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 delete. From what I can tell, this is a divisive fork. Arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping (the ones that discuss deleting the article and not just Uncle G's motivation for creating it, whatever that might be), despite the lengthy heated arguing between Uncle G, Skookum1, and others, who are all admonished to be civil in the future. The articles proposed for merging into this one are not affected by this AFD since they were not nominated. --Coredesat 03:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English language names for Chinese people[edit]

English language names for Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• (not a vote)Original research, to classify ethnic slurs for Chinese. `'mikka 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral After a more careful reading I am not so sure about my initial impression about the article. `'mikka 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic. More encyclopedic than numerous separate slurs. `'mikka 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? So why not delete List of ethnic slurs and List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity? This is not an "encyclopedic" article, but one written to undermine other encyclopedia articles, and it was ONLY CREATED in order to try and force a merge on the Chinaman article, which is about a lot more than ethnic slurs. The pretense that it was created for ANY OTHER REASON is just that, pretense.Skookum1 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what? I was thinking about this, too. But I am sure they will be outvoted to stay, so I didn't bother to waste wikipedian's time. `'mikka 16:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly, and wasting wikipedians' time is what Uncle G has done with the creation of this "article" (it's really a tract).Skookum1 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a bad-faith attempt at an article after the author's proposed merger bewtween 'chink' and 'chinaman' failed. This information is replicated elsewhere and is not needed in a new article.Zeus1234 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there are duplicate articles, which I suggested be merged into one single article, this one, which I wrote to show that they can be merged, is precisely the point. You make my argument for me. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not duplicate articles, despite your ongoing pretense/bias that they are. The only duplicate article around here is THIS ONE which you've created and which duplicates material in various other articles; only filterecd through YOUR OWN particular agenda. When will you stop with your dissembling about duplicate articles and any other wheedle or misdirection or misrepresentation of reintrepation of other peoples' positions (like you just did with Hong's). As I've said before, it's people like you who give admins a bad name.....Skookum1 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If, as you have stated, this article duplicates the content of Chinaman and Chink then the fact that this is a single article about a single subject demonstrates that those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged — into this one. Once again, my argument is made for me. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. The fact that the articles can be merged doesn't automatically mean that they should be merged (let alone that they document "a single subject"). There was near-unanimous opposition to such a merger.
          It would be very easy to merge the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush articles into a single article entitled Presidents of the United States named George Bush, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that the two men are "a single subject." —David Levy 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a false analogy and a bogus argument. That two other completely different articles are not a single subject does not say anything at all about the articles actually at hand. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not claiming that it does. I'm refuting your argument that the ability to combine two articles into one automatically establishes the appropriateness of such a merger. —David Levy 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since I didn't actually make that argument, your refutation is yet again the tearing down of a straw man. Once again: Those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged. We merge duplicate articles. The actual subject isn't a single word, as can be seen when one stops looking solely at dictionaries and starts looking at sources that aren't dictionaries to see what they cover. Uncle G 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The only straw man is yours (because I didn't make the argument to which you responded above). You claimed that the fact that "this article duplicates the content of Chinaman and Chink" "demonstrates that those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged — into this one." That's a 100% false statement. It certainly is possible that such a merger is appropriate (setting aside my opinion to the contrary), but the mere fact that you were able to duplicate much of the articles' content on a single page doesn't prove what you claim it does.
                  Once again, I disagree with your assertion that Chink and Chinaman are "duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject." You're entitled to your opinion, but simply repeating it over and over (as though I didn't understand you the first dozen times) doesn't bolster your argument. —David Levy 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger is not necessary, since the artices are quite big and detailed, buit a general article makes sense as well, IMHO. Mukadderat 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Classifying racial slurs as "English language names" is disingenuous; attempting to legitimize these words. — ERcheck (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Many of these names are already listed on List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent. — ERcheck (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the words are legitimate. Read the article, which tells you exactly that, as do the cited sources. These words are not necessarily slurs, as both the article and the sources tell you. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the autonomy of articles like Chink and Chinaman and all the many other listed and linked on List of ethnic slurs is well-established. The implication of his argument re the Chinaman merger and his own highly Original research article is that ALL the items on List of ethnic slurs reduced to entries on his ethnic-specific page, and ALL those articles should be merged to parallel articles for other ethnicity slurs/names? Is there a WP essay on "reinventing the wheel"? If not, there should be (also one about putting down tirebelts, which is what this article and its "mergist" agenda is all about. He's not wanting this to be an encyclopedia, but a tract.Skookum1 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is Uncle G's attempt to circumvent overwhelming consensus to keep the chink and Chinaman articles separate. —David Levy 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's an attempt to boldly demonstrate to you by example that there is, as I said, one single subject here, not multiple ones. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which just goes to show how wrong you really are, as there are more than one subject here; you just don't want to admit to that, and yo're determined to censor anybody else who disputes your presumption/delusions about it.Skookum1 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am judging the article by its merits. It serves no significant purpose other than to duplicate information already contained in other articles (thereby defying a clear consensus against combining them). The usual solution to the existence of a duplicate article is to merge its text somewhere, but there's nothing to merge. Therefore, the article should be deleted (IMHO). If I believed that it had actual value, I would set aside the creator's motive. —David Levy 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You argue that the article duplicates other articles. That is the point. As I've said all along, there's a single subject here, and Chink and Chinaman are duplicate articles that should be merged. That you are arguing that there's duplication simply makes my argument for me. That you think and assert that my motive is something other than what I've actually said it was all along, linking to Wikipedia:Duplicate articles numerous times and pointing out that these duplicate articles should be merged into a single article that addresses all of these names (rather than having 22 individual articles all addressing the same topic but simply under different titles), is an error on your part — one that doesn't imply anything about me at all, incidentally. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1. I did not claim that your motive is anything other than what you actually said. Yes, you believe that Chink and Chinaman are duplicate articles that should be merged, and English language names for Chinese people is an attempt to do so. Others disagree, however, and overwhelmingly opposed such a merger. I wouldn't describe the creation of English language names for Chinese people as a bad-faith act, but it was a consensus-defying act.
          2. I could easily combine information about apples and oranges to create a new article called Fruits commonly referenced idiomatically. That doesn't mean that apples and oranges are "a single subject" and their articles should be merged. —David Levy 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Some ethnic/racial terms are definitely very much abused in English. These include Jews, Chinese, and African Americans, and these definitely require separate articles. I would only suggest to rename it into Terms for Chinese people in English (shorter & more neutral, to address one objection). Mukadderat 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your position opens the door for articles such as Terms for Italian people in English, Terms for Muslims in English, Terms for Irish people in English. And, last but not least, Terms for non-Chinese in Chinese ("English" doesn't work there for obvious reasons). Is Wikipedia really the right forum to list and popularize pages that largely serve to divide and hate-monger (remember Canadian slang before it was deleted?).Skookum1 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Powerful Delete with extra force authority. I am most offend, this list of disrespect curse word is poor. Dissemination and encouragement to use racist slur may be resulting. It not appropriate for encyclopedia, not positive for glory of Wikipedia Project. Allowance of this page existence potential to damage international cultural relation. Perhaps more appropriate in dictionary of rough talk or similar publication, not in Wikipedia Project.Wen Hsing 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't discourage or encourage anything. