Talk:List of ethnic slurs/Archive 9

"Christian Jew"
This a term which has been reserved for Armenians, considering an analogous heritage as a Christian people who have held to their own unique religious heritage in spite of their geographic situation within a sea of Islamic powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.11 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"prative term"
Under Cushi:
 * In 2007 a judge of the Israeli Supreme Court stated that The term "Cushi" is considered, by the Israeli society as a whole, to be a prative term and an insult, usually meant to defame a person for his dark-skinned color, and to mark him as an "exceptional", and as an inferior person to a lighter-skinned individual. It is a racist slur, meant to humiliate and degrade the receiver, solely because he belongs to the Falasha ethnic group.

As far as I can tell, "prative" is not a word. Can we rewrite this without using that quotation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.39.78 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I imagine the lettes "ejo" got omitted, that's all. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ABC, JOJ, Cornball Brother etc
ABCD is a spinoff from ABC (American-Born Chinese), so the latter should be in here first. not all that offensive in general, but it can be used as such.

JOJ (just off the jet) is a recent (1980s?) variant on FOB. also FOJ (fresh off the jet) as well, i think.

Cornball Brother was in the news a few weeks back as a synonym for Uncle Tom. i'd never heard it before, but.

Canadian, Monday, Apartment-dweller, and a whole bunch of others have been in the news a lot as slurs against blacks. Chris Matthews seems to assert a new one each week, many of which have been catalogued in Ann Coulter's new (last? prior?) book.

All should be added.

And "coconut" in my (US) experience refers to dark ASIANS (filipinos, thai, indians) acting white, in addition to Latinos. Should be added. (And maybe black REMOVED? Never heard it used for them.)

In other words:

banana = east asian coconut = latino, SE (dark) Asian, various "islanders" oreo = black

67.150.86.26 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Squarehead
In Canada, this is a common slur used by French-speakers to designate English-speakers. While it is often used in its French form (Tête carrée), it is not unusual for it to be heard in its English form as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.228.46 (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Dirka Dirka/Derka Derka/Durka/Durka
Nuthouse; Russianunsigned comment added by 69.18.26.154 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable source saying this actually is used offensively in the real world, not just for comic effect in two places. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ABCD
Can we get a general source for ABCD that says this is actually and widely used? The journal article reference amounts to special pleading. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2013
Please correct the definition of haole. Haole comes from the Hawaiian word ha'ole, which means specifically "lacking the breath of life", which is to say it means "lacking a soul", which is to imply "subhuman". It applies specifically to white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.70.250 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the article on the word has all these details. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 07 March 2013
There seems to be a citation problem with the entry for "Ofey." Using a transcript of an SNL skit in which the word is used would be considered original research, and the other source only mentions the explanation used here in another citation from the OED, which states that this explanation is likely invalid. --120.32.147.176 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done per your stated reasoning. I am incubating the entry below in case someone can find a better source. I should note that we should not be sourcing anything on Wikipedia to SNL (unless, of course, the article subject is directly related to SNL), and the Online Etymology Dictionary source contradicts the Pig Latin claim made here. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ofay: (US) a white person, from Pig Latin for "foe."

citation needed
Items that don't already have their own main article and which lack citations will be removed. I see a large number of Indian Suncontinent words like that. Whoever added them might want to reference them before they are taken out of the article. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Munt
A derogatory term used by the Rhodesian security forces to refer to blacks. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/munt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.226.214 (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Quarantine

 * Hambaya: (Sri Lanka) an ethnic contumely for Muslims.

I found this: http://books.google.com/books?id=hnxCAAAAIAAJ&dq=Hambayas&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=Hambayas&f=false

and this: http://books.google.com/books?id=MTh4pixlifYC&lpg=PA371&dq=Hambaya&pg=PA371#v=onepage&q=Hambaya&f=false

It means boat people and refers to specific Muslims who came from South india. I see no evidence it is a loan word to english.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Jawa: Arab or other resident of the Middle East, a reference to the Jawa sand people in Star Wars.

Sounds likely, but Urban Dictionary is an WP:USERGENERATED source and so not RS. Perhaps someone can find a citation we can use. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Rooinek
I do not know why you removed the entry Rooinek (Afrikaners) an English speaking South African. Literally Afrikaans for "red neck", from the British Colonial soldiers, who sunburned easily. See Redneck Because it is correct.

The enty in the list at present is wrong. Redneck (US) Southern laborer-class whites.[145] Not to be confused with rooinek (literally "red-neck"), South African slang for an Anglo-African. Your citation: Rooinek (-ke) s.nw. spotnaam vir ’n Engelsman. [Rooinek noun name to make fun of an Englishman.] De Villiers, M., Smuts, J. & Eksteen, L. C. (1974?). Nasionale woordeboek: Afrikaanse woordverklaring. [National Dictionary: Afrikaans explanation of words.]

Elmien Spies (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wop

Should be explained as "Without Papers"

No Citation available. Government classification used by employees as a quick form of identification during the great influx of immigrants from the European region of Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.150.60 (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirect is confusing
I was automatically redirected to this page from List_of_terms_for_white_people_in_non-Western_cultures. The URL in my browser shows as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terms_for_white_people_in_non-Western_cultures" but the page subject is more broad than that (ethnic slurs for many different types of people). Reading quickly (as people do), I did not realize I was on a more broad page at first and it was very confusing. I recommend either making a more specific page using the same content, or somehow making it more clear the user has been redirected.

JMWJMWJMW (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a point. If you don't think it's a good redirect you can take it up here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.  If you want to write a more specific article you should do it.  If you don't think the little notice that you were redirected up at the top of the page under the title is clear enough, I'm not sure what to do, maybe take it up at WP:Village Pump in the technical section?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Gora
Someone keeps adding an entry for Gora. We need a reference that says this is used as a slur in English, see the guidelines at the top of each section:


 * Wikipedia policy requires that material must be verifiable and
 * supported by citations. Please provide citations for all new
 * additions, or they will be reverted. See also the Entry
 * Inclusion Policy at the top of the talk page. Please help us
 * find citations for the talk page's Quarantine entries.
 * find citations for the talk page's Quarantine entries.

If the additions contine without a supporting reference the issue will be reported as edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and report it, mate, but in the meantime, stop removing material against consensus. There's a consensus for the addition at this discussion, which was linked at the time the addition was made. Following the links from that discussion and going into the history will give you the sources you're insisting on, so you can add them if you insist. Our verifiability policy requires that things are verifiable, not that they're verified at the time of adding them.— S Marshall  T/C 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't override WP:RS on another article. If this is important, surely providing a reference to back it up is as well. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to give my opinion as the AfD closer. In my opinion, an AfD consensus (and a somewhat weak one in this case) doesn't override the requirement to comply with core policy, notably WP:V. The revert at, in which uncited contested material was removed, appears correct to me in the light of WP:V. This policy requires that verifiability is ensured by providing references in the article itself, rather than in the history of other pages, because that history is not readily apparent to the reader.  Sandstein   17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Chetnik Cholo
The problem with these words is neither is used in English as a slur. Someone who knows what cholo means might say "Hey cholo, where you think you're goin'?" The same way someone might say "Hey dude, where you think you're goin'?" But neither of these would be slurs. No one says "You're a dude!" or "You're a cholo!" to insult somebody.

