Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs
Ethnicity seems to be a troublesome word for the editor of the article. Although they Wiki-link to Ethnic groups they seem to make a prejorative that includes anybody who is not them same as you as being "ethnic". That would go to include a supporter of a football team, political party, style of dress, who happened to live in the same household as oneself. Kinship, Ethnic groups and Sub-culture all become this big set of ethnic pigeon holes of taboo identity. As such, the list goes beyond anything it implies it is going to list. It redifines the scope of the criterea so that neologism and made at school could easily go unnoticed there. i like lists, lists are useful, if i can further research entries, but they are few and far between. Some groups are described as Black or white when there is cross cultural identification between members of different races. I list the Afd purely because the amount of editors involved would take months to resolve.I will not give any opions on its right to be a constituent part of Wikipedia. However, if it were to remain, discussion should be made on "What is ethnicity", because I think the editors have it very wrong. Based on that discussion, the article needs to be throughly edited to remove neologism, POV and slurs which are kinship/locality rather than generically ethnic. NEUTRAL Mike33 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please forget about earlier meanings of "Ethnic" to describe outsiders. yes that would be an all inclusive word, but with that definition where would you stop? WP:Notability editors would be searching all day. "Ethnic" and "Catholic" are exclusively theological terms and should not be used outside of the 17th century. Mike33 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UT


 * "Based on that discussion, the article needs to be throughly edited to remove neologism, POV and slurs which are kinship/locality rather than generically ethnic." In that case why did not nominate it for deletion? AfD is not where you ask for cleanup. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep articles for deletion is not cleanup, nor is this article is hard to write a good criterion for deletion. WilyD 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What does "this article is hard to write" mean? is it an in joke or a wikipedia policy? Mike33 12:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a response to the nomination, which discusses the difficulty in writing the article. I was responding to the argument for nomination.  The phrasing choice may be a little obtuse - I'm sorry if that's the case, but I usually aspire to be succinct. WilyD 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Worthwhile topic. AFD is not a clean-up request service. My only concern about this article is that the slurs listed need to be genuine, and not just something a user has made up. The fact it's a vandalism magnet is concerning, but some articles just can't avoid it. 23skidoo 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WilyD. hateless 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WilyD. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this and the political epithets article have occasionally needed cleanup but the topic is significant. Gazpacho 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above -- |  Shishir Rane  | talk | 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Any editor who keeps here should commit themselves to cleaning the List or at least help to formulate a standard meaning of Ethnic. Saying keep and worthwhile is passe. why do anything at all? I do accept that Afd was not the best way of dealing with a subject. But please remember people cite wikipedia and mirror the pages. We all have a duty. Keep nonsense is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, proper editing is. Mike33 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Keep nonsense is not in the spirit of Wikipedia betrays bias itself. This is not nonsensical. Keep per WilyDRaveenS 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bias? compare the opening paragraph:

''The following is a list of ethnic slurs that are, or have been, used to refer to members of a given ethnicity in a derogatory or pejorative manner in the English speaking world. A slur is a remark another person finds insulting. Ethnicity can be determined by either race, nationality, region, orientation, religion or socioeconomic class, because an ethnicity is a community of people possessing common physical or mental traits as a product of their common heredity or cultural tradition. Each term is listed followed by its country or region of usage, a definition, and (where applicable) a reference to that term.''

With a problematic definition of Ethnicity from the UK census department.

How do you define ethnicity?