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bullshit. It was created ONLY to discourage the separate existence of the Chinaman[ article. Stop pretending otherwise, and go to Wikipedia and look up "disingenuous" and "coy".Skookum1 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please maintain respectful talking. Please never discourage existence of Chinese persons, violent downstream resulting actions are prefer to be avoided.Wen Hsing 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, since you're so polite, I take back the "bullshit" but it's still a load of nonsense (to use polite terminology when other wording is far more appropriate....). The rest of my comment stands because this article DOES encourage, openly and overtly and intentionally, an attempt to derail the Chinaman page's direction. As for the rest of your comment, while I appreciate that English is a second language for you, you have just suggested that there will be violence resulting from this. Really? I'm sure you're not meaning it as a threat, but quite honestly I am brave enough to defend the truth in the face of violence, and if the "downstream effects" here are anyone's fault, it's Uncle G's for being disruptive and contrary and endlessly lecturing others on what he asserts are their faults while never admitting to his own. Consensus is not built by obfuscation, obstructionism, misdirection, and deceit.Skookum1 07:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps I am involve confusion, I intend no threatening! I support your viewpoint generally, the conducts of disruptive user Uncle G is unlike the kind family member. I have objection to comment that Chinamen should not exist, some people who are easily bring to action may produce violent act against Chinese people to achieve reduction in Chinese existence, I strongly oppose such phenomenon.Wen Hsing 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is important that you understand that the word "Chinaman" does exist and is in extensive use by Asian North Americans and others of Asian origin as a self-identifier (see Bo Yang, Frank Chin, and I can provide various webrefs to artists/performers who use "Chinaman" as their nickname/public persona. It is also important that you understand that Chinaman is not as severe a derisive - when it's a derisive - than other much more inflammatory words, and also to understand that it was the standard English usage until the mid-20th Century (see the opening paragraph of Chinaman re Fowler's Dictionary of english Usage, 1954; the section just before it is the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology, 1966 and contains a listing of completely archaic English names for Chinese people (e.g. Chinnish, Chinensian, Chinesian, etc.) none of which were derisive but, apparently given time and resentment, any one of them could have become so in the way the originally-innocuous word "Chinaman" did. There are also other uses of the word which have nothing to do with Chinese people, but rather to do with trade/imports from China (the original usage was for a ship in the China trade, and following on that for a dealer in Chinese porcelain wards, aka "china"); the ship usage ended with the end of the Age of Sail and is mostly a 17th C. usage (when other words such as those in the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology were used instead of Chinese or Chinaman). And of those uses which devolve from the Chinese people context, three have nothing at all to do with people - (1) a type of porcelain figurine in imitation of Chinese art, featuring Chinese men, (2) a type of throw in cricket and (3) a term to refer to a mentor/backer of Indiana politicians, which is an honorific, denoting power and influence, a borrowing similar to the use of Mandarin for (especially high-ranking) bureaucrats in the UK and Britain. The existence of the Chinaman article is not going to provoke violence (other than verbal violence, or "procedural violence" like Uncle G's creation of this page and his deceptive and misdirecting comments on this AFD. It is a "mild" word, and most white people that use it do not so derisively, but because they do not consider it a derisive (these are mostly rural, but include people like Jerry Seinfeld); if so, it is used in a more or less jocular sense and not with vicious intent; "chink" on the other hand, is explicitly derisive and associateed with aggressive behavior - and document as such as you can see on the Chink article; this is also the case with the other forms in THIS article like "china boy" which Uncle G seems strangely eager to document. Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.Skookum1 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I apologize for any misunderstand due to me, I find you also may be confuse, as I am fully in support of Chinamen existence- I am one! I was disturb to read people saying Chinamen should not be existing. I fear existing Chinamen (I being example) will be victimize. I do not advocate censorship, only refinement content to improve the qualities. This current article is defame to Chinese people. I support article such as 'Chink', or article about word 'Chinaman' with objectivity and analyse offensivenessWen Hsing 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them." i.e. their associated history/variations, as is also done with various other derisives as Dago and Wog and not least Gweilo (which I consider a violent derisive; it was used by Chinese mobs killing whites in the Boxer Rebellions in the same way that "chink" was used by modern-era mobs in the United States.....there is a pretense that Gweilo is no longer offensive, even though it was created to be an insult/derogation; while ironically Chinaman was not created to be an insult/derogation, but now is widely denounced as being derisive, some going to claim that it's always been derisive, which is just not the case. And some of those same people, in my experience, are also people who claim that (because they say so) Gweilo is not derisive, or is "misunderstood". I submit that a lot of the hostile/fearful attitudes towards "Chinaman" are also rooted in misunderstanding, and also in "branding" people with guilt when they had no intention of being offensive. I take offense at Gweilo, especially here in Vancouver where we know what it means, and get to hear it in its offensive usage/context. I know comparing the intensity of "Chinaman" to any other word is not that relevant to this AFD, but the irony is there nonetheless. I invite you to visit Talk:Chinaman and also read through some of the compiled historical references so that you can see the ways in which the word was not used derisively. Often, in fact complimentarily, and in notable cases such as the Letter of the Chinamen, an important historical declaration by the Chinese in San Francisco in 1852.Skookum1 08:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This article was created by User:Uncle G because of his failed attempt to merge Chink and Chinaman, with the intention of creating this article so as to absorb thet Chinaman page and,theoretically, wipe its archived talk pages and accompany stacks of citations/resources which are unfriendly to his point of view. I added the "merge to ethnic slurs" as a rejoinder to that; if I'd known I could have started an AFD with a merge dicussion ongoing I would have done so. Again, delete delete delete, and I do agree with Wen Hsing that obsessing over these words only promotes knowledge and use of them in derogatory ways; but Chinaman has many non-derogatory contexts and also non-ethnic meanings and an article on it has no place being merged with an article about what is overtly a slur, or as re this page merged into an article (as Uncle G wanted) that is really only a list of slurs and ethnonyms with no other context than Uncle G's original writing trying to tie them all together/comparing them (which considering he chastised "us" for original research re: Chinaman seems hypocritical in the extreme....but that's nothing new, either).Skookum1 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It didn't fail. This is a part of the same discussion. It's an existence proof that there's a single subject here. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It DID fail, as anyone reading the Talk:Chinaman page can see; it was when it failed that Uncle G started THIS article and foisted a merge template in place of the merge|Chink he'd originally invaded the page with (in the middle of the edit war, as most inopportunely noted by User:Xiner who had placed a block on the Chinaman page. It got shot down; now, like so much else, he's pretending that that's not reality, that the extensive arguments against the Chink merger weren't shot down in flames as they really were.Skookum1 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. This article is part of that same discussion, demonstrating my argument that there's one single subject here. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article made me laugh so hard i almost soiled my lederhosen. Which should not happen while reading Wikipedia. At least I have some new words to try out on my chink employees!Jörg Vogt 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid reason for deletion. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is - Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Also see WP:Lederhosen. Jörg Vogt 07:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to be suggesting that analysis sourced from secondary source books is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. You'll find that that quite the contrary is the case, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Rather, it is original lexicographic analyses performed by Wikipedia editors directly that is not suitable for an encyclopaedia, as per our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policies. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No that's not what I am saying at all. Please do not divert discussion towards such semantics. Consider my lederhosen.Jörg Vogt 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our policies and guidelines, and how they apply, is exactly what we should be discussing here at AFD. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Maybe you shouldn't be wearing your lederhosen when working on Wikipedia, then?  :-).Skookum1 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - This kind of divisive drivel has no place on Wikipedia. Some of the terms already have/are developing quite thorough articles on their various usages. This is duplication in addition to divisive drivel-- A one-stop list of derision here, when more thoughtful articles are already out there, serves no purpose.--Keefer4 | Talk 04:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is those articles that are the duplication. They should be merged. Once again, my argument is made for me. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, by you and you alone. But why is it your argument doesn't make any sense to anyone else?Skookum1 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will try to decipher your argument, UncleG, since it hasn't been made clear anywhere that I can see. You apparently believe that the terms Chink and Chinaman are synonymous and should be housed within the same article, and this has now extended to what is deemed "English words for Chinese people". Please, nobody accuse me of misrepresenting, I am just trying to sort things out. So, by making this point, UncleG seems to imply that the histories and usages of these words mean, and have always meant, precisely the same thing. The problem is that there is marked disagreement at the Talk:Chinaman page and article itself on this point. Additionally, there are already ethnic slur pages, which represent modern and historical slurs towards various ethnicities. Why duplicate it? One could counter that there is room here at this article for additional notes on the terms, however, some of these already have articles which will allow for this. A sort of halfway between a list and specific word article isn't needed on this topic. Why should it be? Finally, I'm not going to argue anyone's opinion on whether a precedent should be set for articles of what certain language speakers call certain ethnicities, if one believes it's a sound precedent than I guess one approves of this article. I just don't think it is, that's all.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made it clear right from the start. No deciphering is needed. Once again, just as clearly stated right at the start: The articles are duplicate articles that address what is actually one single subject — a subject that has a wider scope than just one individual word. We merge duplicate articles. We don't have separate articles on the same subject under different titles. I pointed to the sources right at the start to show that the sources treat this subject as one single subject, too. Not a single editor has actually discussed what is written in the sources that I've cited, so far.

