Talk:Echinocactus polycephalus

Source for slang name
Unsourced Wikipedia articles as a source for a slang name is not a valid citation. Please find a reliable source for the term and provide a reference for it in the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

citation listed is a valid source. deal with it. otherwise, any mention of the common name should also be removed from the reference, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.98.167 (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The citation lists a valid Wikipedia page, which does PROVE the common name for this cactus is indeed "Niggerhead Cactus." I think it's a bit idiotic not to allow Wikipedia as being its own resource!!! For all of the blind people deleting the "Niggerhead" comment, are you even bother reading the source given? It's right there in black and white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.206.154 (talk • contribs)


 * Find a source first. A source other than WP. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  08:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You dope. Wikipedia CAN BE USED AS A SOURCE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.206.154 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

there are now 4 VALID sources. eat it, bitches.

Slang name very appropriate here
Some corners of Wikipedia deal with contemporary culture and its excesses. However, this article is an attempt to document a botanical species, and a history of alternative names is not appropriate here. A case for keeping an offensive name could be made if a reliable source indicated that the nick name was sometimes used in the scientific community. Otherwise, it should be removed. While waiting for the thrill to die down, I'll invite any thoughts on what would be the next step to resolve this. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On your side. The name was commonly used 40 years ago (even in literature) but no more. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  09:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a tough one. "Niggerhead" and "Mojave niggerhead" are the only common names mentioned for this species in Jaeger's The North American Deserts, and despite being a half-century old, the book is still in print and being sold on Amazon etc, not least because it's still the one comprehensive work on its subject. I mentioned the name to the people at a local nursery as a curious factoid, and a couple of the older employees knew it as well. While WP doesn't need to be a comprehensive dictionary of every plant name ever thought of, this one seems notable and interesting as an example of a now-inappropriate usage. (I also note that both nigger and niggerhead link here, so it would be good for this article to explain why.) Stan (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the Niggerhead disambiguation page there are eleven links. I clicked every link, and searched for "nigg" on the resulting page. Ten pages have zero instances of "nigg". The only hit was on the page for Nigger Head (a remote island in Queensland, Australia). Therefore, we do not need any historical information on this page.
 * I was thinking of rewording the entry on the disambiguation page to clarify that "niggerhead cactus" was once used as a common name, but I don't think it's necessary. If readers don't already understand that offensive names are no longer acceptable, no explanation will help. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

it's a part of the plant's history, and it's a fact. guilty white folks just need to get over it. the word 'nigger' is not illegal to say (type.)

there are many instances on wikipedia that refer to 'niggerhead cactus.' this is a valid and historical 'nickname.'Kingevil (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

History of article
This article was created 2008-10-19 by Curtis Clark. A month later it was replaced with "LULZ NIGGERHEAD" by 76.171.38.51 (reverted shortly after).

An edit war has been developing since 2009-03-05 when this edit introduced 'Also referred to as "Nigger-head cactus"', with Niggers used as a reference.

These 3 editors have added the slang name: 67.61.98.167, 69.92.104.129, 69.92.206.154.

These 11 editors have removed the slang name: Antivenin, Closedmouth, HexaChord, Johnuniq, Mandarax, Mmxx, Odie5533, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Piano non troppo, Spitfire, Synchronism.

On 2009-03-10, this edit by Curtis Clark (article creator) changed the text from Also referred to as "Nigger-head cactus." to the slightly softer In the past, it was sometimes called "nigger-head cactus." with the edit summary "trying for a less polarizing way of including the information".

As I mentioned earlier, the Niggerhead disambiguation page includes eleven links. However, the only target page which contains "nigger" is Nigger Head (a remote island in Queensland, Australia). It appears that obsolete and offensive terminology has been removed from all the articles dealing with items that were once referred to as "niggerhead", except for the current attempt to introduce the term to this article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Future of article
In general, I favor compromises, and welcome the attempt to find a description which is accurate, but which acknowledges the slang name as offensive and obsolete. However, Wikipedia does not have a rule that every fact from fifty years ago needs to be inserted in each article. We have the Niggerhead disambiguation page to prove that we are not censored and don't mind using offensive language when appropriate. On articles such as this, editors are entitled to use common sense and resist attempts to interfere with an article on a botanical species (which does not need a history of obsolete common names).

I recommend that we continue in the normal way by editing the article to the best of our abilities, and by discussing any contentious issues here. If irreconcilable differences persist, we can ask more experienced editors or administrators for guidance. I haven't tried looking at this stage, but no doubt there is relevant information on WP:Dispute resolution.

Therefore, I have removed the slang name for the following reasons: I look forward to further discussion below. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is clearly offensive.
 * 2) It is obsolete (the term does not appear on any of the target pages on the Niggerhead disambiguation page).
 * 3) It is totally unhelpful in an article intended as a scientific guide to a botanical species.


 * It was the Niggerhead page that caused me to make this article (it had never occurred to me that this cactus wouldn't have an article). I think a good example for treating an offensive common name is at Gray Pine; admittedly, "digger" is taken as offensive by a much smaller group of people, and there is an interesting story (that I've not had time to fully document) of how an anthropologist/linguist spearheaded a drive to change what people called the pine. Another difference is that, in the 1970s, I and everyone I knew called it a digger pine, but no one referred to the cactus as "niggerhead" (all bets are off for the 1940's, though).


