information at a heft cost. More importantly, your expansion is wrong or misleading. Chink does not refer to the closeness of debating positions, but rather, a fault in them -- as a crack would be in a wall. I would like clearer definition if you can come up with a compact one. Finally, the OED lists 6-10 different meanings of chink, all recent. I think we should define all of them, before focusing so much on one particular meaning. --Muchosucko 12:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is dictionary stuff. It belongs on Wiktionary. That is the problem when the topic of an article is a word rather than a regular encyclopedia topic. This title is problematic even in dictionaries. Encyclopedia articles could IMO include this kind of content but only in the context of an appropriate encyclopedia article of some kind. Once the door is opened to encyclopedia articles on word usage it becomes at best a hybrid. Bard गीता 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Offensiveness
I'm not trying to POV this article by asserting the offensiveness of the term, I'm just trying to remove equivacatory pablam. I would argue the the offensiveness of the term doesn't have anything to do with everyone finding it offensive; it is clearly offensive to a great many people. If someone doesn't find it personally offensive, that doesn't mean it fails to offend a larger group. If there is a way to write this without a "considered" or "considered by many" nonsensical remark in front of it, I would think that would be fine, I just can't think of a way to do it without gutting the definition.--The Grza

Well, there are some East Asians who use the term among themselves.

I don't think it's insipid to state things in a full and complete manner; and furthermore I find it wrong to claim that a term can ever be 100% offensive, as there are many people, such as myself, who are never offended by simple words. As this entry somewhat resembles that of a dictionary, we must remember the rule to be descriptive and not prescriptive. I'm re-adding "considered," and if the term bothers you then we could simply remove "offensive" and let the reader form his own opinions on ethnic slurs. Citizen Premier 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Meh, I decided to take out "highly offensive" instead. Citizen Premier 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the phrase "The offensiveness of the slur is under debate." (under "Offensiveness and Reclamation." Is it actually under debate?  Is there anyone who seriously states that the term is NOT offensive?  To me it seems that the rest of the section does a good job of discussing cases where the word has been viewed as offensive and ways in which some are trying to reclaim it.  So I'm removing this sentence.  Uppernewfy 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)uppernewfy

I'd suggest that this page should be split in two. Shouldn't the "Chink" page refer to the official use of the word, ie "there was a chink in his armour", and if there is an unofficial use of the word, that is a separate page such as something like Chink_(Offensive Term) 220.233.111.155 (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone who seriously states that the term is NOT offensive? Yes, the BBC actually. A football fan on 606 once made a joke about 'no chinks in United's armour' in reference to Korean Park Ji-Sung. I complained but the moderators did not remove the post because it was not against their house rules. Neilho (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's offensive if it's used to describe people of asian descent. It's not offensive if it's used as a word in the english language. It's like making the article "dog" primarily about the word "dog" be used as an offensive term to describe a woman. 220.233.111.155 (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

From the page

 * "CHINK. A combination of abbreviations used to identify the Chinese Army and North Korean Army elements on US military maps during the Koran War. The abbreviation 'CHI" being placed over Chinese Army units and "NK" being placed over the symbols representing the North Korean Army units. Combined units were shown as "CHI/NK" and the enemy became knowns as "Chinks". The word was used throughout the Korean War and later to describe Asian enemies."

This seems dubious to me: can anyone provide a cite for this? -- The Anome 14:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

CHINKS ( Chinese Is Nigger Korean Society). or ( JJangKae Korean word for CHINK from Chin Dynasty).

Citation is; Personal witness to the development of the abbreviation structure. Take it or leave it, that is the way it happened!.
 * I was in the U.S. Military at the time and saw the development of this word to describe the enemy in verbal communications.[Texrob]

We need more than that on wikipedia; evidence from personal experience is considered original research; other evidence is needed. See also, which shows that the term "chink" referred to "a Chinaman" long before the Korean War. Citizen Premier 21:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation states "chink' was used in 1901 but does not show the source. As I said, I was a witness, not an original researcher. I personally think a bunch of un-informed high schoolers are in control of this page and it does not deserve the title "Encyclopedia". Furthermore,It seems these high schoolers could care less about the truth. As I said, Take it or leave it but you damned well should  consider it because it was the 1950s when the term came into general use. Think there might be aconnection? Idiots! Rob

I wouldn't care if God himself came in here claiming a new etymology for the term; I wouldn't believe him without a link to a creditable source.


 * In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

If you're right it shouldn't be too hard to find a source! Citizen Premier 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the term came from the Manchu name for their (Chinese) Empire  "Da Qing Guo" i.e. Great Ching Country/Empire ; many Chinese emigrated to the USA towards the end of the Ching Dynasty (in the mid-1800's and early 1900's), so a Chinese of the period could answer  " I am a  Ching " (i.e. Ching-citizen) to describe his nationality. To white American ears of the day  this could evolve into what would be seen as an 'appropriate' racial slur  "Chink"  in English. This would suggest the 1902 anecdote would be correct. The misuse would arise in the same way as the 'other' racial slur "Chinaman" which is a word-for word translation of the Chinese term 'Zhong Guo ren' (China- man) for a Chinese person. Foreign accents can be a target both of good-natured  kidding  and  of mocking abuse.