          That there are other things denoted by the word "Chinaman" is entirely a red herring. No-one has suggested merging all of those other articles listed at Chinaman (disambiguation), only the article that has the "X is a name for a Chinese person. Some think it pejorative. Some not. Here's a laundry list of people who have got into hot water for using it." form, of which we have several, all addressing the same single subject in exactly the same way, with the only difference being the article titles.

          You ask "Why duplicate it?". Given that I'm the one saying that the duplicate articles should be merged into a single article that addresses this one single subject, that question should be posed to others, not me. So I pose that question right back at you: Why are you arguing for having a whole raft of duplicate articles (which at last count would end up with 22 articles addressing exactly the same single subject, in exactly the same "X is a name for a Chinese person" form) instead of one single article for one single subject? You also state that "We have ethnic slur pages.". I suggest that you read the article and the sources, because they both tell you that these are not solely ethnic slurs. Treating them solely as ethnic slurs is wrong.

          Treating them as lists of words is wrong, too. The sources address this as one single subject, don't treat it from the single viewpoint that these are ethnic slurs, and don't treat the individual words seperately from one another. Please do as encyclopaedists are supposed to do and base your arguments upon what the sources say.

          And please, as I've asked repeatedly, start looking at sources other than dictionaries. Building articles solely from long lists of dictionaries, as those individual duplicate articles are being built, can logically (unless one performs the sort of original research that editors are performing) yield nothing except a whole set of dictionary articles. You have at least three history books cited as references in this article. That should be a big clue as to the sort of source that editors should be looking for. Such non-dictionary sources, you will find, don't divide this single subject up. That is, in part, because they are not dictionaries that give individual articles to individual words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, too. We merge duplicate articles that are about the same single subject, that differ solely in the titles used. This article is a demonstration of what the single subject is, of what sources there are, and of how many individual words it covers, in part to show those editors, who claimed that there wasn't a single subject here solely on the erroneous basis that "the words are different", that there was, and that if they actually went and looked at some actual sources, instead of performing lexicography in the wrong project, they would see what it was. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • What is becoming clear is that UncleG's POV is simply the deletion of the Chinaman article, which is not to due to any duplication concerns. This assertion is backed up by what he has said here and at Talk:Chinaman and the several merge proposals that he has made. What is also clear is that he is convincing some of the legitimacy of selectively citing sources while summarily dismissing dictionary definitions and contemporary usages. The goal is apparently to create an encyclopedia entry that would be clean of any reference to historical and current meanings, as well as, in some cases, contradict them. He uses words like lexicographic to dismiss citing any usage of dictionaries. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but nor should it explicitly derogate usages of words as documented in dictionaries or in contemporary culture to assist in the building of an encyclopedic article. By undermining any of the dictionary and contemporary citations, what UncleG has done is arbitrarily bestowed the burden of proof for any non-derogatory usage of the term (in any time period) to an untenable position. The funny thing is that, in saying this, I have not and will never attempt to bestow that burden upon him in a reverse manner. His sources are fine, I have never attacked them on their merits, despite his defensiveness on the subject, and I have no personal qualms or vendettas with the way that anyone interprets the term from their particular POV. But his selectively picking apart and narrowing these terms to his own liking and POV, through the above means should be seen for what it is. I am really not trying to misrepresent anyone's arguments or to push/incorporate any particular POV into the articles themselves. This is just my take on what is transpiring here, there is very little you have demonstrated in words or actions to convince otherwise. Fortunately it seems most can see this, so I don't see a point in making further response to your inevitable next retort. --Keefer4 | Talk 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That paragraph is almost wholly erroneous. Taking just two examples: Merger is not deletion; it is the former that has been proposed, not the latter. And both "The goal is apparently to create an encyclopedia entry that would be clean of any reference to historical and current meanings." and "By undermining any of the dictionary and contemporary citations, what UncleG has done is arbitrarily bestowed the burden of proof for any non-derogatory usage of the term (in any time period) to an untenable position." are quite clearly directly contradicted by the very content of the article at hand, which documents both historical usages and non-derogatory usages of the various names, citing sources for such analysis. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not like anyone would have expected your agreement with my analysis, but it's good to hear some of it met with your approval, just as some of the article met with mine. You have admitted above that there is a difference between terms: "very content of the article at hand, which documents both historical usages and non-derogatory usages", which I think is a step forward. The bottom line here: I think the article sets a poor and un-needed classification precedent (How XXX Language speakers refer to XXX ethnicity), "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.", and selectively derogating dictionary and contemporary references in constructing an encyclopedic article in words here and actions elsewhere, just isn't very tasteful. I don't want to belabour the differences we have. We see things differently with respect to the article's merits and that's all. It's been a good discussion.--Keefer4 | Talk 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have admitted above that there is a difference between terms — That's not what the text that you quoted said at all. If you have read it that way, then you have mis-read it. Please read it again, in the context of the original erroneous argument that you made above, which it refutes. As for "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.": The argument that people that one disagrees with are censors is a propaganda technique that the Institute for Propaganda Analysis classifies as name-calling. And, finally, if you think that "selectively derogating dictionary and contemporary references" is what people have been arguing in favour of, then you haven't actually read their arguments at all, or at least have mis-read them as badly as you mis-read what I wrote above. The problem here is original research, with editors constructing their own theses based upon firsthand analysis of raw quotations. Uncle G 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • • I apologize if you interpret anything I disagree with you on, as a name-calling or a personal attack. It is never and will never be intended as such. Raising censorship concerns (which I am actually quoting from another editor on this page) is not name calling, although I suppose anything could be considered name-calling if one hunts for a source that says it is. Again, the fact that you now differentiate between the terms by virtue of their historical/derogatory usages, as you allude to above with your referencees in the article (I appreciate you pointing me to those passages in the article which I overlooked-- my opinions are not static and stubborn), clearly means that they are not synonymous. And certainly I think it prudent to substantiate allegations of original research with examples of how they have been incorporated into the articles at hand. On the merits/precedent of this we disagree, but hey that's why this discussion page exists. Have a good one.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWhile the article does seem to be very negatively focused, perhaps some NPOV cleanup as well as making it a more historically based article could make it more acceptable, although I am not personally sure of how this may be done. Maybe more of a history of slurs, but that still seems very negatively focused. I think there is a lot of good information here, just portrayed under a very negative light. Flipping sides again, we can not hide from the negative things, and the only way to stop them from occurring is to educate others upon the issue. I'm not sure where I stand exactly, but I really feel there is a use for this information somewhere. Redian (Talk) 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are already detailed articles for Chink and Chinaman (well, with chinaman we've been too busy fighting obstructionists like Uncle G to expand it properly, so for now it's even more negative than this one, partly because of a block caused by his and other hostile-editors warring against the page) and there doesn't seem to be a call for the others, unless Chinee perhaps in the same vein as Spic and Dago. Uncle G created this article because he didn't like the direction the Chinaman article is going, and that's all there is to why this article exists; it has no reason to exist except as a way to screw with a debate on an existing (and valid) article and derail its pending content because he doesn't like what that content is going to be.Skookum1 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete this article serves no purpose, therefore it is unencyclopedic. How many people will be looking for this on Wikipedia? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, cats are evidence that there are some things in nature that serve no purpose. You do raise a good arg though on the search factor. --Dennisthe2 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cats kill small birds and other animals, therefore keeping their numbers in balance. Every animal is an integral part of Earth's ecosystem. Also, nature is free to have things that serve no purpose (even if it doesn't, it's free to), as it's not an encyclopaedia. We on the other hand are. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Article offers some interesting information, however is written most likely in bad faith and the information is already contained in other articles. Apart from this, the title is very misleading in my opinion. Poeloq 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, but keep Chink etc etc with "see also" links between the various slurs, as long as they're watched carefully for NPOV. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No, this is not bad faith. Nor is it original research. This is a good faith demonstration, by example, of the merger that I suggested at Talk:Chinaman. This is what Chink and Chinaman should all be merged into, because they are all duplicate articles that are addressing the same subject under different titles. (Note that all of the individual articles are of the exact same form: "X is a word for a Chinese person. Sometimes it is pejorative. Sometimes it isn't. People disagree. Here's a laundry list of incidents where people have got into hot water for using this word.")