Likewise, Chetnik is simply not used as a slur in English. Older English speakers might remember it as referring to Serb anti-fascist paramilitaries. But is not a name one hurls on the street at a Serb in general to insult him. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no question that you're right about "Chetnik". The sources are against you on "Cholo," though.  The dictionary it's cited to now says it's derogatory, the OED says it's derogatory: b. U.S. A lower-class Mexican (often derogatory). (Can't link in through the paywall, but it's true). Merriam Webster says it's "disparaging."  And then, most importantly (not...) there is my own experience, in which it is disparaging.  I won't give examples here, but I've heard many of them.  The part about the Peruvian has to stay out, though. Peruvians use the word differently even than Mexicans, and neither of them uses it as it's used in English, which is often although not always as an insult.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue is that these words are not used as insulting terms in English. I speak Spanish.  Spanish speakers who code switch might use Cholo in a sarcastic way in English.  But no monolingual English speaker goes around calling people cholos to insult them. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely wrong about that. Nevertheless, we have three dictionaries of the English language that say that the word is used in American English as an insult.  How does your experience trump that?  I have personally heard it used many times as an insult by native speakers of American English, but that's neither here nor there.  There are three sources.  Three.  Also, the fact that you speak Spanish is irrelevant.  The word means something different in English.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me the links to those dictionaries. The Merriam Webster said the word can be derogatory, and that it was Spanish American.  It didn't say (or give an example) showing it's use in an English context.  Oxford gives such examples in English usage.  Provide the links to actual usage in English and I'll stop reverting. (BTW your other edits were helpful.) μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're reading the MW entry wrong. It says that the origin is in American Spanish.  The current meaning is what it says now:  often disparaging : a man or boy of Mexican descent.  Here's one of the examples from the OED that seems to illustrate the derogatory usage.  It's hard to catch connotation in a single sentence, though, which is why they state it in the definition: 1909   N.Y. Evening Post 19 Jan. 6/3   The Westerner must then equally persecute the ‘cholos’ who have been pouring into his State from below the Rio Grande.  Here's the definition from the New Oxford American Dictionary, which doesn't have examples either: informal, offensive a lower-class Mexican, esp. in an urban area.  Really, examples aren't necessary. Here are some more:




 * The last is the best. It shows that it's a regionalism.  Maybe the reason you haven't heard it used by monolingual English speakers is because you're not from the American Southwest.  But maybe you are.  It's really not important.  Are these enough sources for you?  We can ask at RSN, you know.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, additional sources here. (Click "expand" in the Word origin & history section for context). Reliable sources should prevail here, as elsewhere. Rivertorch (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if there were a single article where personal experience should be set aside, this is it. It's sourced and verifiable, it belongs in the article. Otherwise this becomes UrbanDictionary. Scoundr3l (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the documentation, Rivertorch. I live in the North East and have both lived and worked with Mexicans in a monolingual Spanish environment and lived in Spanish speaking areas of NYC and the US for most of my life.  The OED source you give is problematic in that it puts scare quotes around the term, implying it is Spanish or most people won't know it.  The way I read the sources' warning the term may be pejorative is that in certain Spanish language contexts and regions it is derogatory, so English speakers should be careful in its use; not that it is actually used in English as a pejorative.  What we'd need is a source saying something like "I chased them no good n*ggers and cholos out of my store with a shotgun."  I'll grant I can imaging someone telling a Mexican in the "wrong" neighborhood, "Yo, cholo, go back to the barrio."  But that would be no different from the sarcastic "Yo, dude, go back to your suburb." The fact the word dude was used that way wouldn't make the word in itself a slur. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The entry now reflects the source provided here. To sum up:
 * "US informal offensive a lower-class Mexican" - Oxford English Dictionary
 * "Chiefly Southwestern U.S. [...] 2. Disparaging. a Mexican or Mexican-American." - Random House
 * "...used in the Southwest as a derogatory term for a Mexican..." - Dictionary of American Regionalisms
 * "...Mexican (Often used derogatorily)" - Spanish Loanwords in the English Language
 * I understand that the term is also used with familiarity, however we can't let anecdotes, hearsay, or original research be used to discredit four sources which show unambiguously that the term is both a US English term and derogatory. The entry on this article still reflects that it is only derogatory depending on circumstances, which I hope is enough to call that a compromise. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But none of the sources say it is derogatory in English. They merely warn it may be derogatory to Spanish speakers or in various Spanish areas.  Unless we have a source giving an example of it actually used as an insult, and not in scare quotes, we can't include it under our guidelines. If the word is truly used as a slur or insult it should not be hard to find an example. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked at the language ref desk, they gave some fictional examples by West Coast writers which I will be happy to take as definitively "slurring" usage. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually all of the sources say it's derogatory. The closest any of them come to saying it's not derogatory is to say "often used derogatorily". But more importantly, we don't need examples because it's OR to interpret the meaning of a word from examples, that's what a dictionary is for. We've got four dictionaries which all agree: it's derogatory. That's more than enough. But I'm glad you found satisfactory examples.Scoundr3l (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If something's being found in a dictionary were sufficient we wouldn't need editors. There is always a need to interpret and measure weight.  In this sort of case actual examples like those provided on the ref desk are much more helpful than one-line statements in dictionaries whose job it is to warn writers to err on the side of caution. For this exact reason we have a talk page.  And for this exact reason we report not that the word "is" a slur, but that it can be used and perceived as one. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. The word is not a slur, it's just used as and perceived as one. Glad we sorted that out.Scoundr3l (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2013 - Adding terms from the Philippines
I was going to add the following items, which I've learned over the years of living in the Philippines. I would be happy to hear from more experienced editors whether any of these should or should not be added (and if not, preferably why).

- Bombay - (Philippines) Person of Indian origin, or from a nearby country like Sri Lanka.

- Cano - (Philippines) American, from Americano. Also "Mercano". Generally used, to some extent mostly by uneducated people, for all white people, regardless of where they're from.

- Inchick - (Philippines) Chinese (includes any people of Chinese/Taiwanese descent or who looks like one)

- Singkit - (Philippines) People with slanted eyes, referring to ethnic Chinese or Koreans.