The term is likely an amalglamation of a mangled version of the word ching and the word china, as well a reference to the actual word chink. In medieval times the small slots in the facemask of a helmet was referd to as a chink which is where we get the term "chink in the armour".

merge?
shouldn' that be part of List of ethnic slurs, like "gook"? (131.130.121.106 11:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC))

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger with English Language names for Chinese people

 * Oppose Chink has a completely different history than other racial terms against Chinese people. Also, 'Chink' can refer to people from any East Asian country, including Vietnam and Korea, thus making it innapropriate to merge with an article exclusively about Chinese people.Zeus1234 16:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's enough information about this particular term to garner its own article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Easian
What about the term Easian which is short for East Asian? I have sometimes seen on forums the use of the term Easian to describe people of the Mongoloid Asian type. This term has no offensive drive behind it but has no mentioned on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Caption
thumb|right|The Iron Chink, ironically alongside a Chinese butcher, was racially marketed as a replacement for Chinese immigrants during the [[Chinese Exclusion Act]]. I haven't a clue what an "Iron Chink" is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An "iron chink" is a machine that cleans salmon and readies it for canning. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Missed the point - I think
Cetitau 17:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC) cetitau

It seems there's a great sensitivity here about the improper use of the word "Chink" as it relates to Asians. And while I am as offended as the next when it comes to disparaging any group (disparaging individuals is perfectly ok). What I don't find here is any interest in a definition of the word as it is normally used in the language.

Chink: slit, crack, etc. In geology/petroleum ???? (which is what I'm looking for). I believe it means a crack or possibly a void in solid rock. Maybe some who knows how to do this could put a definition here that relates to the proper use of the word instead of all this ..... whatever about the incorrect use of it.


 * Well, certainly the dab line saying "for other uses see Chinese handball" is totally out of whack, and I'm not certain why it's there at all. Granted, also, the other uses you're mentioning are the most common usages of this term in English, esp. since the derogatory form is now taboo (it was rarely used in print with its derogatory meaning, except as part of character lines/dialogue...), and they should be referenced here; however they are only dictionary-meaning in nature, and not encyclopedic in character.  Unless there's a good reason why chink (geology) or chink (masonry) or chink (armour) would have reasons to have articles....Skookum1 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Asians don't look alike
Shouldn't it be added where it says the guy said asians look alike that they don't look alike and are offended if you screew their nationality up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.150.153 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversies Section
I got rid of this because it was uncited, and generally seemed to be absurd propaganda:

Dallas based Asian American hip-hop artist Tra$k attempted to name his 2007 and later 2009 mixtapes "Chink", this sparked protest and anger among the Asian communities. People are accusing of him of "making a mockery of racism", which Tra$k dismisses and replies "the white man don't understand! When they called us "Chinks" it was okay, but when we start calling ourselves "Chinks"...they tell us not to say it anymore? See the bullshit that the white man doing? Especially the older white people! Man, old (white) people are fucked up in the head!" But at the same time, parts of the Asian communities have put a sense of trust in Tra$k, believing that Tra$k knows what he is doing and is doing the right thing. Tra$k revealed in an interview with DDSS that his mixtape will be released sometime in late 2009.

Thanks, The  Fire  Tones  01:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see Wikipedia not intimidated by P.C.
Only by hiding evil does evil exists!See other Offensive terms on Wikipedia Articles on same. Gook as an example for Asians especially used during Vietnam war. Mayb e provide link to this Wikipedia article? Thanks! Aslashingsword (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ginkspmaftntuo8110921stcentEAJ.Dated/deced.

Not offensive at all
I'm a graduate from Pekin High School in Illinois, and was a player on the Fighting Chinks. I'm not oriental, but I don't find the term offensive at all. Our sports teams have always been called the Chinks (or Celestials before that) and I think its wrong to screw around with tradition. I've put an NPOV tag up because I think its wrong to let PC run amok here. Chink isn't racist, its funny!

69.122.133.58 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is flagged as offensive in dictionaries, such as the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition. William Avery (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where I come from, that would be called PC nazism. We've been called the Chinks, and our cheerleaders wore robes and basket hats since the get-go, and even had a gong in the stands. We don't think its racist at all, and I think it is dishonest for people to play it up as some sort of slur. Hardly anyone thinks Indians or Redskins is racist, so why should Chinks be any different?

69.122.133.58 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The 6th edition of COD published in 1976 also describes this as a derogatory term, so it's not a new development connected with "PC". Respected dictionaries which are reliable sources say this is a slur or derogatory. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it can't override those reliable sources as the basis of an informed encyclopedia article. William Avery (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this the term hasn't been used by the school since 1983. The edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage published in 1965 describes "chink" as "jocular slang", but even then I think the "joke" was getting a bit thin. If you look in a dictionary there is high likelihood that you will find "redskin" flagged, for instance as "dated or offensive". (Reminds me of The Black and White Minstrel Show.) William Avery (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing an origin, anyone have a reference?
"Chink" was always the particularly great racial slur. Where "Nigger" was simply an eliding from people who could not speak the French of their forebearers, "Chink" was actively self deprecating.

Chink came from a lyric, later ensconced as a nursery rhyme:

Chink-a-chink-a-chinaman, sitting on a fence, trying to make a dollar, out of fifteen cents.

It's actually ching chong chinaman sitting on a fence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4203:6750:1494:232F:E6D5:5F57 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This originated in the large waves of Chinese immigrants to build rail-roads. Cheap Chinese labor was in competition with cheap Irish labor at the time, with wages running about 15 cents per day. It was necessary for each laborer to spend some time washing his work-shirt at the end of an exhausting day. Some Chinese watched from the fences and then started laundering the work shirts for a penny or two each. Thus the nursery rhyme could be seen to mean:

Chinaman, not working so hard, thinking how to make money, earning eight times my wage.

which puts it in a class by itself for racial slurs.