  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but unfortunately several editors are doing lexicography here, as can be seen at Talk:Chinaman/Skookum1's sources where editors are collecting a corpus of quotations that contain certain words, and then performing their own firsthand analyses of these words and what people may have meant when they wrote them. That's lexicography, and is exactly the sort of work that belongs in Wiktionary, where it is welcome.

  A proper encyclopaedia article, in contrast, should have sourced analyses, not analyses done by Wikipedia editors directly, and this one does. Hence the reason that it isn't original research. You'll find, for example, the analysis given in the article that "chink" has been used as an "innocent slang term", on the very page of the source that is cited for it. This isn't a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1 and other pseudonymous Wikipedia editors of quotations that they've collected. It's a summary of the analyses by Mencken, Lewis, Isaccs, Tchen and the others whose writings discussing this subject are cited in the article.

  (Notice also from the talk page discussions, and the discussions above, that the main aim of this mis-placed lexicography is to contradict what the secondary sources actually say, because editors disagree with what the sources say and want their own analyses to be reflected in Wikipedia. Zeus1234, for example, asserts that these words are all slurs, even though we have a cited source, Lewis, documenting the fact that they have been used without intent to slur by some people. Ironically, it is that promulgation of a single view, and not this article, which states right from the start that there's more than one opinion to be had, and presents several of them, that would be non-neutral.)

  It's not even original research in terms of being a novel synthesis or presentation. Ironically, the novel synthesis and presentation is exactly what those who want to do lexicography in the encyclopaedia are creating. If one looks at the actual sources that discuss this subject, rather than trying to do one's own primary research from quotations, one finds that they don't discuss these words individually. They discuss them en bloc. Lewis discusses "Chinaman", "Chinee", and "chink" in the same breath, for example. Tchen discusses "John Chinaman", "chink", "heathen Chinee", "mandarin", and "celestial" all together, for another example.