- Joe - (Philippines) American, or white foreigner in general. Originally used to refer to American soldiers, a short version of "G.I. Joe", during the time the US had military bases in the Philippines. Is used indiscriminatory for all white people, regardless of country of origin or whether or not they are military personnel, though today mostly by uneducated people. Manual workers, especially in the provinces, are sometimes heard shouting "Hi, Joe!" when they see a foreigner, while tradespeople, educated workers or business people would rarely, if ever, use the term.

- Kano - see Cano

- Viet Kong (Philippines) Vietnamese. Came into use after the Philippines received Vietnamese refugees during the Vietnam war.

Lupisak (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While Wikipedia policy prohibits original research, your experience with the topic may be invaluable in helping identify appropriate sources for at least some of the additions you propose. Rivertorch (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2013
"Please add to definition for 'Spook' etymology probably evolved from the white of the eye against a black face particularly with a dark background appears to glow thus spooking the observer" my source is myself as I was there and it seems quite obvious to me.

Bloomode (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia policy forbids the use of original research, and "my source is myself" is original research. Rivertorch (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Never heard, at least 2 reliable sources will work. OccultZone (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Addition "Southern Fairy"
I noticed that the term "Northern Monkey" is in this list, but not the inclusion of "Southern Fairy". Southern fairy is a term for anyone who is from the south of England. The term has implies snobbishness, that they are delicate and not as tough as people from the north of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.6.50 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Moskal
There is already an artcile on this term noting that it matches the definition of an ethnic slur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.194.144 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dubious
The entry for Scandihoovian is dubious, and reads like a joke. The Miriam Webster entry on line says the term is only in the unabridged version and doesn't necessarily have the same entry there. We need a respected accessible book on usage that really confirms this and its actual popular use. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I trust that the new citations "really confirms this and its actual popular use". Peacefully, Pete unseth (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * An alumni newsletter isn't what I usually think of as a reliable source, although I'd certainly be curious to know what it says. There is no doubt that many Scandinavian immigrants to North America were subjected to various slurs (and worse) once upon a time, and apparently "Scandihoovian" was one of them, but I wonder if it's not usually used for humorous effect now. (I'm thinking of those Ole and Lena joke books commonly sold in places where Scandinavian ancestry is common.) In any event, the Merriam-Webster page content, which calls the word "usually disparaging", is available in the Google cache, at least for the moment, and that definitely supports inclusion here. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the sources that have so far been provided show a quote where the term is described as a slur. The UWMadison professor whose paper is listed says "the 'Scandihoovian' identity is also a regional identity".  At worst, Scandinavians themselves make dialect jokes, and the hold yearly Scandihoovian fests.  This entry needs a quote from a reliable source saying it is actually a slur. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to disagree. The word's being described as "usually disparaging" in a major dictionary should suffice. If we hold out for sources that actually use the term "slur", we just might have to remove the majority of the entries on this list. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, we have the example of Chinaman, which is pretty much problematic only on the US west coast, where Chinese take umbrage, but no one goes around using the term as an insult. The dictionaries don't go into that, they simple say "may be offensive".  The same with this.  We've basically got a regional US word that is mostly used jocularly and self-identifyingly.  If the word is actually a slur, it should be quite simple to find an example of Joe Schmo quoted as saying, "you damn Scandihoovians get out of my store, we don't serve your type here."  Unless we have some concrete example, a dictionary warning the word may be offensive says more about dictionary-makers' conservatism than it does about the term's actual use as a slur. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, "chinaman" is problematic throughout the U.S. Anyone who's lived here a while, on either coast, knows that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know. A concrete example would be what—a primary source, at best, if not original research of a sort, wouldn't it? I'll bet there are such examples, if one dug back far enough. For an entry in a list of this kind, a reputable dictionary seems like quite an adequate secondary source, which should be perfectly satisfactory for our purposes. A scholarly book or journal article would be even better, I guess, but that's a tall order. From a cursory search, I see there are a handful of possible sources behind paywalls. Anyway, the unabridged (third edition) M-W is old now, but it was anything but conservative when it was published; many considered it radical. I'm guessing that "Scandihoovian" was more likely to be used disparagingly back in the day, but what's wrong with that? This isn't List of current ethnic slurs, after all. (Incidentally, I've actually heard "Chinaman" used disparagingly in my lifetime and on the East Coast—by a rather old person, predictably enough.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Further thought. I wonder if the question doesn't hinge on age and era. I've met a couple of people who were deeply offended by the exaggerated dialect used in Fargo, which really surprised me at the time since everyone else (Minnesotans included) seemed to love it. But the ones who found it offensive were elderly people, and maybe they remember a painful time when parodies of that sort weren't quite so benign. Rivertorch (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A reputable dictionary that has examples of usage would be fine--The Oxford English Dictionary should, but I don't have access until school starts. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the need for examples; few dictionaries include examples of offensive usages. In any event, there's no hurry; if you'll have full OED access soon, great. Rivertorch (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it works the other way around, with people supporting the claim required to provide the references. Searching google books for "scandihoovian derogatory" we get three hits, none of which goes beyond treating this as a jocular regional slang term.  It is simply not a recognized ethnic slur. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is correct, and a reliable source has already been provided: the Merriam-Webster Third International Dictionary, Unabridged, which after 50 years is still the most comprehensive and prestigious of American dictionaries. As noted above, its entry for "Scandihoovian" lists it as "usually disparaging", which is strongly indicative of its constituting an ethnic slur at the time of publication. No policy or guideline requires we source entries to books in the Google Books database, nor is there any requirement that a source provide examples of the usage. Additional sources would be beneficial, but I believe the current sourcing is adequate to support inclusion. Rivertorch (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All this squabble over one small entry, Uff da!Pete unseth (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this whole page is deleteable on various grounds. I have spent a lot of time on cleaning it up.  When we get these controversial terms like "scandihoovian" it is reall no big problem to find actual sources showing they are used derogatively, or to delete them.  The OED give examples.  Merriam on line doesn't.  Merriam on line also describes "Chinaman" as objectionable, when in most non-west coast US caseses it isn't.  We need a secondary source that shows the word is really problematic, not a tertiary source like a dictionary covering its ass.  (BTW, even the MW source says the lising is not in the standard dictionary.)  As RS says, if something is obviously true it won't be hard to find sources that confirm it. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your help in cleaning up the page is much appreciated, and I do realize that good sourcing is a part of that. I don't want to spend much more time on this. I really couldn't care less whether "Scandihoovian" is listed or not, but I would be unhappy if it were banished for the wrong reasons; as I see it, there is a principle involved. I'll take one more shot at explaining what I think this comes down to, and then I'll give it a rest. Here goes: then I see no reason to exclude the word.
 * If the M-W unabridged is a reliable source for our purposes (which I think it is), and
 * if the "usually disparaging" label in the entry suggests it is or was used as a slur at least sometimes (which I think it does), and
 * if our list isn't limited to words that are always and currently used as slurs (which I don't think it is),

You clearly disagree with the first bullet point above. I have no idea whether you agree with any of the others, and you appear to keep shifting the goal posts to and fro, so I'm finding it a bit difficult to keep up with all of your objections. If your only quarrel hinges on the first point, I'd be tempted to leave a note at WP:RSN to see what others think.