The nursery rhyme later morphed into the infinitely long "Ching Chong" song. Chink may have fallen out of usage for a period; it's unclear.

If anyone has references, perhaps source of the original lyrics (a play from San Francisco?), please post them.

--Charles Merriam (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Cassell Dictionary of Slang says "Orig. Aus.", and the Concise Australian National Dictionary concurs with "recorded earliest in Aust.", giving a quote from 1887. William Avery (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking a little more closely I see the Concise Australian National Dictionary has a citation for 'Chinkie' meaning Chinese person from 18th March 1876. William Avery (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image
What purpose does File:Chinkdaddy.png serve, and what does it contribute to the article that can't be contributed by text alone? To me it seems like a pointless non-free image&mdash;you can't even really see anything on it. Should be removed and deleted. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

reference chinky in india section not found.
i clicked on the link & it said the article dosent exist,so i deleted the part,in case im wrong,plz recitify the mistake..ty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.34.48 (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OPEN MOVE Proposal. Suggesting: Ch*nk-> Prejudicial speech#Asians or C***k (ethnic slur)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Having read through this rather long discussion, the current title is fine and is inline with naming conventions, it also happens to be the primary topic, the requester also seems predisposed to the term claiming offense, such predispositions do not belong in consensual discussions nor do they have any positive bearing on the collegial nature of the 'pedia. The requester also cites NOTANARCHY and NOTFREESPEECH, I'd like to draw their attention to WP:NAME and WP:NOTCENSORED, as mentioned by the opposers (who account for over 80% of those commenting), Nigger is not moved to Nigger (ethnic slur), Nigger (derogatory term) or Nigger (racist term). At the end of the day, a spade's still a spade no matter what you call it, See To call a spade a spade  I meant the gardening tool NOT the derogatory slang term for African Americans. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:12pm • 11:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:12pm • 11:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: modified per discussion from Prejudicial speech#Pacific rim

Chink → Prejudicial speech –


 * Prejudicial speech This could be any regional designation such as Asia open to dialog.Prejudicial speech


 * [Prejudicial speech#Harming Asian-Americans]] Speech of that nature also harms non-Asian American, all Americans, damages US/UK/Aussie relations with China and other Asian countries ans obviously people's first thought will be that New Zealanders and other English speakers should be included. So, let us discuss how we can be more inclusive. Certainly the title of such articles does not have to legitimatize this kind of derogatory slang. The English language is itself harmed by granting illicit dignity to language of this nature.

Note that many people descended from parts of the world not historically English speaking also live at lower income levels. Thus, they have less access to computers, less access to exercise of free speech and expression of POV. As a result, WP POV is heavily slanted in favor of certain elites. If we kid ourselves into knee jerk denial, we impair our own intelligence and the English speaking world is dumbed-down. We need to purge WP of article titles such as this article title, it is quite revolting and scandalous. This is the twenty first century, where are we heading with the project?