 * Nevertheless, at one time it was commonly called "niggerhead" (and not as a slang term, but as an accepted common name), and it is my impression that "cotton-top" was invented (as was "gray pine") to provide an inoffensive alternative. Perhaps several decades hence, it will seem unnecessary to mention in Gray Pine that it was once called "digger pine".


 * I'll not again attempt a compromise—you folks can edit-war all you want—but I don't see that it harms the encyclopedia to include its older name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Having pondered it more, I think it should be in this article, with the Jaeger reference if nothing else. Calling it a "slang term" is incorrect - at one point, this seems to have been the *only* common name in use. Mentioning only on disambig page is a copout, and unsupportable to boot, because there is no reference cited - in general, disambig pages collect together synonyms documented in articles, rather than introducing their own uncited claims. Finally, ethnobotany and history is certainly part of WP's purview for plant articles - note for instance the FA Verbascum thapsus, which has a section on common names alone, some of which are "whimsical names" from the 19th century. "Niggerhead" is an especially interesting usage, because at the time there would have been very few persons of African descent living in this cactus' range, so it's curious that the name even occurred to anyone in the first place. (And now having had my curiosity piqued, I wonder how one would research its origin - I note my OED has several quotes for the usage, the oldest one dated 1877, and the most recent from 1966.) Stan (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Curtis and Stan for the thoughtful replies. While I understand the position you have outlined, I offer some further points you may want to consider.
 * Re Gray Pine and its offensive name: I suggest that a vast majority of people would have no idea that "digger" could be a derogatory term, while everyone understands how offensive "nigger" is. I could shout "digger" on a crowded bus and people would just think I was another nut. But shouting "nigger" would be regarded as an extremely aggressive act, with the potential to cause a minor riot. Anyone aged over 12, and raised in an English-speaking country, does not need an explanation that "nigger" was once used either as a term of abuse, or without thought by those submerged in a racist culture.
 * The motivations of editors are not relevant, but they do confirm my point: "nigger" is an historical term that is only used today from ignorance or as an attempt to be offensive. The history of Gray Pine and its talk page shows no sign of overly enthusiastic editors replacing the page with terms like "LULZ NIGGER", or using "fucking idiots ... faggot thing" in edit summaries.
 * I fully accept Stan's point about the Jaeger reference, and the fact that "slang term" is not correct. However, reading Rudyard Kipling and many other authors from the 19th/20th centuries confirms that society has moved an extremely large distance since then. As a web publisher, Wikipedia does not need to worry about the pain of re-typesetting an expensive book to update language: we can reflect current norms. If Stan wants to pursue the interesting usage of "niggerhead" despite the absence of people of African descent in the range of the cactus, I suggest it should be part of the Nigger article. The fact that the term was used is just confirmation of my basic point: everyone then and now understands what "nigger" means, regardless of who lives nearby.
 * Re the Niggerhead disambiguation page: Yes, it is a problem that someone wondering what "niggerhead" means can't find any information on this page. But that applies to every other link on the dab page! Perhaps there should be an article for the very young, or possibly for those unfamiliar with English, explaining that some terms were once widely used, but are now regarded as extremely offensive and are only mentioned today by the thoughtless or those wishing to cause offense. I'm not trying to be smart here – I do acknowledge that the history is interesting; I just don't think it is appropriate for an article about a cactus. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point about "digger" and "nigger" is an interesting one. I'd venture that there are native Americans who are as deeply offended by "digger" as any black offended by "nigger", and perhaps even more so, since, unlike with "nigger", most people would react to "digger" with "What's the big deal?" The rest of your comparison sounds a lot like censorship, and of course Wikipedia is not censored. (It reminds me of another discussion about using "bitch" for female dogs.) It is, IMO, censorship that makes Niggerhead so out-of-spec as a disambiguation page. To me, it is factual to say that the cactus was once called niggerhead, and it would also be factual to state that the name is eschewed in modern references because it is a racial slur, and that the cactus is now called cottontop.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the cactus was commonly called a slur in the past, then that needs to be added to the article. Take a look at Orsotriaena. Yes the term is offensive, but Wikipedia is not censored. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What's in a name?
I found a cotton top cactus the other day and took a few of the cotton bits to plant. My search for germination information led me to this page. I find the discussion interesting, but largely self-aggrandizing. It is factual that the disparaging version of the name was used historically by certain factions of the white race, although why a cactus with WHITE buds would be identified with the black race is beyond me. Perhaps it is reminiscent of the more mature members of that race, in which case it should have been called "Old Jim".

Beyond all that, I see a distinctly ethno-centrist position assumed by those desiring to keep the article intact with it's term of racial disparagement. One has only to think about the very limited historical time that the term has been in use to realize that it is probably inappropriate to continue kicking against the goads. The native American people inhabiting what are now referred to as the Mojave and Sonoran deserts probably had their own name for this distinct form of plant life. Their term, no doubt, was used for many hundreds of years, if not thousands. It is only the arrogance of Anglo-Europeans, with their disdain for all things "pre-Anglo" that fuels the current rancor. We should either drop the "historical use" argument or research the previous name(s) used by the indigenous inhabitants and use that term, instead. To do otherwise is egregiously disingenuous. Spirit of El Mirage (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your suppositions about other editors to be offensive and verging on a personal attack. If you'd like to try again without the insults, maybe we could discuss the substance of your complaints.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reclassifying polycephalus as part of a distinct genus
There seems to be new molecular evidence suggesting that E.polycephalus ought to be reclassified into a distinct genus (Homalocephala). Is anyone who has more expertise in this field willing to comment & verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.135.194 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)