A parallel entry in M-W is "gringo". We source it to the other unabridged American dictionary, but M-W 's entry labels it "often disparaging". M-W's entry for "Scandihoovian" does not say, as you claim, that the listing isn't in "the standard dictionary"; it merely indicates that the full entry is behind the paywall they've erected to prevent the unwashed masses from viewing their unabridged dictionary. The free content at m-w.com is based on the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, which is a highly abridged (albeit frequently updated) adaptation of their behemoth unabridged edition—a tome second only to the OED in size and scope among English-language dictionaries. Would a scholarly secondary source be even better? Of course it would; I've already conceded that. But this is a list of words and word usages, and I'm finding it very hard to understand why a highly reputable dictionary doesn't qualify as a reliable source for a list such as this one. I also don't understand your point about M-W vis-à-vis "Chinaman"; not only M-W but every major English-language dictionary labels it offensive. Rivertorch (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do I waste my time on this? We see "Scandihoovian" identified as a slur in a posting from May 15, 2009 . Now, let's let this squabble rest. Pete unseth (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The forum you have linked to is not a reliable source. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, but you asked for examples and it's an example that we can use (here on the talk page, not in the article) to verify. Posting to WP:RSN presently. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * μηδείς, while everyone is entitled to his or her interpretation of policy and guideline, no one is entitled to unilaterally play gatekeeper with a Wikipedia article. Four different editors have spoken in favor of adding the entry. I posted to RSN, as I said here I was about to, and you offered no input there. Now you have commented out the entry again with a dubious explanation and no further statement here on the talk page. Based on both numbers and strength of argument, it is fairly clear that consensus is to include the word. If you want to pursue this further, may I suggest you either begin a new thread at RSN (my thread there hasn't been archived yet but is a good way up the page now) or open an RfC? I'm sure you don't intend to edit war. Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Please place the following reference in the "See Also" section: [http://philpapers.org/rec/CROREW Croom, Adam M. "Racial Epithets: What We Say And Mean By Them". Dialogue 51 (1):34-45 (2008)]

Missambitions (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Done I put it in "Further reading". "See also" is for internal links. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mulignan or Mulignon?
I am not sure which of these erms is better, if either. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source for mulignon, and mulignan circles back to WP as the source for the web definition at google. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a new source. How you like it? Chisme (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Given your comments on how the phrase below is unacceptable because it comes from a TV show, I wouldn't be quoting a fan guide to The Sopranos.  Please just leave it needing a ref until a reliable one can be found. I'll ask at the ref desk. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2014
WOP....Without Papers

75.74.210.78 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 01:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never heard of such slur either. OccultZone (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wop is already listed, and "without papers" is a very common folk etymology. I'll gladly post this once the OP provides a WP:RS mentioning that false, but notable derivation. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014
In the Canadian Army, zipperhead is _not_ an ethnic slur, it is slang that refers to a member of a tank crew/member of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps. Canadian tank crew actually consider it a term of endearment.