WP:NOTANARCHY WP:NOTFREESPEECH

Bard गीता 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Er...
 * Why would you choose "Harming Asian-Americans"? The term is used outside of the United States, so I fail to see why you would place it under a US title.
 * Why would you use "Pacific Rim"? This is specifically about the Chinese ethnicity. It has nothing to do with Maori, Andeans, Haida, Aleuts, or any other ethnicity from the Pacific Rim.
 * The article Prejudicial speech does not exist. So no merger can be done; as this is a requested move, a merger should not be done using this process in any case.
 * If this is renamed to prejudicial speech, that would mean the entire prejudicial speech article would focus solely on the usage of "chink", which is a bad idea.
 * WP:NOTCENSORED - we do not censor article titles or contents.
 * 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to the above Comment which was: "Why would you use "Pacific Rim"? This...has nothing to do with Maori...or any other ethnicity from the Pacific Rim.
 * Which reply is: The term, when used, as it usually is, to deprecate persons of Asian descent, is applied to Pacific Islanders irregardless of whether they are, in fact, of Chinese extraction. However, your point seems to have reason. I would not oppose revising the RM to Open, if you wish. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter; it seems to be important that we get this right. Bard गीता 00:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment were you perhaps looking for List of ethnic slurs when you chose "prejudicial speech" ? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to the above Comment were you perhaps looking for List of ethnic slurs when you chose "prejudicial speech" ?...
 * Which reply is: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. I freely admit that my suggested relocation site is tentative and am open to dialogue. Placing the content in List of ethnic slurs does not seem like a bad idea. But is a "List of..." anything the preferred site for extensive encyclopedic text? Be that as it may, don't know that I would have a problem with implementation of that suggested site. Bard गीता  00:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree with move proposals. "Chink" has a long and ugly enough history to be deserving of its own article. Per WP:CENSOR, ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." You cite WP:NOTFREESPEECH above, but I don't read that as a license to censor based on content, but rather to make it clear Wikipedia is here to create an encyclopedia, not a ground for soapboxing: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia". I don't see "Chink" as meeting that criterion. Khazar (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to the above [comment] ''Disagree with move proposals WHICH STATES "Chink" has a long and ugly enough history to be deserving of its own article. Per WP:CENSOR, ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."
 * WHICH REPLY IS AS FOLLOWS: This is not a proposal for "removal of content". The reply, while presumptively made in good faith (acknowledging the "ugly history"), errs in that it disputes a different proposal than this RM. Certainly there are those who might propose deletion of the content, and there may be a good case for deletion of the content. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether the unqualified and facile promotion of a disreputable racial and ethnic slur, into the status of an encyclopedia title, is in fact the appropriate manner in which to handle that content. It would be interesting to see if the above commentator would revise their position in view of the common interests which clearly we do share, which is to promote and preserve the quality of this collaborative English-language encyclopedia. Bard गीता 00:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose A badly-though-out and confused proposal, as noted above. A move to Chink (ethnic slur) might make sense though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that: Chink (ethnic slur). Joja  lozzo  21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Qualififed Support as interim compromise. Better than what we have now. That could hold things in order and this RM could be recast as an open RM. Bard गीता 00:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where would you have chink direct? —  AjaxSmack  01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose the original proposal as a solution looking for a problem. I also fail to see how this slur relates to "prejudicial".  Also oppose chink (ethnic slur).  The slur is the primary encyclopedic meaning of "chink" and there isn't even any other article named "chink" at Wikipedia (see chink (disambiguation)).  —  AjaxSmack  01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia is not censored. The purpose of this lengthy article is to analyze the origin and effects of the word. If Wikipedia has an article on nigger (a word which as a former Southerner growing up in the 1950s I deplore), it certainly does not need to censor or whitewash or hide or disambiguate a similar ethnic slur. Softlavender (talk)
 * Why do so many intelligent people miss the point? This is not a proposal for censorsing the article. It is a proposal that WP should not dignify words which are not acceptable in literate company. The proposed interim measure is merely that such article title be flagged for what they are so that WMF and the wikiway is not converting into a social change agent for reverting English language into a pre-desgregationist 1950's conception of acceptability. Please do not argue against the straw man of censorship. This is not an afd. What is asked is exercise of good editorial judgement. WP is supposed to be educational, not a reflection of ignorant retro ideologies. Bard गीता  19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the reason peaple 'miss the point' is that you haven't made it very well. If you are suggesting that the article be kept, then please at least come up with a title which explains what the article is about. I've suggested Chink (ethnic slur), which I think is about as clear and concise as one can make it. You gave 'qualified' support to this, but have proposed nothing clearer - your original title is of no use at all, as has already been indicated. It seems to me that there are only two alternatives: either (a) Have a title with 'chink' in it, or (b) make 'Chink' a redirect to a more general article, e.g. the List of ethnic slurs. We cannot reasonably have an article about a term without using it in the title - how else are people supposed to find it? Yes, it is an offensive term to apply to anyone, and no, its use shouldn't be encouraged, but giving the article an obscure title is of no relevance. If we are to have an article on the term (personally, I'm not sure it is actually necessary), there is no logic in trying to hide it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is baffling how many side arguments develop which are refutations of points which either are not in contention or have been resolved. The immediately preceding post starts out stating that i had not made the point very well and i concur. i feel that i have done not as good a job as i could have because i did not expect much opposition. i was mistaken. however, the millions billions of people who are seriously harmed by the cavalier infliction of derogatory slang words should not have to endure continuing degradation because of my own ineptitude or lack of wikistreetsmarts or sloth or lack of effective communication skills. and the decisions we make may affect wikiways worldwide in the englishwiki world for years to come. please take this discussion seriously and bear in mind that despite our belief that we are NPOV we are in the eyes of the billion+ chinese very very POV indeed.
 * "If you are suggesting that the article be kept..."
 * Gee willikers. Where did anyone post an afd? Was it not stated clearly above at              "This is not a proposal for "removal of content".
 * And again at           "This is not a proposal for censorsing the article."
 * This is a proposal regarding Naming Conventions only.
 * It was stated that AndyTheGrump's idea of modifying the name with an (ethnic slur) tag was in fact a distinct improvement. So where's the beef??? Bard गीता 20:53, :::29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a point to all that? What are you now proposing we do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point,(SHORT TERM) adopt your proposal (ie., rename to Chink (Ethnic slur) which has at least 3 supporters and no objections, pending hopeful eventual consensus on a different proposal
 * That different proposal is as follows: to restart the discussion regarding a long term, broadly consensed move which will subsume "Chink" as a series of subsections under an article title which is not :::::derogatory to any class of persons, which, IMHO, demeans the human spirit and is contrary to the statement "All Men Are Created Equal". It may require some research to properly characterize the ideal but if you :::::want to call the question i have already proposed "Prejudicial speech" and would probably support "Prejudicial speech (Chinese)" or something along those lines. it should not be necessary to be an expert :::::on all nuances of wiki policy to have a valid point and to obtain collaborative support for beneficial changes. without a modification, WP will be a POV force for setting the clock back on English language, to :::::the days of the early George Wallace. IMHO, Governor Wallace would probably recognize that American English has surpassed this type of language. Maybe part of the problem has to do with that in New Zealand, :::::Australia, Canada or Great Britain the view of these matters is different. In the USA, we have Chinese mayors of major cities and high ranking Federal officials. Some people still hate Chinese and call them :::::chinks and worse, possibly because of post traumatic syndrome and the way our veterans are often underserved, misunderstood or mistreated. But of all the Vietnam veterans, Korea veterans and others that i know, :::::not one of them really would go along with the perpetration of these kinds of words. Most guys actually respect Asian culture quite highly, for the dignity of its martial arts culture if nothing else.  Bard गीता  22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if you are proposing what is essentially a new article. Can I suggest you start a draft version in your user space, and then ask for comments? (And BTW, if you are going to write about 'prejudicial speech', you might do well to avoid making unsubstantiated negative generalisations about what goes on in New Zealand, Australia, Canada or Great Britain - or in the USA for that matter). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You proposed a rename move to Chink (ethnic slur) do you oppose it support it, or abstain? Bard गीता  00:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would I propose something I don't support? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Bard, what you seem to be proposing is a substantial change to the article as well as a title change. You can't efectively propose both in a Move Request. The article as it stands is a valid enclyclopedia article, just as all of the Wikipedia articles on specific ethnic slurs are. The fact that you take personal offense at this particular word has no bearing on this discussion -- I imagine all of us commenting here take offense at the word. But since Wikipedia is not censored (and I suggest you re-read that linked policy because you keep saying things like "WP should not dignify words which are not acceptable in literate company" and "this is not an afd"), and the history and effects of racal slurs has a highly important value encyclopedia-wise, your desire to completely change the article and/or onto some other article is not going to work. And that sort of discussion is misplaced here I think. Don't propose changes to an existing article, other than title changes, in a Move Request. If you want to edit the article, edit it. If you want to create a Merge Proposal, do that. But attempting all three, plus a site-wide change in policy, in a Move Request isn't working, and has resulted in a confusing morass of discussion. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the proposed title change. Joja  lozzo  03:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't move the page while the move discussion is still in progress. I oppose moving this page; the current title "chink" is appropriate per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NAME. --Muchness (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No valid arguments for a move have been presented other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There appears to be no need to disambiguate the page, either. --DAJF (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Softlavender: It is a good thing not a bad thing that there is spirited debate on this topic. But there seems to be quite a bit of distance remaining amongst the participants.


