This is an archive of a previous VFD. Do not edit this page

===============

List of ethnic slurs was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Delete: a bulk of slang is not factual and normally used in segregated groups. some is not offensive and some parts are completely non factual. for one, the term "wog" is actually a parasite which has come from an outside place, not a golliwog. The page sems to have missed its target entirely. Some of the entries on the list might be highly offensive ot some, whereas others are not insulting. There are even some which are not racial, not slurs, or possibly neither. Following the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute would result in almost all (if not all) of the entries being tagged as ((dubious)) in the context of being "racial slurs". Chris 02:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• It's interesting. It's doesn't strike me as particularly appropriate to an encyclopedia. I'd certainly want to see a citation on each item, if it's to be kept, or we are going to get a lot of junk on a page like this. Is there somewhere more appropriate to transwiki this? Maybe the Wiktionary? -- Jmabel 03:16, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. And since when is "Canadian" a race? — Gwalla | Talk 03:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's as encyclopedic as any other list. I admit I'm tempted to go in and cut out the large fraction of them that are highly obscure or non-racial. --Yath 04:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • <!-- I figure that if you did that, you'd be left with a empty list, and empty lists are not encyclopaedic. --> Chris 14:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Nor are, in my opinion, non-empty lists, usually. Delete --Improv 16:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic and fascinating, and will grow in size and accuracy. Offensive, yes, but so is much of our other material. We seem to have a practice of not censoring articles just because they contain offensive material, just so long as there are no offensive statements presented as being supported by Wikipedia. I think this article conforms successfully. Andrewa 17:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • D Define "encyclopaedic". It is already massive and in many places inaccurate. The fact that some of them are offensive was neither here nor there in the nomination. In fact, that some of them are not offensive (and therefore not slurs) is part of the problem. I also draw your attention to points 2, 3, and 5 of What Wikipedia is not. In addition, the entries on the list are unverifiable (quite a few of them being idiosyncratic), and I firmly believe that it is beyond any help that Cleanup could provide. The individual entries might (if they can be verified, which they probably can't) be suitable for Wiktionary, but not here. As if you didn't already know, delete. Chris 17:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comments: I gather you mean Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#What Wikipedia entries are not. Point 3 here is the only one of your points that gives me any pause at all, here is not the place to philosophise on encyclopedic, and accuracy is not a grounds for deletion for example. But this is a good point. It's not as clear-cut as it first looks, both points 3 and 5 are qualified. No change of vote, but good point. Andrewa 06:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. May be not all of them are offensive, but vast majority of them are disparaging. Mikkalai 04:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite inaccuracies, deleting simply is out of question. A problem with defining a "slur" is it's more often than not "I say it's a slur so it is" by both sides and impossible to confirm. For example, "Nip" is listed as a slur in US, but British used this as a short form for a Japanese at least in 1900s. It was used even on a celebrated occasion so unless writers (all of them died quite while ago) could be called up and they claim it was a slur, no final verdict can be given. The very best thing is to provide informations on when and where they were used. Deleting will simply scatter these terms across articles and someone will simply make a list again. Revth 06:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and perfectly encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 14:28, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Perfectly encyclopedic? What encyclopedia have you seen that had lists of any sort, much less lists of this kind of cruft? --Improv 17:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Er, we have many, many lists already. Unless you want to mount a single-handed campaign to get rid of all of them (seems fairly pointless to me, but hey, if that's what makes you happy...), this is as good as any other. And, incidentally, I've seen plenty of encyclopaedias with lists. The Britannica, for one. Take a look if you don't believe me. -- Necrothesp 23:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Inaccuracies should be fixed, as with any article. That some of these are slurs in certain times and places but not in other times and places should be noted either here or in another article to which this list redirects. And many voting for deletion here don't seem to notice these are called ethnic slurs, not racial slurs. Then they wrongly blame the article for not only including racial slurs. Jallan 16:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty much equal-opportunity ethnic/racial slurs; though there may be room for some editing, there does not appear to be any sort of agenda. Denni☯ 02:25, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
• Keep. Simply fix the inaccuracies, and all shall be well.Finished 07:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Just looking over it, I figure at least 90% of them either need a reference to prove they're not just made-up, neologisms or idiosyncracies. Of course, if anyone can enlighten me as to why "abomination" is purely a racial slur, feel free. Chris
• Keep, though some cleanup may be in order.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 07:23, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, a useful resource which I have personally used before. StuartH 13:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: It's intriguing anon comment moved off the VfD page
• Keep. Those who argue that it's not 'encyclopedic' don't, IMHO, seem to get the idea of the Wikipedia (but I only discovered it last weekend, so who am I to judge?). If it's inaccurate, then others will improve it. Surely that's the whole point - no one comes here expecting complete 'accuracy', do they? I thought the list was interesting and well worth keeping. Jerry cornelius 04:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. If anything it is a continual update on what is considered dereogetory (anyone remember what "flapper" meant?)
• Keep. I found it useful to look up an obscure term.
• Keep. Its not nice, its not good, but people need to know some things anyway.

(None of the above three comments are signed...)

• Keep. WhisperToMe 22:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. While it has a lot of issues (wikification, clarification, accuracy, etc), those can be fixed over time. The basic concept of the article is encyclopedic. Kaszeta 13:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.