Rgdrgdrgd (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there's anything to do here. Note that Banana is on this list, yet there is no link to Banana explaining that it is not an ethnic slur in all usage contexts. Similarly, while zipperhead may not be an ethnic slur in today's Canadian Army, we do have sources supporting that the term was used as an ethnic slur at some time in some contexts. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wbm1058. While I don't doubt what you say about the Canadian Army, the term was used as an ethnic slur in another time by another group of people. Nothing to do here. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The OP is perfectly correct, and I am surprised he's being told otherwise. We should add a qualification.  But if and only if he provides a reference.  It's called WP:NPOV, and depends on WP:RS. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Grew up with a parent in the U.S. Army, and they used zipperhead too. Think it was for tankers, but honestly can't rememeber. Chaimara (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys
I don't think "cheese eating surrender monkeys belongs on this list." As the entry in wikipedia shows, the term was used for a five year period in and around the Iraq war by journalists. The term originated with The Simpsons, a TV show. It was in common street usage, nor is it now, as the Iraq war has ended for Americans and other English speakers. Further, can you imagine anyone hurling this term at a Frenchman in conversation. I believe the terms on this are in the vernacular, not in journals. Chisme (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The term, which has its own WP article, is used verbatim 261,000 times in Google, as compared to 1,450 times for mulignon. It has notable sources including prestigious magazines and one of the top comedy shows of all time.  There's no question it's a slur in English usage, or that it is attested by reliable sources.  It should be explained to readers in what is a comprehensive encyclopedia. Whether or not an editor believes it is used in the vernacular, which is OR, it should be listed in a reference work for those seeking its meaning. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We disagree about the criterioa for being on this list. I don't think Google hits means much. The question is: Is a person likely to hurl the insult in the English speaking world? And in this case, the person only hurls the insult if he's a fan of the Simpsons or he happened to get worked up about the French not going along with the U.S. in the Iraqi fiasco. Why isn't "taco bender" (18,300 Google hits) on this list? Or "Americunt" (568,000 Google hits)? Or "round eyed burger muncher" (102 hits). These are real terms that might get you in a bar fight. "Cheese Surrender etc." is just some cute thing from the Simpsons that conservative scribblers took up. Chisme (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OKay, but where are you getting this criterion, is a person likely to hurl that insult? I, frankly, have heard the term used many times in conversation, on the radio, on tv, and seen it in print. How many times is anyone likely to use any of the terms on the list?  But that's not even relevant.  This is not a "best of" or most popular list.  It is a reference.  A comprehensive reference should include any English language slur backed up with good references, which this one does have. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, I attempted to revert your removal, Chisme, but μηδείς got there seconds before I did and we edit-conflicted. My edit summary said: "The article isn't a list of *common* ethnic slurs. Entry is satisfactorily sourced and appears to be noteworthy." I take your points about the limited relevance of Google hits and the unlikelihood of the phrase being used in the real world, but I don't think those should be disqualifying factors for this entry. Rivertorch (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You've used the term many times in conversation?! All eight syllables? That's a mouthful when it's so much easier to say "the French" or "Frenchman", and I hope you don't toss around some of the other words on this list (nigger, sheeny) in conversation. It reminds me, too, that "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is longer by five syllables than any other word on the list. The vast majority of words are one or two syllables, and there are a handful of three-syllable words (Buddahead, sand nigger, spearchucker), but eight syllables! That the term is "adequately sourced" is not the issue. The origin and use of the word is. Every word on this list except for CESM has a long history of usage and is used by people on the street. CESM was invented recently on a TV show and is used by right-wing journalists and in conversation by French-loathing people (I assume) who prefer garbled eight-syllable constructions to simple one- or two-syllable words. Used in conversation, ha! Chisme (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * μηδείς didn't say they'd used it in conversation; they said they'd heard it used in conversation. I haven't—nor have I been aware of its use on the radio, TV or in print—but I tend to avoid putting myself in situations where its usage would be likely. It really doesn't matter what any of us has or hasn't heard, though, and the number of syllables seems a bit beside the point. And I'm not sure whether the origin of a slur is relevant. I think it really comes down to our collective editorial discretion: assuming the sourcing is satisfactory, then what would disqualify a phrase from inclusion? Should we try to develop criteria for deciding what slurs are noteworthy enough to make the list? Rivertorch (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea. There really ought to be a set of criteria -- established criteria, not vague ideas about how well sourced a term is. I suggest one criterion be how long a term has been in use. Some of the terms on the list are centuries old; others date to the Simpsons TV show. Chisme (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good luck! Hehehe.  We already have a hard enough time enforcing the "english" and "referenced" criteria.  Not that I am opposed to a criterion.  As for length of usage, though, how many centuries has Americunt been around?  We list all sorts of new coinages like wikipedia, and googling which have been around for far less time than the Simpsons. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Can a term on this list fall out of use? "Cheese-eating" is falling out, I think, as it becomes apparent, after the Iraq fiasco, that the French were right not to follow us downhill into that particular quagmire. Which isn't to say it won't be revived when the French don't follow us, say, into Iran. Much like freedom fries, the term is clearly not being used as much as it was eight years ago, yet the "Google hits" -- the records of the term's use on dead and dormant web pages -- remain. I still maintain that CESM's eight syllables disqualify it from the list. If you're going to hurl a slur at somebody, it has to be one or two syllables to be effective. CESM sounds like an insult a comic figure from Gilbert and Sullivan would use. Can we take CESM off the list when it falls into disuse, no matter how many times the Google mortician search engine finds it? Chisme (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're making a political argument with a rather strong POV that is entirely irrelevant to the matter. The term predated the Iraq war, and alluded to the surrender in WWII. What matters are, is the term English, is it notable, is it well referenced.  The answer to all three questions is a resounding yes. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As for its supposed falling out of usage, even if that were the case, which is in no way demonstrated, this is a comprehensive encyclopedia. We have all sorts of terms like short shorts and doughboy that have coverage in wikipedia that have become dated expressions.  Your argument amounts to a form of radical WP:RECENTISM that has no place in a reference like Wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not getting anywhere here, so I withdraw, like one of your cheese eaters. All I ask is, next time you "frankly hear the term used in conversation" try and find better company to converse with. Chisme (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I second that suggestion. In fact, I stand in solidarity with the cheese monkeys! Still, I think it might be worthwhile to try to find rough consensus on some basic criteria. Otherwise, every proposed addition will need to be dealt with individually. Being wedded to neither a inclusionist nor a deletionist philosophy, I can't help thinking there must be some middle ground that respects the spirit of Wikipedia's "sum of all human knowledge" ideals while protecting the article from an onslaught of non-notable slurs of a highly transient nature. Rivertorch (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Proposal. "For inclusion in this article, each entry should cite at least one reliable secondary source that demonstrates evidence of usage that is or was widespread, notorious, the subject of scholarly discussion, or otherwise noteworthy." I propose adding the preceding text to the lede. While the occasional addition may still spark disagreement, I think this wording might discourage the addition of obscure, trivial entries, while leaving the door open wide enough to include a broad range of entries, including those that are obsolete but of historical significance and encyclopedic value. Rivertorch (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The term is really big, we may need to make a "historical" and a "relevant" section if we are to add really outdated ones?. OccultZone (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree with proposal. Just stick to WP guidelines for notability. What scholars discuss or whatever 'notorious' is arbitrarily defined to be is unnecessary. Scholars discuss a great many things that don't belong in an encyclopedia read by laymen.50.147.26.108 (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Spade" Coming rom the Playing Card.
This requires a citation. The cited article makes no link between the playing card suit and the ethnic slur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1C80:B3B:C9F7:A6FA:B8C6:C27E (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The citation to the American Heritage mentions it. I moved the citation to the end of the line to clarify. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pickaninny
The inclusion of this term as pejorative should specify WHERE it is pejorative. It would seem that its pejorative use is primarily in North America and/or UK. Its use in Australia referring to Aboriginal children is not necessarily insulting, and is used in Australian Kriol as the term for children. And in much of Melanesia (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, where it is spelled "pikinini") it is the normal word for a child of any ethnicity, and is not at all pejorative, including among English speakers in those countries. Ptilinopus (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The linked article has all that information. I think we should try to keep these entries brief and let the linked articles expand. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bounty Bar
I think the term "Bounty Bar" needs to be clarified as to who it is referring to and why it may be considered offensive. Currently, it simply says: "A Bounty chocolate bar, being composed of coconut coated with chocolate; it is white on the inside and brown on the outside." Now, while this is all fine and delicious, it's current explanation makes me think it's simply a candy bar and doesn't belong on the list of ethnic slurs.

Thanks.

144.82.184.64 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it, let me know what your think. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Wikilink Caucasian
The article currently uses 'Caucasian' 4 times without any Wikilink to explain which (if any) of the various meanings in the Caucasian disambiguation article is intended. Some of us who are not mind-readers would appreciate one or more clarifying wikilinks. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014
Boer should be added, its a South African slur for white used during apartide and still to this day