 * (a) Once again i am disappointed that the people attracted to this discussion continue to argue against straw men which are not the proposal at issue. The long term solution is deferred in favor of disposition of an interim solution suggested by Andy. Primarily issue at this time is a title change, only, adding ""ethnic slur or Chink (prejudicial speech)". For some reason, the editor posting as Soft Lavender contends that this constitutes a change of content. It is not. It is a change of title.


 * (b) Softlavender, in boldface, contends that any and all ethnic slur articles are valid "enclyclopedia" articles. One of the emergent issues which has been developed and joined-in-issue is that this article is troublesome in that it is not encyclopedic but rather lexical (like a dictionary). Simply shouting that it is a valid "enclyclopedia" article does not make it so. It is required to support the contention through argumentation or rhetoric, which, as someone who asserts that they are a professional editor, per userpage, you should be willing to provide.This is not a vote. Please support your position with argument, rather than simple bold assertions.


 * Yet another straw man argued-against by Softlavender is that this is a matter of Geof Bard being "personally offended" and, by implication, attempting to inflict personal taste as a matter of wikipedia policy. It should be obvious that this is not a matter of personal taste.
 * Bard is not a Chinese name, nor is Geof, Jeff, Jeffrey or Jeff. So why is this supposedly something "personal"? The fact of the matter is that the issue concerns whether wikipedia is going to be a nuetral observer, in which case the term under discussion is understood to be not fit for contemporary literate usage and thus not fit as an unmodified article title, or whether wikipedia is going to be something like a google-hits-rule stampede to unbridled majoritarianism. In any case, please refrain from making allusions to my motivation, which is technically classified as a personal attack and proscribed under wikipedia rules. Even if it was a "personal" matter, that would be completely irrelevant. At this time, most of the posts have not focused on the proposal but rather on the proposant's motives, or how poorly drafted the proposal was.
 * That being said, it is true that there is a long term concept of subrogating the article as a section.That would be not a content change but a content addition. There could be for instance a lede section (lead section) which contextualized. Presumably the title of such an article would be Prejudicial languge - Asians or Prejudicial language - Pacific Rim as originally proposed. But that issue has been waived for deferral if the interim measure were adopted, ie., Chink (ethnic slur).

=== Amendment: new basis for MOVE/RENAME--> Chink (prejudicial speech): (a)Wikipedia is not a dictionary=== This is an article about a word. Articles about words belong in dictionaries. The correct placement of the content is either (a) an encyclopedia entry of a broader topic of which discussion of the word is pertinent. Examples: Preujdicial speech, Prejudicial speech - Asians, Discriminatory language, Discriminatory English slang, Racialist slang, Racialist discriminatory slang, Anti-Chinese discrimination, Anti-Chinese prejudicial slang, Anti-Chinese prejudice, Anti-Chinese prejudice in the English language, and so forth. Softlavender thought up a good one actually: History and effects of racal slurs

These would be encyclopedia articles. The current title, as a free-standing article constitutes a mere dictionary entry, and it is questionable whether the content would withstand that critique without at least contextualization. Bard गीता  19:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exhibit A
The article in question, after an unusually brief lede, starts out incriminating itself as a dictionary entry. To wit:


 * Etymology and history


 * "A number of dictionaries have provided different ..."