  These are not separate subjects, and should not be dealt with piecemeal, with editors doing original lexicographic research in the wrong project, in individual articles. The way to deal with them is to use sources, who have already done the analyses, and to deal with the single subject, that the sources themselves address as a single whole, in a single article — i.e. exactly as here. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment How typical of Uncle G to say something like "This isn't a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1 and other pseudonymous Wikipedia editors of quotations that they've collected." complain (elsewhere) about my writing 5000 word essays in the course of refuting his various inanities. But more to the point, he's claiming that the materials compiled on the resources sandbox he would so dearly like to have deleted are "a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1" which is entirely a misrepresentation of the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled in response to the aggressive edit war caused by his interference and obfuscatory questions and wheedling. There is no analysis on the compiled resources - a comment here or there, a speculation but always noted as such and not meant for article use (it's not as if we haven't been subjected to Uncle G's "analyses" - not the least of which on the article overleaf) - but rather just a huge index of tons and tons of weblinks to dictionary definitions, literary and government usages, and more examples of sages of Chinaman which Uncle G and certain others at Talk:Chinaman were in open denial about. No - not open denial at all; open accsation, open hysterics, and lots and lots of posturing like the grandstanding just above. THIS article is Uncle G's "collection of firsthand analyses" of materials he's carefully selected; the materials I and others compiled about Chinaman were come up with because we were accused of not having proof that non-offensive usage of Chinmaman ever existed. In actuality, the non-offensive uses are more commmon historically but because of the edit war and obstructionism (including this "red herring war") these realities have not yet been added to the article as we (meaning myself and other editors actually trying to work on the article, instead of war on it.....), and continue today in use by Asian-American/Canadian authors who use it not as a derisive but as a summation of the Chinese archetype (Bo Yang), or of the historical experience /identity of being a North American Chinese (Frank Chin) But all that Uncle G has wanted is a focus on the 1990s and afterwards denuncations by politically-correct ideologues, and held hard to the idea that Chink and Chinaman should be merged "because they're the same thing". Failing the Chink merger he wrote this article - a "collection of his analyses" - and presumes now to complain it's encyclopedic while undermining the encyclopedic content and the discussion surrounding it elsewhere - and as soon as writing it he nailed the merge template on Chinaman (I checked, there were only six edits at the time of "nailing"). The curious part, considering his pretention to being on the moral high ground, is that he didn't bother to place the template on THIS page (I did once I noticed he'd decided it was unnecessary). That's just sloppy on his part I suppose, but he's full of such sloppiness (there was no merge template on Chink either, not one for Chinaman, but rather for Chinky). I'm not going to bother (like he does) hunting down his various wild allegations and crazy "logic" - all just puff-n-stuff posturing like what's above - but maybe another admin than him around here might opine on how ethical it is to create an article only with the intent of forcing another article to merge with it because you'd failed in efforts to control the other article. It's obviously not ethical, it's obviouly an insult to the work of other editors (in so many ways; what I compiled were not "analyses" but RESOURCES which he wants to maintain don't exist, or are as he's said "irrelevant". They're not; he only wants them to be, and he wants to silence the debate by "leading" his own article into the fray. And then turn around and accuse US of being "incivil". As if he wasn't. At least we're logical and not trying to hide truth or undermine the collective work of other editors. And we're not even admins, and he is...."A single article, exactly as it is here" is his position, and it's a LIE and a MISREPRESENTATION and entirely deceptive as to his motive/purpose in creating this page, which was for one reason only - to try and force a merge when he couldn't get his way. For the SECOND TIME.Skookum1 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much that whole paragraph is erroneous. I'll pick just two of the many examples: You didn't create the list of quotations in response to anything by me, since in fact its creation pre-dates my addition of the merger suggestion. And the only mention of "irrelevant" by anyone in the talk page discussions is yours, here, where you made the same statement about HongQiGong there as you have done about me here. In fact, neither of your statements is true. As you've been asked to do before, at least twice, please stop inventing arguments and attributing them to other editors, and please adhere to our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive. Uncle G 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assume good faith is what you did NOT do in your interventions on Talk:Chinaman and in your various edit-attacks on the article. And it's also what you were not operating on when you created this article. As for "inventing arguments" that's your bailiwick, boyo, not anybody else's, just like you invented this article because you failed to win the arguments you brought to Talk:Chinaman. And I did not specify it was YOU who was the reason why the resources were compiled, and don't misrepresent me further in claiming that I did (but you have a habit of misrepresnenting things said by nearly anybody else, it seems....). Your use of "our" before citing the Wikipedia essay on what you yourself don't have indicates your proprietary attitude towards Wikipedia that's throughout your pretension on this page, and in your creation of this article. Assume good faith is clearly missing in all your own arguments, inclding your many attacks on my arguments using TWISTED versions of what I said, or what you CLAIM I said. See below for me turning your own words back on you (as before so often).Skookum1 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled in response to the aggressive edit war caused by his interference and obfuscatory questions and wheedling". Once again: Please stop. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How very typical of you to post a link that doesn't go to what you've titled it......deception and misdirection from you we're getting use to, those of us who know your negative and interferential track record at Talk:Chinaman. To other editors/readers: The actual link to the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled is HERE, not where Uncle G wants to send you, which is to another passage on THIS page (which everyone has already read, Uncle G, and don't need your help). The REAL link that should be there is what you hate and want to have wiped off the record; but it's all web references, all out there in the public eye, despite your one-sided attempts to pick and choose evidence which suits your one-note agenda. It should also be noted that I didn't title that page "Skookum1's Resources", that was done by User:Xiner and IMO should have had a less personal sandbox name because other editors contributed to its contents, even before Xiner created it in order to move the mounting evidence against the case being foisted by Uncle G et al.Skookum1 07:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skookum, I can't believe you actually accused others of "open hysterics". Have you taken a step back and actually read the volumes of ranting you're written in various Talk pages? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your calling my writings "rants" is a demonstration of those very hysterics and the typical misrepresentations/accusations that went along with them and is in fact one of those covert personal attacks you seem to specialize in, but let's not make this arena for our own particular views of each other, OK? I do think your position is based in hysterics, although not as much as Uncle G, and I wasn't so much referring to you as him and 4.x and the other useless interlopers on Talk:Chinaman. But if the shoe fits, wear it (mine are 15Ds....).Skookum1 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in serious need of your own blog, my friend. My "position" is only based on facts. You, on the other hand, have a tendency to declare how bored you are with an article and then proceed to write a two-thousand word comment on the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, give it a rest, Hong. Your position is not based on facts, rather on the denial of them and you have consistently evaded and misdirected questions as well as data/references that you just happen not to like and claim are "irrelevant". And attacks on my writing style, which happens to be very prolix, is just more stock-in-trade of your penchant for "covert personal attacks" which is one of your stock ways of avoiding questions and/or avoiding issues/evidence that disagree with your own prejudices, and you DO have prejudices. Claiming I'm bored with an article when I obviously feel strong enough to write at length about the issues facing it is just yet another patronizing dismissal like so many before, all written to avoid answering the questions and issues raised by your own comments.Skookum1 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Xanga accounts are free. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is only more passive-aggressive-cum-patronizing comments that I should go elsewhere. Why don't YOU, Hong?Skookum1 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Uncle G seems to have forgotten that Chink can be used to refer to anyone of East Asian descent, and not just Chinese people. This makes it an innapropriate inclusion in this article, and make it quite different than 'chinaman.' read the 'chink' article for sources on this.Zeus1234 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain here. It is interesting, and provides some background information on the names, and seems encyclopedic, but I'm not entirely sure if it fits here or at Wiktionary (Uncle G raises a good point above) - the latter owing to the lexiography factor. --Dennisthe2 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is what the article Chinese people is for, if we ever get around to expanding it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The emboldened word says "delete", but your actual rationale says "keep and merge". Uncle G 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you are misrepresenting what Hong is saying too; here's your own words to eat, I suggest with an nice bitter chili sauce: "As you've been asked to do before, at least twice, please stop inventing arguments and attributing them to other editors, and please adhere to our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive." (quoted from above). Hong chose to vote "delete". He did not vote to "keep and merge" - although you'd certainly like him to.Skookum1 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • HongQiGong's stated rationale is that the content belongs in Chinese people. That's a rationale for keeping and merging. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're not really capable of letting Hong speak for himself, are you? The equation Chinese people=Chinaman is also spurious, and was also shot down on Talk:Chinaman, just as also your attempt to equate chink=chinaman, which led to your creation of this article.Skookum1 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nobody is saying chink=chinaman except you. —Cryptic 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then you haven't been paying attention; that's EXACTLY what Uncle G tried to maintain on Talk:Chinaman; that we shot him down is why he created this article, which is (now that I know the term) very obviously a POV fork.Skookum1 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a clear duplication of List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent]. Xiner (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Patent Wiktionary material. Delete all three articles, as I presume Uncle G's already transwikied this and the salvageable bits of Chink and Chinaman. Keep this one only and merge the others into it as a distant second choice: encyclopedias don't describe specific words; the closest they come is describing concepts, and there's only one concept here to describe, ergo one article. —Cryptic 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? And how would the cricket throw usage, the figurine usage, and the Indiana politician usage of Chinaman it into any of this? How would chinaman's original meaning as a ship in the china trade, or (devolving from that) a dealer in porcelain/china (cf. http://www.thechinaman.co.uk) - how would this fit into your scheme of things? How could all the titles in modern writings (Bo Yang, Frank Chin) fit into Wiktionary, or profiles of the rapper who calls himself Chinaman, or the comedian who calls himself The Chinaman???? S All this belopngs in a Wiktionary definition, which no doubt will be subject to edit warring by Uncle G there as well????Skookum1 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't fit into a merged article. That's ok, though, because they don't fit into a separate article at Chinaman, either, and in fact aren't in it at present. We deal with the situation by including a link to Chinaman (disambiguation) via ((redirect|Chinaman)). The only place where different concepts represented by the same word should be on the same page is on Wiktionary. —Cryptic 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really??. Seems to me I've seen a gross or more of disambiguation pages which "represent different concepts represented by the same word", and it's point of fact that the disambiguation page got created/designated as such because of the dispute (before Uncle G came along) about the original Chinaman article; there's a case to be made, because of the necessary content discussing the word's history that the disambig and main page should be one and the same, but that's a separate merge discussion and not quite relevant here (and I haven't field it yet, until now). Point is not so long ago there was only one Chinaman page; the variability in itsmeanings and contexts are why the disambig got split off (although it took a while for it to get the "(disambiguation)" part of its title, as the split-off Chinaman article from it had its own paranthetical qualifier ("racial term", which was not correct and got ditched also). That a word can evolve away from its original meaning/context into something as obscure as, oh cricket and Indiana politics, is in itself of encyclopedic (not dictionary) interest. And in point of fact while they look the same, "chinaman" and "chinaman" are two different words, no kidding, if you break down the syntax between the china trade/dealer meaning and the ethnic meaning (from which all other usages derive, e.g. the Politician and the cricket pitch) the one's syntactical frame is "China + man" (where "man" equals either a ship or a merchant) or "Chinese + man"; sure, they're "identical words" but their meanings and origins are so opposite/apposite that there's encyclopedic content right there that goes way outside the bounds of what can be represented in Wiktionary. And AFAIC moving all three to Wiktionary is just another way of censoring Wikipedia that mergists and ideologues are trying to do all over the place. Tell ya what - why don't we merge the whole damn thing (Wikipedia) into Wiktionary?Skookum1 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you truly think that disambiguation pages should be part of their primary articles, then you clearly have no idea what an encyclopedia is and should be summarily ignored. —Cryptic 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "I have no idea what an encyclopedia is and should be summarily ignored"???? You've just played your agenda, which is already clearly stated as mergist/deletionist, but saying I should be ignored because I dispute your definition of what disambig pages are for? Hmmmm - why not just have me shot instead?Skookum1 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, as it's referenced and is a clearly appropriate merge target for chink and chinaman; whether it then proves suitable for onward merging won't really be clear until that's done. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment immediately above (made at the same time you were making yours) about the other non-ethnic usages of Chinaman, and also about performers and others who use it in the modern era as a self-identifier.Skookum1 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read many comments here, and am more than ever convinced that we should use this title to amalgamate all these closely-related articles. I see a lot of passionate argument, and a lot of calmness from Uncle G (which is normal for Uncle G, he is very good at this kind of thing) and others advocating retention. We need to collect all the information in one place, sort it, weight it, and then decide if that's the best title. Of the various articles, this is the most neutral and the most comprehensive. It's not a tough call, in my view. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bad-faith attempt by Uncle G to get around previous deletions. Realkyhick 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has no merits that are not already contained in other articles. This is a "bad faith" article, period.Skookum1 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no previous deletions involved here at all, as you can see by looking at the deletion log, so this is hardly an attempt to get around any, of whatever faith. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a POV fork. Author's intentions do indeed play a part in the deletion:

“

POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus.

