Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macaca (slur)


 * 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. Near unanimous. Tyrenius 18:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Macaca (slur)

 * Delete as nominator. This is a non-topic. The article is based on an obscure word that only gained prominence when it was used by George Allen a month ago. Most Ghits are to the monkey of the same name, or to articles about Allen's use of the word. The related topic "MacacaGate" is also up for deletion. The sources used in the article are frequently unreliable blogs, which tend to inflate the importance of the subject. Cúchullain t/ c 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, three of the sources listed are the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune and Fox news. I really don't agree that this is a non-topic - whatever reasons caused  the word to gain prominence aren't really as relevant as the fact that it did.  And this prominence is verifiable by independent sources.  The fact that it's also the name of  a monkey is what made it such a questionable comment in the first place and is therefore relevant to the article.  I agree that MacacaGate probably should go, but I do think that there can and should be a Wikipedia article on this controversy.  Dina 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep on the condition that the section on the Allen controversy be reduced to one sentence and merged into the "Usages" section of the article. I disagree with Dina's statement that there should be a WP article on the Allen controversy.  Foot-in-mouth disease is prevalent among politicians, and this particular controversy is no more notable than the dozens of other kerfuffles that deserve no more than a paragraph in larger articles (in this case the article on the 2006 Senate election or the article on George Allen himself).  On the sources, I agree with Dina.  Disregarding the section on the Allen controversy (because I think that that should anyway be reduced to one sentence), more than half of the sources for the first part of the article seem legit, non-blog.  Pan Dan 20:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable: featured in all national media, had the apparent effect of lowering a candidates poll numbers.Edison 22:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with the Senator. When George Allen used macaca, he did not think that others would equate it with macaque.  Here is his own response,SEN. ALLEN: Tim, I made a mistake. I said things thoughtlessly. I’ve apologized for it, as well I should. But there was no racial or ethnic intent to slur anyone. If I had any idea that, that that word, and to some people in some parts of the world, world, was an insult, I would never do it, because it’s contrary to what I believe and who I am.  MR. RUSSERT: Well, where’d the word come from? It must’ve been in your consciousness.  SEN. ALLEN: Oh, it’s just made up.  MR. RUSSERT: Made up?  SEN. ALLEN: Just made up. Made-up word.  MR. RUSSERT: You’d never heard it before?  SEN. ALLEN: Never heard it before.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14815993/page/7/
 * Given that the article itself provides sources for the existence of the term, and ... well, Josh Marshall says it better than I could:

But let's review. We know that not only is "macaca" a widely used racial epithet in American crypto-racist and white supremacist circles. Its apparent origin is among the colonial population of francophone North Africa -- where Allen's mother was raised.

Now, call me ungenerous, but given those facts, the idea that "macaca" was simply three syllables Allen randomly strung together when digging at a dark-skinned young man who was getting on his nerves just doesn't strike me as credible.