This article is a dictionary article. Bard गीता 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you proposing? If you think the article should be deleted then say so explicitly, and start an AfD. I can see the merit of your argument that the existing article is a dictionary definition, rather than a proper encyclopaedic article, though it is perhaps a marginal case. An AfD would at least settle the question one way or another... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But afd's tend to be interpreted as deletion of the content. It is not that IMO the content should be expunged. Just, reformatted, retitled, or re-situated. ( you do come up with keen observations, i might add) This is an open move proposal at this stage... Bard गीता 20:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to DAJF
Adding "there is no need to disambiguate the page" is yet another red herring. the page already is disambiguated and that is not the issue at bar. Bard गीता DAJF also uses the shop worn wikitactic of minimizing the proposal by stated that it is nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT. That is not the case. The case is that the contention is that (a) the article and title do not rise to the level of an encyclopedic article (b) the article violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary, (c) the very existence of the article as a free-standing article of that title in a self-designated dictionary is POV and affects society beyond the role of an encyclopedia by conducting a modification of English language usage.
 * A challenge to my critics: please cite major English language publishers which in their most recent edition of an offline paper encyclopedia have an entry for this term which is not a mere redirect. Dictionaries don't count.

Bard गीता 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article (Chink) is not disambiguated at present, and one of the proposals is to move it to the disambiguated name Chink (ethnic slur), so this is very much the "issue at bar". I still haven't seen any arguments supporting such a move that do not boil down to "I find it offensive" - which I'm afraid is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. If you have problems with the quality of the article or the "very existence of the article as a free-standing article", then you should consider starting a Merge or Deletion discussion at the appropriate venue, rather than making a move request discussion more complicated than it ought to be. --DAJF (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Andy
An intelligent "curmudgeonly" (per your user page) sceptic adds spice to any discussion or debate. But at some point it seems your cards don't mean a dime if you don't lay them down. Your response seems to be indicative of support, or at least, non-opposition. Bard गीता 19:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bard गीता


 * "support, or at least, non-opposition" to what? I opposed your proposed article name change, and suggested an alternative. If you want to start another article, this talk page isn't really the place to discuss it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent: notifications
If this discussion is going to determine impact the fate of the English language with regard to the novel prospect of making legitimate what in the real world of literate dialogue is not, ie., acceptance of ethnic racial slur words against Chinese-descended persons, then it only seems appropriate to notify (a) the projects templated at the top of this page ✅ (b) projects connected to the English language and (c) other projects connected to Asia studies and (d) projects concerned with human rights, discrimination and international relations (e) participants in earlier afd. It is suggested that a hasty disposition of this matter would set a bad precedent which would be inconsistent with WMF goals, principles and guidelines and win lose or draw, any such adjudication should not depend upon the random luck of whoever happened to have surfed into the discussion. Respectfully submitted Bard गीता 19:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * None of this makes any sense. "The fate of the English language" isn't determined by Wikipedia. If you are proposing that ethnic slurs shouldn't be used as article titles, again this is a matter of general policy, and cannot be settled here. There is nothing whatsoever for the WMF to 'adjudicate' until the issue has been discussed in the appropriate place. Can I suggest you confine your comments on this talk page to issues which can actually be decided here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that Wikipedia has an influence. You are correct regarding the Tree, but are you missing the Forest for the Trees?
 * Regarding your contention that a move discussion cannot be discussed on a discussion page:Actually, the name of this article can be decided here. If it had been quietly changed, probably nobody would have objected. As a courtesy and to avoid revert wheel warring, it was presented for discussion.
 * As to your objection to venue, this is not an attempt to adjudicate policy across WMF or WP. It is a discussion about renaming this article and hopefully establishing a collaborative committment to examine the problematic nature of this kind of content. (One step at a time). This discussion can be "promoted" to any of numerous other URL's. Please feel free to suggest any, particularly if you wish to take issue with the propriety of this particular venue.  Feel free to comment on the issue of renaming or subrogating this article rather than the various side issues and non-issues. The purpose is to increase the quality of this encyclopedia one article at a time in a manner consistent with established Wikipedia statements of purpose.
 * It is not that the fate of the language is "determined" by Wikipedia, but that Wikipedia it has an impact on culture and language. That in part is why we are NPOV. Our objective is to create an encyclopedia, not to modify the rules of English usage or to introduce modifications in the way that language is utilized.
 * If we depart from mainstream encyclopedic practice of say Encyclopeida Brittanica, we are not only exercising Point of View, we create the very phenomena we are trying to encyclopedically document. Once we start promoting new and unusual patterns of English language usage, we are no longer an encyclopedia but rather an intrusive, usage-modifying Experimental Dictionary.
 * Hence, aside from your articulate, clever, unrelenting and pointed commentary, which is perfectly welcome and intellectually challenging, it would probably be appropriate to also comment on the main questions and challenges. Can you demonstrate that Encylopedias rather than Dictionaries include entries on archaic slang which has fallen into disrepute? Would you care to unambiguously agree to at least go along with the RENAME that apparently you had proposed, Ching (ethnic slur)? Would you go with Chink (prejudicial)? Would you participate in a task force to evaluate WMF treatment of ethnic slur words, or not? Obviously you are free to decline, but your sharp, witty and incisive observations would probably help to create a more robust long term solution. For interest, your suggestion that proposing that ethnic slurs shouldn't be used as article titles be considered as a broad policy, is excellent.
 * Newly discovered PRECEDENT: A user in an earlier discussion proposed Chink_(Offensive Term) Bard गीता 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please stick to the point? I proposed the name be changed to Chink (ethnic slur) so of course I unambiguously support this name. And Yes, I agree that there is a problem with the 'dictionary like' structure of the article. You have two choices: revise the article to make it more encyclopaedic (which can be done by normal editing, and needs nobody's prior approval), or propose it be deleted if you don't think this is practical. As for other articles, 'task forces' etc, this isn't the place to discuss them, but I will say that though I think your intentions are good, you are going about this in completely the wrong way. You will need to decide exactly what it is you want to do, then write any draft articles, and raise any proposed policy changes in the appropriate place, where a broader participation in debate should ensue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK i appreciate that we are in agreement. You are rather a tough cookie but you make good points. As for the longer term suggestion i agree the time is not ripe. as to the mere name change, there is probably not a strong enough consensus at this exact point in time. probably someone would revert. but thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Bard गीता 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - there is no need to move this article. In addition, this article is NOT just a stub with "a definition of the term." Every article in wikipedia has a word in the title that COULD be found in the dictionary, like "apple". However, the article for apple isn't a dictionary entry. This article is not a dictionary entry either. That is the difference. Denaar (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that analysis is that it overlooks the fact that the underlying topic of Apple is something that the word "apple" signifies. In the instant case, the topic is the word itself, which makes it lexical (dictionary-like) rather than encyclodpedic. That is a rationale or explanation for the distinction. No doubt you are in good faith however making a blanket assertion without a supporting rationale does not advance the discussion. Also the question is not whether there is a need to move the article. The sun will still rise tommorow one way or another. The question is whether the current name is the most appropriate name in terms of the goals and stated purposes of the Wikipedia collaborative online dictionary. For reasons discussed above, it is not at all clear that ethnic slur words are appropriate titles for encyclopedia articles, nor that freestanding articles about ethnic slur words,or any words, for that matter, are appropriate for the online encyclopedia.  Bard गीता  01:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Supplemental detainled inline reply to comment by Denaar; reply by Geoffery Bard:
 * Denaar Oppose - there is no need to move this article.


