Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slang naming convention

To protect the integrity of Wikipedia in the public eye and particularly among academic faculty,as well as persons impacted by prejudice and discrimination, the proposal is that eng.wikipedia adopt naming conventions on "hate speech words" which should include parethetical tag such as:

Main-name #Slang; derogatory#

Noting that this is not in any manner "censorship" as the content itself remains intact under this proposal, and that such entries are lexical #dictionary-like# to begin with and as such barely pass muster as admissible content. Bard गीता 01:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are posting this in the wrong place. You cannot propose policy changes on an article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then at least as pertains to THIS article. Bard गीता  02:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Moved from Talk:Chink, copied verbatim. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:09pm • 04:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose this just jumbles everything onto a single page, making a single page for all derogatory slang terms would make it impossibly large. If a topic passes WP:GNG, and there is enough material to support a reasonably sized article instead of a stub, then WP:NOTPAPER, there's no reason for a short stubby paragraph when a full article can be written. WP:SIZE would split any such combined page into separate pages in any case because it would become too long very rapidly. Reducing a subject with a lengthy article that is supported by references and passes notability to a short paragraph is censorship, since it reduces coverage for no encyclopedic reason, WP:NOTCENSORED. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We just had two versions of this discussion in miniature at Chink, but since it's being escalated here to encompass more articles, I'll briefly post again. I know Geoffrey means well here, but I don't think it's a useful or wise precedent for Wikipedia to specially label "hate speech words" in the naming conventions. Per the precedents of WP:CENSOR and Offensive material, I don't see a need to handle potentially "offensive content" through a different convention than "nonoffensive content". When disambiguation is necessary, I admire the model of "racial term" as at Sambo, which saves editors the hassle of imposing an interpretation on a word like queer or nigger which can be hate speech in some contexts and reappropriation in others. Calling words like "Chink" pejorative terms in the article's first sentence is enough, I think, to make it clear that our articles are not ringing validations of the word; I don't see it as needed in the title as well. Finally, I disagree with the surprising contention that academic faculty are shunning Wikipedia as a result of our article naming conventions, pending significant evidence to the contrary. Khazar (talk)
 * Oppose per Khazar. He covered every point I wanted to say, and there's no need for anyone to say anything more in the absence of any sign that this is a real problem.  I don't see any indication that existing article titles are causing any of the harms purported, and if they were, I don't think the proposed article title would accomplish anything substantive (to the extent I understand what is being proposed).  I think anyone who would be bothered by an offensive term being used as the title of an article on that term would be bothered by an article about an offensive term however titled, regardless of whether you added hash marks or a parenthetical qualifier to it.  postdlf (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose - we cover what the reliable sources cover in the manner in which they cover it. there is no evidence that reliable sources typically identify words in that manner.Active Banana    (bananaphone  05:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose When unnecessary for disambiguation purposes, such tags constitute editorializing, which we specifically endeavor to avoid. Such tags also run contrary to the fact that Wikipedia is not a usage guide. --Cyber cobra (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag as (Slang) how about at least that much? Otherwise, Wikipedia is changing usage with implicity condoning. Don't you think that is the net effect? (Pardon me for butting in.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs)
 * or how about Adolf Hitler (bad man) cause we wouldnt want people to think that wikipedia thought hitler was a nice guy. Active Banana    (bananaphone  03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose If the article's categories and referenced content make clear that the term is slang and/or an ethnic or religious slur, and Wikipedia articles don't casually use or link to the term to refer to the people in question, then I don't see how any reasonable person (particularly "academic faculty") can see the article title as some kind of implicit endorsement of the term by Wikipedia or its editors. Seems to me like the WP:NODISCLAIMERS guideline applies here: it's adding a "disclaimer", in the article title no less, that Wikipedia doesn't endorse or encourage usage of the term. --Canley (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Other than the fact that I cannot understand what the OP is proposing at all, I don't see any problem with how slang terms are named currently. If there is an issue with some terms, it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Putting a sugar coating on a bitter pill may make it easier to swallow, but we have an obligation to be honest. The sad fact of the matter is that even in this day and age there are still people who use language like nigger, chink, wop, spic, kike, etc. The person proposing this is evidently so delicate they cannot even bring themselves to type on of these words without self-censoring it. Time to face reality, which is sometimes ugly and unfair. Calling an article "Ch*nk (offensive slang word that you shouldn't use)" is going to make us look less like a respectable resource and more like something written as moral guidance for small children. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being approved, much? Oppose, needless bureaucracy that fails to solve a non-issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose There seem to have been a few proposals or suggestions recently about "implicit condoning" based on having an article, such as the continued pointless wrangling over Santorum (neologism). Wikipedia reflects the world, but just because the world sometimes doesn't like that reflection doesn't mean we shouldn't carry on trying to do so. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely you agree that we should move Child abuse to Child abuse (don't do it). Think of the children! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * oppose also, I think that this RfC should be closed. Its just oppose, oppose, and oppose.  Also, putting slang is unencyclopedic.   EBE123  talkContribs
 * Comment I think it's time to stop mocking a good faith effort and close this RfC. -- Ja Ga  talk 07:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am currently perplexed by what is being proposed:  What is being proposed (, exactly)?Curb Chain (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * essentially, that the standards for article names for offensive terms should not be Offensive term, it should be Offensive term (derogitory slang) Active Banana    (bananaphone  14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd invoke a snow clause but I'm technically involved, having close the move discussion of Chink. Geoffery means this in good faith, however, on the Chink talk page he made it clear he had his predispositions to the term. A pile-on is unnecessary, it's clear everyone who's commented opposes it for similar reasons (Wikipedia's not censored, unnecessarily bureaucratic, unnecessary disambiguation, the list goes on). So why don't we let sleeping dogs lie? — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:39pm • 12:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)