I don't expect Allen to admit now that rather than make this name up it was a synonym for the N-word that he was fond of when he was a kid. But he's practically begging for renewed attention to this transparent lie by weaving it, again and again, into his strained apologies. 
 * Allen's ass-covering doesn't have a lot of credibility -- not to mention it being irrelevant to the actual issue at hand, namely the stir that he created by opening his big mouth. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it's verified.-- danntm T C 03:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would be absurdly naïve to merge it with Allen's article. Even if we choose to believe his claim, which is unfalsifiable, he didn't invent the word, but rather reinvented it. In any case, it existed before he used it, and has an existence independent of his gaffe. If we merged it with Allen, we would be tacitly supporting the claim that Allen coined the word innocently, and that can be neither proven nor disproven. The only NPOV options are to (A) delete the article as non-notable or (B) retain the article, perhaps abridging the section pertaining to Allen so that it doesn't dominate the rest of the article. (A) would require us to delete articles like nigger, wog, and dago, which can be quite informative, so the only acceptable alternative is to keep. However, I suggest we confine the bulk of the "macaca-gate" information to a subsection of Allen's article, since this article ought first and foremost to concern the word, not a specific incident of its use. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This controversy is important for the time being. Perhaps it can be merged later, but now is not the time.
 * Keep as per the reasons listed above. --Hemlock Martinis 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no good reason to delete other than to limit negative information on Sen. Allen; that isn't Wikipedia's job. CranialNerves 07:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Funny how a non-notable, obscure slur from North Africa becomes notable when uttered by a Senator and bruited Presidential candidate. Funny that. --Dhartung | Talk 09:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the above commenters on the "keep" side are neglecting the fact that the article is supposed to be about the slur "macaca," not the Allen controversy.  Yes, the Allen controversy made the slur more notable, and that fact should be noted in the article.  But the article is still about the slur, which is why the Allen controversy doesn't merit any more than a sentence or two, as in the "Usages" section.  Pan Dan 13:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is staggeringly provincial of the orginator of this discussion to assume that this sourced and historically-evidenced (see the references) term is only notable because it was used in a US context. Then we should also delete every word of foreign origin in english wikipedia if they are not "relevant" to the American experience. Richardjames444 15:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I resent that, I really do. The fact of the matter is this article did not exist until the Allen controversy. Additionally, many of the sources were American, and the section about Allen took up a very significant chunk of space. If anything, I thought the article was too provincial, reflecting American interest in the subject out of proportion with the word's history and use. We do not usually have a separate article for ethnic slurs unless they are very well known in English; in this case it was only after Allen used the term that someone decided it deserved its own article.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I didn't know what "Macaca" meant. I came to Wikipedia to find out.  And now I know.  This site is about learning.  In a Google search of the term it was the first site that I recognized and was clearly about the word "Macaca."  I do think that Mr Allen's excuse for using the word should be on his WP page.  However, I was glad to see on the "Macaca" page the regional origin of the word.  Perhaps the fact that Mr Allen's mother comes from where this word originates (and Mr Allen's story that he simply made up the word) should be on Mr Allen's page as well, since it seems political.--216.205.234.64 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Brian
 * Keep. A supporter of deletion, above, writes: "The article is based on an obscure word that only gained prominence when it was used by George Allen a month ago." Well, if it "gained prominence," then it is, by definition, prominent. Hence, Wikipedia worthy. Wikipedia can't be in the business of obscuring facts because we aren't happy about the way they "gained prominence." Strong keep. Thepinterpause 17:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as everything is adequately sourced, the undeniable notoriety of this term created by a major candidate opening his big mouth when he shouldn't have means it's got scope for an article. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a lot of linguistic as well as social history here that is important. Many people, myself included, had heard the French name for the monkey 'macaque' but were completely unaware of the use of the term as a slur, especially by the White Supremacist movement. People who are not in the know need to be able to find reliable information, which this article seems to be.
 * Keep per Pan Dan. I agree that the length of the Allen controversy is cruft and should be trimmed but the other noted and referenced uses of the trim establishes it's notability apart from Allen. Agne 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Three of the sources listed are the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune and Fox news. I agree with Pan Dan that politiciancs put there foot in their mouth which is one reason this article should stay. It show that politicians are no better then us and that People be can be rude to the other human beings by degrading them. From what I read in the Tribune, George allen has a nack for for this. This should be attached to his "legacy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Yes, it was obscure before the George Allen incident but having it in Wikipedia allows people to find out what it means and what the George Allen controversy is all about. Helped me understand the issue better. --Richard 06:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as it remains more then just a definition. -- Al™ 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The amount that it focuses on George Allen (U.S. politician) may need to be remedied, but it is otherwise an acceptable article.--Rosicrucian 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And to remedy that, I've summarized the George Allen section, and put a main article tag to Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, where there is a more up-to-date version of that passage and better context on the incident.--Rosicrucian 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Misrepresents the word as a racial slur.  Should merge with macaque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  68.211.45.50 (talk • contribs) 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Just googled and it led me here, a quick discussion about the word. Sure ditch most of the Allen commentary, but was very useful. Read word in blog, didnt know what it meant, now I have a better idea.--Liaison1 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I also came here via google, and I found the explanations useful. I think Allen is relevant, but as an example of recent (real or accidental) abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.252.54 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep As Brian wrote (.--216.205.234.64 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Brian on 9/18):  "I didn't know what 'Macaca'" meant. I came to Wikipedia to find out. And now I know. This site is about learning. In a Google search of the term it was the first site that I recognized and was clearly about the word 'Macaca.'"  I would only add that I came to Wikipedia to find out because I trust Wikipedia.   Mick H
 * Keep - as a definition and history of a word, even offensive words need to be known, esp when you are unsure of their meaning ie kafir etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.130.179.100 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep - If any page that is up for deletion gets this many comments - it shouldn't be deleted.
 * Keep - see above Calwatch 09:53, 23 September 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.