 * Geof(As stated above; not about need; about best course)


 * DenaarIn addition, this article is NOT just a stub ''


 * Geof(That's not what anyone is saying)''


 * Denaarnot just a stub with "a definition of the term."


 * Geof(''i take your point/that';s a fair point. but the basis of questioning the article as LEXICAL is not brevity or restriction to solely definition. The basis is that the article per se is about the word and no matter how long, it is inherently lexical. lexical is not automatically bad content but should be integrated. this point often missed at WP because TERRITORIAL DISPUTES are not terminology disputes they are territorial boundary disputes. for instance [OT] )

''


 * DenaarEvery article in wikipedia has a word in the title that COULD be found in the dictionary, like "apple".


 * Geof''Of course. The basis of the argument is that this word is of a different class of words than apple.
 * It is typically problematic and the article is reflexively lexical: the title is the topic.

''
 * Denaar However, the article for apple isn't a dictionary entry.


 * GeofRight. Because it is not about a word.


 * Denaar This article is not a dictionary entry either.


 * Geof Granted you did state a rationale as opposed to stating that X is so because I say it is so. For that, you are entitled to credit. However, this sentence itself is merely the statement of your conclusion, and, for reasons given above, it is not accepted as established because your arguments do not address the rationale given, which is not brevity, stub-status, or restriction to definition, but rather, reflexive lexical discussion. Also, your discussion does not join issue with the problem of the degradation of the human spirit by pushing language into a derogation of homo sapiens, the sheer lack of propriety of ennobling ehtnic slurs with encyclopedia status, nor with the issue of whether Wikipedia should be in the business of changing literate English usage to make palatable what is not permissible in literate English language usage.


 * DenaarThat is the difference.

''
 * GeofIt is confusing that you would conclude in this manner. It seems that your argument is an argument by analogy that since the article on "apple" is encyclopedic and this article resembles it that they are similar rather than different. It is unclear whether that is a typo or a msitake, we all make them, or whether you are attempting to distinguish something from something else. If so, it is unclear what is being distinguished from what.''


 * End of Bard's inline reply to Denaar (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Bard गीता 01:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Geoffery, I have trouble following the discussion when conventions for indentation are not followed. Please indent to help me follow the threads. Joja  lozzo  02:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK sorry about that. will go through and repair please give me some time. I had tried using section dividers but it was a no go. Bard गीता 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose title change. Bard's requested that I come back and comment further, so here it is. While I respect Bard's commitment to this issue, this page is in no need of disambiguation that I can see, nor is it likely to be; I see no reason not to follow the same rules here that we do for other racial slurs. It's an offensive term, to be sure, but the equally offensive Nigger is unclarified, and even Sambo, which is disambiguated, falls under "racial term" rather than "slur." (If necessary to disambiguate, this seems to me the preferable option; as this article notes, the term is at least occasionally "reclaimed" and used in a positive way, whereas to identify it exclusively as a slur appears at least potentially to be editorial POV). If Bard wishes to introduce an exception to Wikipedia naming conventions for terms with a largely negative history, I think this should be done over at WP:NAME or a similar board rather than here. A quick skim of the very lengthy comments here indicates no compelling reason to me per Wikipedia policy why this article needs to be moved from its logical place. This article's well beyond a dictionary definition, exploring how this word has functioned in history, different controversies associated with it, its censorship, etc. It can be improved, of course, but that's what we're all here for. Khazar (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - An article on the history and use of this term has encyclopedic value - it is not merely a dictionary article. Our other articles on offensive terms are not qualified in any way, and Wikipedia is not censored. In short, I find the arguments by the opposers persuasive, and Bard's arguments unpersuasive.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Solution looking for a problem. The term is offensive, and I certainly wouldn't use it, but the standard applied is whether it is encyclopaedic or not, and as such our notability and verifiability rules come into play. Orderinchaos 08:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC posted
As noticed and not objected to, RFCs to the topo four projects. Others will have to wait. Bard गीता 06:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Went down the full list to avoid allegations of biased canvassing. Omitted UK because Edit Notice restricts discussion to improvements to their notice board
Bard गीता 07:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out what this entry is about. Please explain. (Is this formatted as you expected? If not, you can use the 'Preview' button in the editor to see your edit before it's published forever.) Joja  lozzo  16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any RFC. Did you forget to add the RFC tag? 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not a formal RFC just on the project talk pages I am taking care of it now. Bard गीता 01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