76.181.28.167 (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 123chess456 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This Article seems in some ways incitement to racial and ethnic hatred
There may be other problems with it, but the main one, as far as I can see, is that it explicitly or implicitly labels vast swathes of humankind as racists (or its inter-ethnic equivalent, which I shall simply call racist for the sake of brevity), which they have done nothing to deserve, in what seems essentially a form of cultural imperialism largely invented mainly by Politically Correct Americans. The point is that vast swathes of humankind use this kind of epithet (for example, Gringo and Yank, and probably many others) as part of their normal way of speaking or thinking, and usually intend no harm by it. But the title and introduction tells us all these labels are offensive ethnic slurs, thereby implying that the hundreds of millions or billions of people innocently using them are all wicked offensive racists. Needless to add, although it's hard to prove, there's every reason to suspect that objectively the actual wicked racists are the people ensuring these vast swathes of humanity get implicitly labelled as racists, that is the elites who have created the value system underlying this article's title and introduction (basically the same ruling elites who have been denigrating other people for centuries to facilitate exploiting them in all sorts of ways, often oppressing them and sometimes killing them, as well as provoking inter-racial and inter-ethnic conflict as a means of 'Divide and Rule', etc). And I suspect it may not be easy to fix the problem, given that it's difficult to know precisely what to say in place of what's currently said, and that our rules give an enormous advantage to those wishing to prevent changes to an article, because change once challenged requires consensus, and consensus in an area like this is very hard to obtain. So I'm raising the issue, but I suspect I won't be following through owing to previous experience of the exhausting and pointless distress that can result from banging one's head against brick walls in this kind of situation created by Wikipedia's consensus requirement for change. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. This "article" is really just an opportunity for racists to have their little fun on Wikipedia. Chisme (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chisme. However, although it is indeed such an opportunity, it is not 'just' such an opportunity, since many of its contributors are almost certainly NOT racists, and many of the contributions whose effects seem harmful to me were probably not intended to be harmful. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Afterthought: I suppose I should perhaps add here that I think it highly unlikely that any of the elite 'wicked racists' criticized by me in the above are in fact responsible for their actions, for complex reasons related to things like the implausibility of free will, which would take far too long for me to spell out in detail. Nor do I intend to imply that any individual contributing to this article is necessarily any kind of (either witting or unwitting) racist (and, if any are that, they are probably not in fact responsible for their actions, for the same complex reasons to which I have already referred).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's hard to get in the mind of a racist. Chisme (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to completely dissolve your own argument with such nihilism, it otherwise stands up fairly well 2604:3D08:1E7A:5600:94A5:8115:FDDE:1A52 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have now added a couple of sentences to the lead, in an attempt to counter the problems I have detailed above. For reasons indicated above, I am not all that confident that I will be allowed to succeed, but we live in hope. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014
Matthewgatnett (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC) May I edit a little bit?

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.-Arjayay (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Abbo
i would like to point out as an australian abbo is still used commonly by aborigonal and white australians alike in big towns and cities as a non offencive descriptive noun i dont think it belongs heere its slang but not slur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.70.194 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014
Add to Yids that it is also a pejorative term in many slavic languages.

192.86.100.76 (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014
Suggesting that the listing for the term "Whitey" be linked to Whitey (slang)

Jetcowbob (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

madrasi is not included as a slur
'Madrasi' is a slur used by indians who are not south indians against south indians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrassi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suruman (talk • contribs) 12:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Dubious terms
After looking through this list there are a number of terms that I don't believe should be here as they don't appear to be slurs. These include: Inclusion in this list seems incredibly subjective. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mick - In Australia we're a bit lazy with the language and we like to use the shortened form of anything. Mick, which is used rarely these days, has always been just a way of referring to a Catholic. And yes, I am a Mick.
 * Ocker - Rarely used as a slur, especially today. In fact it's a word people, even notables like Steve Irwin have taken ownership of and are almost proud to be referred to as ocker.
 * Seppo - This is just ryhming slang - Seppo = Septic tank = Yank = somebody from the United States. The meaning of septic tank is irrelevant. It's just a convenient rhyme for "yank".
 * Skippy - Don't see how anyone could see this as a slur. Skippy is an iconic emblem of Australia. Kangaroos are often called Skippy or just Skip because of the TV programme.
 * I agree with you on three of those, but I definitely think that Seppo is relevant for inclusion. This may be a regional thing, but having lived in Queensland for many years, Seppo is very commonly used over there as a slur towards Americans. Most people are aware that the word derives from cockney rhyming, but the primary usage is used to describe people from America within casual speech, usually in a contemptful tone. -- benlisquare T•C•E 13:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We really need verifiable evidence that any term in this article is used as a slur. Anything can be used as a slur given the right context. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gringo
Gringo comes from US invasion on Cuba and Mexico. It means Green-Go (Home). You're welcome. Slurs are not. --81.38.11.248 (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Gringo comes from Green-Gold. Maybe from the dollar bill, that is green (and represents gold as currency). Maybe from the military uniforms: http://www.dicionarioinformal.com.br/gringo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.24.1 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014
Hello, It seems to me that the word Chicano in the body of the entry called/named Pocho, should be typed between double brackets, as an article about chicanos already exist in the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicano Cordially, Heterotrofo 189.162.224.88

Heterotrofo (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Quarantine 3 Dec 2014
These are the items removed recently, mostly for not being used in English. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Albo: (US) An insulting term for an Albanian-American.
 * Arabush (ערבוש): (Israel) Arabs, derived from Hebrew "Aravi" (Arab) which is itself inoffensive.
 * Béni-oui-oui: Mostly used during the French colonization of Algeria as a derogatory term to describe Algerian Muslims.
 * Bule: (Indonesian) a foreigner, particularly Caucasians. Means Albino; sometimes used in pejorative manner.
 * Cushi, also spelled Kushi (כושי): Term originating from the Hebrew Bible, generally used to refer to a dark skinned person usually of African descent. Originally merely descriptive, in present day Israel it increasingly assumed a pejorative connotation and is regarded as insulting by Ethiopian Israelis and by African migrant workers and asylum seekers in Israel.
 * Dal Khor: An Urdu/Persian term used for Indians and Pakistanis (specifically Punjabis) by Pashtuns. The term literally translates to "dal eater", connoting the supposedly higher emphasis on pulses and vegetables in the diet of countryside Punjabis.
 * (had an article, but was deleted. see Articles for deletion/Dal Khor)


 * Indon: an Indonesia. Used mostly in Malaysia and Singapore.
 * Kalar: Myanmar (Burmese) derogatory word for its Muslim citizens who are “Black-skinned, undesirable aliens". Although it was originally used for all the Indians and Indian-blooded people, now a days it is used on all Muslims, Myanmar Muslims, Panthay, Burmese-Indian Muslims, Rohingyas and are even used on other Muslims like Arabs, OIC members, ASEAN Muslims etc.
 * Malaun: (Bangladesh) Hindus.
 * Nusayri: (Syria and the Levant) a member of the Alawite sect of Shi'a Islam. Once a common and neutral term derived from the name of Ibn Nusayr, the sect's founder, it fell out of favour within the community in the early decades of the 20th century due the perception that it implied a heretical separateness from mainstream Islam. Resurgent in the context of the ongoing Syrian Civil War, the term is now often employed by Sunni fundamentalist enemies of the government of Bashar al-Assad, an Alawite, to suggest that the faith is a human invention lacking divine legitimacy.