”

• falsedef 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is no a POV fork. You don't have another article on thye same topic, "Ethnic slurs for Chinese people". You have only separate article for each slur. An overview of the multitude of terms is an independent topic, and is not new in published research. `'mikka 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about?? There's already, as noted above, List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent. There are lots of separate-slur articles for all ethnicities, don't pretend there aren't.Skookum1 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And would you like the date stamps for (a) Uncle G's last edit prior to the merge at Talk:Chinaman or its article, (b) the inception of this article and (c) the posting of the merge template on Chinaman??? I shouldn't have to dig them out for you, as they're clear as day and you seem to know your way around Wikipedia. Falsedef is TOTALLY RIGHT concerning the passage he's just quoted about "POV forks" - I didn't know that term before but that's EXACTLY what this article is, and EXACTLY what Uncle G did. Give your head a shake if you can't see that.Skookum1 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, what a dynamite afterparty. I'm gonna hand out chill pills and vote Keep on this one; I don't see what's invalid or POV about it at all. JuJube 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from distribute the "chill pill" (slang words euphemise harmful poison). Legal repercussion will result.203.27.90.236 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've just made a legal threat, which perhaps accounts for your hiding behind an IP address. This is a blockworthy offense, more than most.....for the record this IP address traces to the Australian Capital Territory.Skookum1 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And PS - I don't think you know the context that JuJube was making; it wasn't a reference to libel chill; a chill pill is sort of a tranquilizer, and not "slang words euphemize harmful poison". A chill pill is a tranquilizer, not a poison. Lies and misdirection are what's poison.Skookum1 07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the 'reference to legal repercussion' comment was more like a 'Hey dont give ppl drugs, you might get arrested dude' than an 'I'm gonna sue you bitch' comment. Though its hard to tell, I wish there was a minimum english proficiency requirement for Wikipedia Jörg Vogt 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would exclude about half the native English speakers in the world ;-). At least.Skookum1 08:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting that there's no article on libel chill....I suppose it must be in Wiktionary, but it seems eminently suitable as an article topic, no?Skookum1 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow, I don't even know what "libel chill" is. Some of you really do need to take chill pills. Then I'll throw down a facedown, and that'll be it! ^_^ JuJube 12:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please open your eyes, and your mind, and have a read (esp. Uncle G's posts/edits) on Talk:Chinaman and the related disambig's talkpage (not sure ifh he's there as there was bait-and-switch between the two pages, as the disambig page had originally been the plain-name Chinaman page).Skookum1 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skookum1, please stop at once this quite long and boring personal attack, for which you may be blocked. The louder you shout, the less people are listening to you. If you have something agains user UncleG, please there are the corresponding administrative pages for personsl dispute resolution. A wikipedia article must be judged by its resulting merits, not by discussions in talk pages. Mukadderat 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Request' I would like to ask an admin who happen to see this page to start deleting all texts that are irrelevant to the merits of the current article: history of creation, editors intentions, etc. are irrelevant to the basic principles of wikipedia: verifiability, notability, citing sources and no original research. Mukadderat 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Skookum is saying is totally relevant so that people can establish that this article is indeed a POV fork. This may not be obvious until, as Skookum suggested, you look at the corresponding talk pages and edit histories.Zeus1234 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that only about 10% to 20% of each of Skookum's comments are relevant. He usually has a point, but it's all hidden in between comments about how people who disagree with him are prone to hysterics and are generally hiding some evil ulterior motives which he always sees through, or comments about how he's missing the sunshine outside and how he's bored with editing an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking of soft-pedal attacks - Hong is always claiming (like Uncle G) that my posts are irrelevant, but that's only because they don't want to see the relevance (other editors do). As for the weather remark, that was to a friendly editor who'd asked me to do something, but I'd been dealing with the inanities of this page for hours and needed a break - and if you lived in the rainiest major city in the world that just came through the rainiest, gloomiest March in history, you'd want to have gone out in the sunshine too.Skookum1 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the above is a perfect example of what I mean. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And your response here is a typical example of your sniping; say something about someone, then when they defend themselves or explain to others why the snipe is just a snipe, attack them for defending themselves...Skookum1 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And as another editor here reminded me via email, those who dwell on attacks on your writing style are people who have nothing valid to say, so resort to writing style-attacks because it's all they can come up with to throw mud in the water further.....Skookum1 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Deletion of posts on an AFD? Now that's unprecedented. And that I have to point at Uncle G's motives and behaviour in order to explain why this page is a piece of redundant twaddle is entirely because this page is entirely a creation of Uncle G and no one else. But why is it that YOU, Mukadderat, are attacking what you claim is a "long and boring personal attack" when Uncle G's (and HQG's) ongoing attacks on my writing style, my personality, and more, go unchallenged. It seems to me you've taken one side while ignoring the other. But I'm learning pretty rapidly in Wikipedia that people who don't want to see what they don't want to see will claim it's not there, and what they want to see they wilol, if necessary, invent - or grossly distort. I have been subjected to repeated attacks on this page, many of them "soft-pedalled" but still attacks, and you haven't had a problem with that. One-sided persecuttion combined with active censorship is what yo'ure asking an admin to do. All very ironic because the whole issue with the article this one was created to eradicate is focussed around censorship and manipulation and ethnoparanoiac hype.Skookum1 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, my critiques of Uncle G on this page have to do with his conduct here as much as anywhere else, such as his circular and tautological arguments about duplicate articles as rejoindered by David Levy (apples, oranges, and fruits referenced together), and the many, many times he's misled the community on this page with assertions either about articles or about the contexts of arguments, or in a glaring case of misdirection above, labelling a link with something that's not what the link indicates. Smug, sniping comments abound from Uncle G on this page; but I'm not asking an admin to censor them because they're "boring" (and they are). But you want Wikipedia to censor debate, just as Uncle G wanted to censor an article and, failing that, created another to suit his tastes. It's that article that should be deleted, not any of my posts discussing why, or defending myself against Uncle G's puerile sniping and ongoing deceptions and misrepresentations on THIS page; that reference is necessarily made to the Chinaman article and its talkpage is because it was in THAT arena that Uncle G didn't get his way and so "came over here" and made his own sandbox. "It's my shovel and bucket and you can't play!". And from his little sandbox, he throws sand at anyone trying to come in and fix it (or, because it's in the wrong location and doesn't have proper zoning, tear it down).Skookum1 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is fairly well written and well referenced. And the endless personal attacks on User:Uncle G are not very complelling reasons for deletion. Edison 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Going with Keep here, despite my abstention above. In review of the...well, I can't call it a debate any longer. But at any rate, in review of the above, the only reasons that would compel deletion are, as near as I can tell, personal attacks against Uncle G. To echo Edison, above, that isn't very compelling, and in fact flies in the face of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - and then slaps both in the face hard and repeatedly with about four reams of paper. But, that statement aside, while we still have a dicdef problem, we have a more compelling reason to keep: the fact that it provides a fairly comprehensive etymology against these terms that can be fleshed out. --Dennisthe2 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your opinion, but I hope that you aren't implying that I've engaged in personal attacks. —David Levy 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise.--Keefer4 | Talk 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, you guys are being quite civil. =^_^= I guess I just dissent from the other consensus, if not indirectly. --Dennisthe2 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And your are being misled if you think the etymologies here are comprehensive. They are anything BUT and have been chosen and written out by Uncle G with a decidedly POV tone (such as his interpretation of the reason/effect of song titles, which I just deleted as being obviosly POV and OR as well. The comprehensive ethmology for Chinaman can be on that page, for Chink on that page, just like Gweilo has its etymology and isn't submerged into the ethnic slurs page (but perhaps it should be, as it's not even an English word....). The selective picking of evidence here, with stuff that Uncle G doesn't like being branded "irrelevant" or just ignored (as with all the evidence he ignores/castigates at Talk:Chinaman....and actually he rarely attacks the evidence, as he rarely answers to evidence but instead starts complaining about the way other people write; which is the tactic of somebody who has nothing valid to say, enit? And don't pretend that only Uncle G has been criticized (not attacked); how can you not see the various defamtory attempts of his on this page, and also his misrepresentation of what others are saying (whether it's me, David Levy, Keefer4, or anyone else). This article continues to be his own tub-thump about what he sees as linguistic prejudice; but he's unwilling to examine his own. And THAT is inherently POV.Skookum1 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shut up, Skookum1. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I'd imagine you'd like me to "stop" confronting people with the truth that they are so ardently in denial of. See WP:Civil.Skookum1 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The only "truth" I see you confronting people with is that you are making personal attacks. Perhaps you, too, should read WP:CIVIL, because it's self-evident by your own actions that you've forgotten how to behave that way. At any rate, I am going to agree to disagree with you, and end my participation in this with my signature. If you like, you can even have the last word! --Dennisthe2 07:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. very negative tone. Seems to inspire bizzarely fanatical debate.Aleksi Peltola 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if necessary merge into a ethnic slurs page.: What a mess. Big POV problem. Inspires hateful discussions. Unencyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. No legitimate reason for deletion. Not OR.Biophys 02:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is OR, and is also a POV fork, which is worse. How OR it is can be seen by the material placed by Uncle I which I deleted as being obvious editorializing/interpretation, albeit using carefully selected cites.Skookum1 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see why Chink, Chinaman and this article can't coexist. The latter seems to be a reasonable overview summary with potential to bring a big-picture perspective. However, I see value to the two other articles giving detail not appropriate in the summary article. In a paperless environment why worry about some minor redundancy. The beauty of WP is the ability to cross reference. --Kevin Murray 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that there is a lot of heat and little light being generated by personal attacks on writers. Uncle G is persistent in supporting his position, but he is a well respected and prolific contributor to WP, who should receive at minimum the common courtesy due to us all. --Kevin Murray 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G supports his position by misrepresenting it, misrepresenting the contents of other articles, misrepresenting the contexts of the other articles, misrepresenting the comments even of the oth3er participants of this page (and I don't mean myself; and David Levy is not alone in rejoindering him for presuming to mirepresent his posts), and misrepresenting the nature of the resources; and misrepresenting even a link, so as to make a personal attack rather than to actually feed that linhk to what it was titled as. He invokes Wiki principles while outreageously violating them. Such behaviour is not "common courtesy" and he's not the only one here with copious contributions to Wikipedia. Just because he's obtinate in his deceptions and misdirection and posturing doesn't mean he's being persistent in any kind of admirable way; he's persistently misrepresenting people, misrepresenting the words that are the focus of the debate, and even citing Wiki guidelines while actively editing them to suit his position. I can't believe you other people who've been sucked in by him. No, actally I can, unfortunately.Skookum1 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • it's quite "cute" that in his just-recent edit, he calls David Levy's response "bogus" and then elsewhere talks about how "our Wiki guidelines and principles", as if he were the spokesman for Wikipedia, and he consistently uses "we" and "our" around here in a way no one else does; and in this case it's again really UGLY for him to say "our Wiki guidelines" when, in the course of citing one recently, he went over to WP:NOTE and changed it so it would fit his cite (and postscript, as I just looked at WP:NOTE how curious that another POV-flavoured edit was just made by Kevin Murray, similar to Uncle G's, and is another case in point of people obsessing over guidelines and principles while actively editing them. That's called moving the goalposts in mid-game, baby. That's meddling, it's dishonest, and it's typical; he's made edits on pages/talkpages in question that have nothing to do with the deceptive edit comments that accompany them with him. He's a wheedler and dissembler and also a slanderer of other people's positions here, over and over and over. If that's a personal attack and I get blocked for pointing out what is SO OBVIOUSLY THE TRUTH about his conduct, then I cry SHAME!! and will in future regard the campaign here to "sell" this page (Uncle G's pet project, and full of misrepresentations as a result and by default) as a prime example of passive-aggressive/hyperbureaucrat mentality passive-aggressives who throw rule after guidline after rule after guideline at other editors, hiding their own agenda behind technicalities and the a pretense of procedural propriety, with no thought of principle but of using the "system" to get their way and to soft-attack others whose input they want to silence, and if the person stands up for themselves to the calm-faced aggresion of those talking principles loudly and repeatedly while not actually applying them to their own behaviour/posts.....why, then accuse them of personal attacks, even better if you can provoke them with your obstinacy into saying something angry; it's classic passive-aggressive behaviour and also of "nattering nabobs of negativity"; as always with passive-aggressives, they control their language so as to not seem aggressive, but revel in accusing others of aggression. Skookum1 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum, your reference to my work at WP:N is unwarranted slander, and as a matter of fact I oppose Uncle G there; however, I respect his dedication, while not always his opinion. Your attempt to link us in cabal of sorts demonstrates your mendacity, ignorance, or both. You brought this battle to the WP:N talk page and have only attracted more attention to your erroneous position. You are the best argument for your oppositions' position. --Kevin Murray 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two key passages of Bo Yang's speech, linked on that article page, as they're very a propos of the conduct and attitudes of Uncle G here:

• • • • Chinese people simply don't understand the importance of coopera- tion. But if you tell a Chinaman he doesn't understand, he will sit down and write a book just for you entitled The Importance of Co-operation.
      • Chinese people can be extremely convincing when they talk, thanks to their remarkably nimble tongues. If you believe what they say, there is nothing they cannot do, including extinguishing the sun with a single breath of air, and ruling the world with a single flick of the hand. In the laboratory or examination hall, where no personal relationships are involved, Chinese can produce impressive results. But when three fiery Chinese dragons get together, they can only produce about as much as a single pig, or a single insect, if that much. This is because of their addiction to infighting.
      • Those of you who live in the United States know that the people who harass Chinese people the most are other Chinese, not Yankees. It takes a Chinaman to betray a Chinaman; only a Chinaman would have a good reason to frame or slander another Chinaman.
      • And I stress that the use of "Chinaman" there is Bo Yang's own, his choice of translation for zhuong guo ren. Source page is http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~mszonyi/280/280doc/Bo_Yang.htmlSkookum1 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for pointing at a very interesting article by a prominent person. Being a former citizen of the Soviet Union, I very much understand what he is writing and why. I would recommend to read this essay to everyone. But what this has to do with this vote? Man, your passion will break your heart. Cool down. `'mikka 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has to do with the conduct of this page's proponent, and also with the use of the word chinaman by chinese themselves; in this case Bo Yang himself has chosen it even though the original Chinese is "ugly Chinese person". The pretense of the page overleaf is that somehow all these words were coined by english speakers to defame/degrade Chinese with, but in actuality "Chinaman" has been used all along by chinese people themselves, both in North american and without; just by those with less ideological/political pretensions; that this page (the article) lumps non-derisive terms with derisive terms, but dwells on the derisive ones and on the derisive aspects of those that can be both is a demonstration of its POV-ness, and it's not-so-hidden agenda. I'm sure Bo Yang himself would find this discussion very revealing.....in fact maybe I'll email him about it.....Skookum1 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And I'm "outta here" for the day as I've got real-world things to do. So have a field day, boys; let the insults and put-downs and misdirections and misrepresentations fly, couched in nice soft-spoken language as usual.Skookum1 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You already said this on another Talk page about 15 minutes ago. On what other Talk pages are you going to announce your exit for the day? Go on and lead your life already. There's sunshine out there to enjoy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You just can't stop making personal snipes, can you, Hong? Taking shots at me when you think I might not be around to answer reminds me of past conduct of yours....and it's grey-bright outside today, not sunny (yet).Skookum1 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The whole point of my reply was that I know you're still sitting there browsing on WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge elsewhere, then Delete. Merge any useful material into other articles, then delete. The references to this being a 'fork' agrees with my reading that there is something not quite 'right' - it is a somewhat stilted 'background' on some dicdefs. That a combined article on multiple terms would be a good overview/orientation is kind of obvious. That doesn't seem to have been the result here. I read Gweilo and Chinaman and wonder why it the quality isn't as good here. Could a combined overview be part of a China-related project, Chinese outside of China, though even that might end up having to be several articles, e.g. Chinese in Malaysia, Chinese in Indonesia. Shenme 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The pretense held by Uncle G and his claque is that this page is NPOV and cited; but I've gone through and marked LOTS of POV comments and phraseology that are uncited, and taken out DUMB material like "Chinawoman" (google that, if anything it's a neologism used as a name by a woman in Nelson BC, but in all my readings of North american history I've seen it maybe THREE times; usually women were also "chinamen"); editors who want to understand why I think this page has a POV agenda, and has been structured to hide or ignore material that disputes the principle author's very blatant agenda are invited to review my recent edits of this morning, and of lst night, and Uncle G's reversal of last night's. Important non-offensive uses have been buried within passages about offensive terms, e.g. what's "chinaboy" doing right next to the ship/porcelain usages anyway???? No doubt Uncle G is going to remove my additions, and tell me that Mark Britten doesn't exist, and won't read Bo Yang's article (that's now cited in situ) in which Bo explains why he chose to use "Chinaman" in his English translation. All kinds of lists of pejorative claims/words have been idnividually cited, as they're clearly interpretations of Uncle G and not in any source provided; fine to provide a source, even better if it actually states what the person citing it is claiming it's a cite for. Picking and choosing cites/authors who agree with him, while deliberately leavingt out so much else that doesn't, or masking it under cover of mentions of other things, or demanding fact templates for things he KNOWS exist (like the comedian "The Chinaman" and yeah, I had his name remembered wrong but Mark Britten exists and is very real, despite someone's attempt to delete the original stub within two minutes of its creation. Anyway, the bandwagon and tub-thumping from Uncle G will no doubt continue today; I've added important bits and challenged and zero'd in on blatantly POV material and structure in this page; the Chinee section was moved to its own, as again (as with Chink before) Uncle G was trying to postiion "Chinaman" alongside more overtly discrminatopry words so as to obscure its ongoing non-offensive nature to many people. Oh - "many" is a weasel word, like "some" - funny that he gets away with using those, but whenever I do Hong Qi Gong jumps all over me and deletes them. Everybody here knows what a double standard is, and what hypocrites are, so there's no need for further comment in that department.Skookum1 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colleague, what you said just above is a normal process of editing wikipedia articles. Of course, we don't claim that UncleG wrote absolute truth. You pointed out or fixed prtoblems with his article, very good. This is how wikipedia works: no one is perfect. At the same time it is a fact of note that in English language certain nationalities have a disproportional number of ethnic slurs. (How many English ethnic slurs you know for, say, Kurdish people or Albanians? and how many for African Americans?) Therefore this topic is of curiosity, and if there are books that cover this topic (I assume the books quoted in the article are such ones), all the more the article deserves to be in wikipedia. Mukadderat 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article, apparently, is not specifically to do with ethnic slurs, however.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So its author claims.....Skookum1 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Chink is currently used as a general term against all Asians, not just Chinese. The article title is very restrictive and misleading. Right now, the article says it's about English names for Chinese people, but it's really just covering ethnic slurs. If this article were to be NPOV, then it'd have WAY more information about "Chinese" (the word), since Chinese is the accepted English name for Chinese people. Its very disproportionate and is trying to mash all these terms into Original Research categories (Chink and related names has and had words of no relation to Chink in etymology). It's a POV fork, since Ungle G is really just trying to associate terms through his own POV, by creating a new article and hoping all the other ethnic slurs will get merged into it. Some of the information was just verbatim copy and paste from other ethnic slur articles. You'd pretty much have to rewrite all the titles in this article to maintain NOR. These words have their own context. A big part of understanding slurs is understanding their different contexts and histories, which this article fails to do so appropriately and probably couldn't do since some of the words have no association and OR context (e.g. ricer does not belong in this article, since it's a general term for Asians, not a term for Chinese).falsedef 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, I'm bored with this silly game where rational intelligent people like Falsedef and Keefer4 and David Levy are insulted and told that they said something different than what they said, and then the "if you make a lie big enough and tell it often enough people will eventually believe it" crowd repeats its mantras of "duplicate article" and "Wiki guidelines" and "citability" and false claims of NPOVness. Hopefully the deciding admin here is fully capable of seeing the paucity of the arguments of the promoter of this page and his defenders (who, funny, all say the same things, and never really talk issues, or when they do simply obfuscate them). In any case, last night's reversal of my attempts to introduce balance to this article were all labelled "damage" by Uncle G, and places where I placed fact templates on his qualifications of material from various sources - choices of wording, things left out, things not admitted to, things distorted - ALL was obliterated by the self-appointed author of this nuisance of a pag, all while wrapping himself in the Wiki flag, while enforcing a clearly POV edit agenda on this page. Claims from him that it is NPOV are now ridiculous in the wake of this edit. Many of the things he claims are cited are NOT in the citations not in the way he has presented them, and corrections of unsubtantiated editorializations of his that present a different perspective than "the English language is very racist against Chinese people" were all taken out (that's the real title/subtext of this article, as is painfully clear by now). Furthermore, here he is over on the WP:NOTE page insisting on mutiple, substantial references; yet few of his POV citations here, i.e. citations supporting POV wordings and choice of content, few of them have more than one cite. And if Pearl Buck says something about the 19th Century - if she said it in the way that Uncle G is presenting it,that is (which I find doubtful) - where are her citations?? A lot of these interpretive comments from modern historians/politicos, also, are NOT borne out by actual evidence. The basic point is that he's only citing one for a lot of these, not the "multiple" cites he's rewriting the guidelines for, apparently so he can take out one-point cites of things he doesn't like. But in this case he's taken a lawnmower, as he has before, to any attempt to substantially change the content/structure of the page to a more NPOV level. I've been wary of legitimizing the page by trying to contribute to it; now that my latest round of attempts to instill balance into it, and to correct his LIES and challenge his FALSE interpretatinos and editorializations of what evidence he chooses to cite (and the deletions of evidence he wants to have ignored), I think it serves as ample evidence that this page properly belongs on User talk:Uncle G/Sandbox and nowhere else. He's behaving with "ownership", and isn't that a very big important wiki guideline? How come he's not wrapping himself in THAT one? Anyone here who's had Uncle G tell them that they said something other than what they said, or watched him "answer" a question which you hadn't actually asked, or listen to him expound "duplicate article, duplicate article" without being able to prove it, must inherently realize that it's the same as his false citations and misrepresentations of citations; it doesn't matter what someone else says, even a cited work - it only matters what Uncle G says it says. There's also the highly POV juxtapositioning if items - like the mention of Frank Chin being tucked in between the kid's taunts and other derisive material, and branding Chin "in the amelioration camp" (an inherently POV statement, as it suggests that amelioration of the term was needed); as is also the case with hiding the original ship and porcelain dealer meanings of the word in amidst a bunch of other derisives, immediately followed up by "china boy", which of course directly connects to the relevance of the ship and porcelain dealer meanings, doesn't it? Other similar obfuscations and downplayings abound, and biased langauge is everywhere, even the structure of the article is biased as he lumps unrelated terms together; Chinaman and Chink should be separate sections - but then they're already separate, and much more thorough and much more NPOV than this article; and don't presume to equate terms that shouldn't be discussed in teh same section, except in terms of painting them all with the same garish and ugly POV brush. His lumping Chinee and Chinaman in the same section is the same thing as trying to merge Chink and Chinaman articles; lumping chink and ching chong together was ridiculous, and there's more such garbage now all over this page. I tried to straighen this out, but he branded it "garbage",which far more aptly as just used by me fits his material overall, and reversed it all so as to keep to the ethnic-slurs basis of his view of all these words, and his obvious hatred for anyone who disputes his version of things, despite the pretense of calm and citations and wiki guidelines and rule-pulling/waving. But oh well, it's clear that any attempt to legitimize this page with real content, whether now or after the AFD is closed and (god help us) this article survies, it's Uncle G's personal property and he's NOT going to allow anyone else to reshape or contribute to its contents, unless through his POV lens. I surrender to his supporters, who have helped me see the one true light: Uncle G is godlike in his wisdom, Uncle G is calm, Uncle G is a superior being, Uncle G is right and anyone else who's against him is mean and stupid. yeah, uh-huh, ok. see ya later.Skookum1 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skookum, I support the deletion, but you have to realise that these long drawn-out comments and replies have the potential to move an AfD toward a "no-consensus" decision. Maybe this article will be deleted, maybe it won't. But basically, what I'm saying is this - if you want to see the article deleted, make your point clear and then refrain from making these long comments. I can almost guarantee you that most people have stopped reading your comments in their entirety. I know I have. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • OK, Hong, but you never read my comments in full, and always disregard them; other people do read them, even if you can't/won't. But in the case of the "above" it was such a cleaer violation of NPOV in this latest policing of the page it had to be spelled out. I have my own writing style, and debating style; it's time for you to stop attacking that, and stick with the issues. And the issue here is, thank you, "delete delete delete".Skookum1 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.