''Definitions of what constitutes an 'ethnic group' or an 'ethnic minority' are subject to much discussion. In fact, there is no consensus on what constitutes an 'ethnic group' and the terminology used to describe these groups has changed significantly over time. ''

This is because membership of any ethnic group is something that is subjectively meaningful to the person concerned, and can be based upon a combination of categories such as:

[|How to define Ethnicity| UK Government office of Statistics/Census]
 * country of birth
 * nationality
 * language spoken at home
 * parents' country of birth in conjunction with country of birth
 * skin colour
 * national/geographical origin
 * racial group
 * religion ''

As far sighted as you may well be, the opening paragraph redefines Ethnicity in a way that does not match literary convention. Notice the way that Because is used. Given that the first amendment doesn't apply in the UK, ethinicity should not include socioeconomic class or orientation. The correct heading would thus be List of hate slurs. Mike33 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are so bothered by the lead in as you seem to be, fix it don't delete the whole article. Get used to imperfectly written articles in Wikipedia and fixing them. There is always something useful in most articles and this has more than something useful.RaveenS

Keep. As long as all info is cited, it should be ok. If someone wanted to look up what one of those words mean, this would be helpful. Green caterpillar 01:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you had cared to look at the List? The opening paragraph explains that some words are uncited (personal research, neologism, made at school). So definitions are very unhelpful as the list stands at the moment. A helpful list is a cited and research list. Mike33 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Deletion based on content implies censoriousness; deletion based on incompleteness or difficulty of editing suggests laziness. Horace Worblehat 02:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (Sock puppet? only contribution to Wikipedia was this? Mike33 03:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC))
 * This is not about content. I have never mentioned content. I have only spoke about ethnicity. how it should be used and how the word is defined in the list leads it open to abuse. Editors who contribute to Afd and who can not be bothered to help edit a 215kb list, should be considered editorially lazy Mike33 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Slang and slurs are not just a thing of the past. They are a thing of today still. This article can be very useful for educational purposes, and help provide a better understanding of what words are not acceptable to certain races and groups. Often times, what a word means to my race or group, could be a derogatory slur against your race or group. It's the trouble with langauges that have common words with different meanings. Even if some of the slang being posted is not a historically used word, and is a relatively new word, it is still appropriate. It can let others better understand where racial/religious slurs originate from and later identify these words if you are subjected to them. Also, I agree with Mike33, this would be a form of censorship if you removed this article. The way to deal with hatred and racism, is not to just ignore it and delete it. You have to face it, and knowledge is power. This list of ethnic slurs is not an article of racism or hatred, as it is not directed to someone nor encouraging negativity. It is clearly posted as an informational article and I believe that it should remain that way. - Klubwerks 05:15, 12 August 2006 (US Central Time)

Keep. This is simply a case where an editor is unaware of (or unconcerned with) the proper forum for voicing his/her concerns. Also, as a point of information, this is FAR more than the second time that this article has been nominated for deletion. P.S. Mike33, if the definition of "Ethnicity" in the article intro bothers you, change it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's here, it's offensive, get used to it. FireSpike 02:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's a gritty subject and is a useful encyclopedic reference - I actually had a friend cite this as a source in university. --TheM62Manchester 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

KEEP removing this would be wrong, hiding from the past does not change it, and only makes the future more likley to resemble it

Keep A necessary evil, and a very detailed historical record. Mugaliens 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia is NOT censored. Kenimaru 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but probably move/split and cleanup The article may be able to be split into A-G, H-M, N-S, T-Z etc. However, all of these issues should be brought up on the article's talkpage, or even an Rfc if worst comes to worst. I have seen no effort to communicate on the article's talkpage in order to change it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Just because things may be offensive does not mean that they must be censored. Wiki is a repository of information, and sometimes is not politically correct. Skhatri2005 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Whenever I watch Sarah Silverman, I have to figure out what all the slurs she uses means. --Riley 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominee has a final say ~ I never suggested that the article should be deleted because it included controversial terms. My Afd was based on ethnicity including socio-economical class, political affiliation and village/town/county to mean region. The vote is undoubtly against my nomination. Serious editors of wikipedia should help me redifine a new opening paragraph and remove all of the uncited entries and phrases which could be moved. I have never suggested deletion. Afd seemed a way to engage editors. Afd should not be abused, but discussion in the lists' talk page would take weeks or months and perhaps never be resolved. As an editor has mentioned above, this list has been used as source. All editors have a duty that sources on wikipedia can be tried and tested. Editors who keep should also edit this article/list. Mike33 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.