 * I am in support of keeping those ethnic slurs that are non-English. All we need is at least 1 reliable source.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those already having sources should not be removed in any case as that would be a violation of NPOV (a policy that takes precedence over guidelines and criteria). -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I am not opposed to changing the criteria to allow some non-English terms. We need to avoid English-speaking Point of View. However, we can not let this become an indiscriminate collection of information. (See also WP:DISCRIMINATE). See Talk:List of ethnic slurs/removed entries for a bunch of words that were removed in 2006. Also see the previous discussion Talk:List of ethnic slurs/Archive 1 although it seems more of a shouting match. WP:LISTN regards notability guidelines for lists. Just one reference is not always enough. Notability also needs to be established. I will do some more research on this and see what I can come up with. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be backing any inclusion of unsourced slurs in this list anyway, but neither will I support a citation overkill. Some terms are notable enough to have had mentions in literary works / novels while others are just common language. Both cases would be notable in different ways. You are free to vet them out here. We really need to avoid WP:EPOV as you said. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are lots of English slurs that do not make this list because the slurs are not notable or they cannot be verified as notable. You will find lots if you look at the list of removed slurs and suggested slurs in the talk page archives. New ethnic slurs are made up every day. If the slur get spread around social circles, the slur gets list in the Urban dictionary. If the slur make it into literary works, the slur can be listed in Wiktionary. If the slur creates a cultural impact such that the use on the slur gets in the news, then the slur gets listed here as well. That is oversimplifying the criteria, but for instance I would consider "Arabush" above notable because a politician had to publicly apologize for using it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse it doesn't make sense to include slurs that are too recent also per WP:NEOLOGISM. The one I added is 60+ year old with cultural associations, my revert was against the blanket removal of all slurs that are non English. If there's a slur that got here from Urban dictionary etc... by all means, remove it. -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Albo lacks any source. Nusayri is simply a cultural designation, not a derogatory term.  The rest of the words are quoted as being used in non-English contexts.  Like it or not, this is a list of English language slurs, and we would not insist that an article on English literature or English Grammar comment on every one of the 6,000 or so languages in the world.  For example, the source for Aravush is written in Hebrew.  And we don't just need one source, like that a word was used in a novel.  We need an authoritative tertiary source that shows the word is in actual common or historical English usage. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the phrase "this is a list of English language slurs" because the title is "list of ethnic slurs" (FYI it is an English encyclopedia not an encyclopedia of the English).. that means all and NPOV not WP:EPOV. Tertiary sources are discouraged for use in wikipedia just like the primary sources.. what we need is secondary sources and that are what are being provided. That said, I agree about one term nusayri that is not an ethnic term rather a religious term. -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 December 2014
In the entry for Armo, please disambiguate Armenian to Armenian.

Nick Number (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Cheers, <i style="font-variant:small-caps"><b style="color:#000">Little</b><b style="color:red">Mountain</b><b style="color:#00008B">5</b></i> 21:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 December 2014
73.195.64.61 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "WOP" is a slur/acronym that was directed towards Italian immigrants meaning "With Out Papers"
 * Okay, please discuss the addition with other editors. Providing a reliable source might help. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Few sources regarding this acronym,  it can be added.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bogus etymology, as likely as "fornication under consent of king", which is to say not at all. Even one of those three sources says it's a common belief that scholars disagree with. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

SAND RAT : RACIST TO ARABS ?
Just want to know if Sand Rat should be added to the list. Wagon Burner has been suggested by me also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.221.143 (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources, please?  S n o w  talk 05:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Change to inclusion criteria to include non-English slurs.
In the header area of this talk page is inclusion criteria. It currently states:


 * Foreign slurs that have become English language loanwords may be included, as long as the definition and sources are in English.

I propose it be changed to this:


 * Non-English slurs may be included, as long as the definition is in English and pertinent parts of the sources are quoted in the original language and translated into English.

I am using an RFC to establish broad consensus for a change to the guidelines for this controversial article. This change will influence other articles as this is the only list of terms type article I could find that has inclusion criteria. Most directly will be List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity which should contain the same terms sorted.

I would also appreciate commentary on inclusion criteria for notability of the entries. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some applicable policy/guidelines: WP:EPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:LISTS, WP:SAL, WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:DISCRIMINATE
 * Some applicable past discussions and pages:
 * Talk:List of ethnic slurs/Archive 1 (first major discussion on this subject.)
 * Talk:List of ethnic slurs/removed entries (items removed in 2006)
 * Talk:List of ethnic slurs (discussion above that led to this RFC)


 * Support change as nominator. "Foreign" implies "from another place", but the English Wikipedia should cover the whole world. (Besides, English is spoken in almost every corner of the world, so there is nowhere foreign to it.) WP:EPOV applies. Allowing non-English citations is necessary to truly open this list to the world, but requiring quotes from citations with translations will curb vandalism. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support change: I don't see the reason behind limiting the inclusion criteria to English slurs only; after all, the article title is "List of ethnic slurs", and not "List of English language ethnic slurs" or "List of ethnic slurs used in English". -- benlisquare T•C•E 00:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support change: Better to have each of the ethnic slur with at least 1 reliable source.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support as per WP:NPOV which is a core policy. I already boldly removed the phrase from the article.. it needs to be removed from the talk guideline as well. The word foreign in this context suggests that wikipedia is speaking from the POV of the English speaking world where as wikipedia is just an English language encyclopedia. I've removed it from the header as well per WP:SNOW (both by consensus and more importantly by core policy). I have also changed the term 'policy' in the header to 'guideline' as this is not the place for wikipedia policies and implies incorrect meaning. As for case by case basis of inclusion, I can back any slurs that are verifiable even if one good ref is present. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 04:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes above. This is the first day of the RFC. Consensus has not been reached. It is discourteous to the people who have not yet commented to make changes now. Why should they comment when you went ahead and assumed the outcome. WP:NODEADLINE applies. The guideline has been there for a long time, many years. It can sit for a while longer while we discuss it. After I post this I change it from policy to guideline as that is not really part of the RFC. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see before given a chance to discuss it you have reverted. Please put the guideline back yourself. Richard-of-Earth (talk)
 * I couldn't have possibly known the future that you would also like to discuss about the discussion itself (which is usually frowned upon) while I was reverting... but I've replied to your question on my talkpage and will avoid stating it here to keep the discussion to the point. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Terrible idea. This is the English wikipedia. Perhaps the word "foreign" strikes the wrong chord, and needs to be changed to non-English, but this becomes an impossible page if we open it up to ethnic slurs in other languages, and it has very little value for the readers of English wikipedia to know that something spelled in a language they can't read, sourced in a language they can't read, and having importance or context only in a language they can't read, is said to be a slur. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. It is perfectly acceptable for English language readers to read articles written in the English language about ethnic slurs used in Yugoslavia, Cambodia, or Venezuela. This being the "English Wikipedia" has nothing to do with how we should selectively include content based on what language the slur is from, and by extension, the geographical location it is from. -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly! -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support change. With regard to jpgordan's reservations, I think he's conflated two separate issues: long-standing policy and overwhelming community consensus are clear that en.Wikipedia has no language-based relevancy barrier with regard to what content may be added to the encyclopedia; rather it is only required that all content be described in English, for the benefit of English speakers.  That is, content need only be accessible to English speakers, but need not be of paramount importance to the average English speaker.  Indeed, if the latter were in fact the case, significant portions of the Encyclopedia would not exist.  One of the very reasons we have policies like WP:V and WP:N, that establish the primacy of sources as the main determining factor for the permissibility of content, is to remove reliance on our own subjective assessments as to what information is "important" or likely to be of use to our readers, which has long been viewed as an untenable approach by the community.