RENAME PROPOSAL: Please continue in new section per (admin dude) request
GENERAL REMARKS ON NEW COMMENTS:

Thank you to the people who responded to the request for comment. Please try to follow Wikipedia conventions with regard to indenting and placing comments below earlier comments.


 * A lot of people still seem not to take the poiont that a discussion of naming conventions, whether in general or in the particular, is not a matter of "censorship". There is no discussion of deletion of the page or or redacting of any contents. That point should probably be made in a full essay, which is herewith added to my personal to do list.


 * CHALLENGE QUESTION: Can anyone really come up with any explanation of how a NAMING CONVENTION consitutes CENSORSHIP, and,


 * CHALLENGE QUESTION: if they believe so, could anyone come up with a cogent rationale to explain then why existing naming conventions do not constitute censorship.


 * There was one earlier commentator who issued an Edict to this editor to not make rename/move requests. That Edict was interleaved with hyperbolic assertions and (OT) personal attacks. Is that not itself censorship?


 * If anyone interprets that the administrator's issuance of a summary and requesting a new section as the equivalent of a "close" of the thread, whatever exactly that means, would that itself not be censorship. In summary, to the extent that the presentation of this issue is the occasion of insults and demands to drop the issue are presented by some parties, the mechanism of action of censorship is exactly opposite, and is in fact directed to the Questioning of Authority. But then, only ONE person was abusive, and that person left this discussion thread a long time ago.


 * And so, again, thanks to those who at least take it upon themselves to comment. Please reconsider the facile labeling of this proposal as a "censorship" proposal, or, alternatively, please do answer the above challenge questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposal as it now stands
It is believed that the goals of WMF are undermined by loss of editors and readers, and loss of recommendations by academic faculty, because Wikpedia naming conventions depart dramatically from general English-speaking literate usage by allowing derogatory slang words as encyclopedia article titles. The proposal has a maximum and minimum, to wit: minimally, that the convention be that article titles be in this form:

or
 * Expletive (Slang)
 * Expletive (Slang word)

Maximally, the proposal is that the convention be


 * Expletive (Derogatory slang)

or


 * Expletive (Prejudicial slang)

Note that this is not a proposal to censor or ban the content of such articles but merely an editorial policy for naming them. Bard गीता 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Formal RFC on Naming convention for slang which is derogatory of persons and races
RfC moved to Requests for comment/Slang naming convention, please continue discussion there.

New meaning in social media
The term chink historically refers to Chinese people as they were the first Asian migrants to arrive in the US. Where the term exactly comes from and what its exact meaning is are debatable questions. However, in recent social media, such as the UCLA student Alexandra Wallace's rant, the term chink is taken to offend not just Chinese Americans, but a wider scope of Asian Americans who share the chinky shape of the eyes. Chink in this new context refers to the epicanthic fold which is a bodily characteristic many East and South East Asians share. Also rappers like Traphik and Tyga (who are Thai and half Vietnamese respectively) refer to their "chinky eyes" in their songs. Taking these developments into account, I think it's only right to point to the main meaning of the term chink nowadays, which is the shape of the eyes. Not that it matters a lot but I'm Asian myself, so I'm not trying to sabotage this page, just trying to inform. - Paraloco (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC) (Jing Ma)
 * This seems reasonable, but we need reliable sources, otherwise your proposal is based solely on original research and doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Joja  lozzo  20:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone is described as having chinky eyes, that's different from saying someone is a chink. By definition, and in general public usage, a chink refers to a person of Chinese ethnicity. If one or two social media events or a Tupac song were referring to chinky eyes, that doesn't mean that they were using the word chink to denote all Asians. However, it is true that the term chink can sometimes refer to people of non-Chinese Asian ascent, or to people with epicanthic folds, etc., so I updated the lead to reflect that. --Supjet (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Since nowadays chinky eyes and chink seem to be applied in the same contexts, it is true that many different Asians are called chink. For example Jeremy Lin, who's Taiwanese, rapper Shogunna who's Korean or rapper Young Mac who's Vietnamese. Hence, I do think chink applies to many Asians even though the origin might be Chinese. Even one of the articles states the Asianness of the word chink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraloco (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Many Asians may be called chink, but that's beside the point: chink, primarily and fundamentally, refers to a person whose ethnicity is Chinese. And, like Joja suggested, you don't have any reliable sources for your claim that modern usage of the term chink is mostly based on eye shape. Original research isn't grounds for including these claims in an article. --Supjet (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)