 * Needless to say, any new additions from non-English sources need to still pass all relevant verifiability and notability guidelines, and editors should be cautioned when working with languages that they are not particularly strong in to exercise extra effort in making sure that translated content is accurate and that the sources supporting the content meet all criteria for a reliable source. It might be worth noting somewhere in the guidelines that the Wikipedia language reference desk can often assist in tricky translations for many languages, while WP:Requests for translation can assist in direct transwiki translations (though the backlog there has always been immense and most requests go unanswered for a long while if you don't try to directly engage a volunteer with the requisite language skills).   Lastly, as to the exact wording of the new guideline, I think it would be more accurate and transparent if written a little closer to the following:


 * "Non-English slurs may be included, but any definition or description of such terms must be provided in English, as with all descriptive editorial content on English Wikipedia.  Any pertinent excerpts from sources which are directly quoted should be translated into English."


 *  S n o w  talk 04:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - no value shown; say some of what words are missing and we could tell if a change was needed and sopme clue how much difficulty it might get into. Otherwise I tend to say no problem found and to not mess with the article premise and logic that the English wikipedia should reflect English usages.  Markbassett (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - it already happens de facto. And even some word did not enter mainstream English, it still may occur in English text as a means to convey "national gist". At the same time I'd suggest to consider splitting this list by language or culture. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I added Snow's version of the new guideline. Nevertheless, I am not happy with the result. I had hoped for people to discuss notability guidance for this list. Currently just one citation is enough to be on the list. This is no different then an entry on Wiktionary. This is nothing but a list of words with some history and is (or is close to) an indiscriminate list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard. I agree that establishing some standard for the entries themselves is as important an issue as the one that everyone gravitated towards, but I could only see consensus for (or indeed, significant discussion of) the issue of concerning the permissibility of non-English terms, and since the discussion was effectively stalled, I figure better the one issue resolved than nothing. Now that has been dealt with, however, participants in a new discussion will be able to focus more or less exclusively on the per-entry criteria.  I do not think anyone would look amiss on a new RfC addressing that specific issue at any time that you wish to take the time to re-open discussion upon it.  Certainly I will be happy to participate.  S n o w  talk 15:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2015
Musk Tusk - Used in the World Of Warcraft universe by players to refer to the Troll race.

24.205.72.60 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

More words
Also you should include bogan - an unintelligent poorly educated person, typically with bad hair cuts. (aka Alabama style slur) and Aussie, Skip / Skippy / Skippy the Bush Kangaroo - white anglo-christian people (In Australia, for some strange reason, when someone asks where are you from or your background, and you fit that definition, then they are acceptable if not commmon answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.36.164 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Corn Gobbler - A term used by Australians as a generic term for all Americans (from USA), regardless of race or colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.163.233 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My contribution was DELETED with the (lame excuse of not English)

FOB: Fresh Off the Boat. A girl I used to date would refer to me as an ABC but herself, her family and my mother as FOBs. (Even though they'd been here for years.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.169.85 (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I always thought FOB was a racial slur but now there's a show with the title so I'm confused. In many hoods in America, the Asian thugs will call others Asian groups FOB as a slur so it's still used this way. Very scary stuff. Chic3z (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Are all these words English? Kaffir, kaffer, kaffir, kafir, kaffre, kuffar The deleted paragraph which was deleted: Kalar. Myanmar (Burmese) derogatory word for its Muslim citizens who are “Black-skinned, undesirable aliens". Although it was originally used for all the Indians and Indian-blooded people,[135] now a days it is used on all Muslims, Myanmar Muslims, Panthay, Burmese-Indian Muslims, Rohingyas and are even used on other Muslims like Arabs, OIC members, ASEAN Muslims etc....REF: 135= New Mandala. Intolerance, Islam and the Internet in Burma By Sai Latt, Guest Contributor – 10 June 2012 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/.../intolerance-islam.../...Dr Mg zarni's comment. NOTE::I successfully put in the word "KALAR" in Wikipedia's RACIAL SLUR article BUT an editor who never valued or understand our sufferings came and deleted or totally reverted. Because of these kind of people...now a days I stay away from Wikipedia even after different groups of Wiki editors invited me for few times...Previously, I had to fight hundreds of times with them and became fed up with the wiki editors.Darz kkg (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What matters is not what language these words came from, but if they are actually used as slurs in English by English speakers. For example, a source in Malay that complains about a word used in Malay or a source in Hebrew about a word used in Hebrew against Arabs has nothing to do with the English language.  Terms like Boche and Kaffir, have historically entered English usage, and hence are listed.  Rather than make personal attacks against user's for motives about which you know nothing, please either find a WP:RS tertiary source that shows a word is actually used and understood in English.  Otherwise, there are other language wikipedias to work on. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Couple more: Snake Head: Used to refer to younger African males. Typically targeting young males who are believed to be drug addicts/dealers. (US), Silverback: Term often used to describe older African Males. Equates them to Silverback Gorillas. (US), Sherilla:  Female version of "Silverback." Nigra:  Southern US Dialect pronunciation of "Negro." Largely disused today. Common in the 1930's through 1950's. Boon: Term taken from the word "Baboon" and used to refer to African males. Female version: Sheboon.

Obsolete Farm Equipment
I originally heard this term the song "God Thinks" by Voltaire ("God thinks... all blacks are obsolete farm equipment"), but I have since seen it "in the wild" as a derogatory term for blacks. I'm struggling to find a source for it other than the Voltaire song, which was using it jocularly, even though others have since used it seriously. I actually came here to see if Voltaire had made it up or if it was pre-existing, but no dice. Anyone got a source older than/other than/more official than Voltaire (the musician)? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I usually just use Google books or Google newspaper archive to see if a slur was in use and in what time period. Voltaire (musician) released Almost Human (Voltaire album) August 1, 2000 and had "God Thinks" as the 5th song. This use doesn't show up in books or newspapers published before 2000. It is on Urban dictionary here and was posted in 2008. The phrase is mentioned in the book "Bishop Edwards" by Roderick O. Ford, but that was published in 2009, is self-published and doesn't mention it as a slur. It doesn't look notable enough for this article. Voltaire does have a website (see the article) and is currently touring. You could email him or go see him to ask where he got it. Another place to ask is WP:Reference desk/Humanities. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You still see this from time to time from older Southern males, typically those who grew up in the pre-civil rights movement. However it's not widely used, even then.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015
you need to make references to both "Ginger" and "Bluey" as pejorative offensive terms for people with red hair. The terms are offensive anywhere but originate and are used in the UK, US, and Australia.

174.51.93.23 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Having red hair is not an ethnicity and so slurs about it do not belong in this article. The article on red hair has these names along with several others. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

milky bar nigger