![]() | This is an RfA talk page.
While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
|
we have an entire article on n*****" (quote censored). If we cannot freely and openly discuss a subject without fear, how can we expect to cover the world without bias and without censorship. The term "**** Flu" is notable and there is nothing wrong with L293D accepting it at AfC. If I had known about the AfD, I would have loudly and strongly advocated for keeping it. IMO, redirecting it was the wrong decision. A lot of ink has been spilled on the subject, enough to clearly show that it passes GNG. Maybe it should be a section in a larger article, but the fact that the word is barely covered in List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic is an indication that we have failed to give it its due weight. What is offensive is such censorship. We need to stop being so f***ing sensitive. There is another word that should not be censored. Because it is a f***ing great word for indicating emphasis. If a user tells you to "go f*** yourself", block them immediately. If they say, that is "f***ing hilarious" or "F***" needs to be promoted to FA, leave that user the damn alone and do not CENSOR them. Again, I hate that I had to censor myself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should be running around dropping racial epithets to make a point like some 4chan edgelord.As if that was what the user was doing. Drmies wrote:
Don't y'all think that this is just some white privilege surfacing? Why does it often seem as if such conversations are really just a good excuse to use some racist term?These are personal attacks that have nothing to do with what was being discussed. It derails the AfD and makes it about the user behavior and not the subject at hand. I have seen white privilege operate on Wikipedia, in article space, and have been trying to point it out. But at the mere mention of race, people see red.
when commenting on politically charged subjects, people will often mischaracterize your arguments and rarely assume good faith". True, that is exactly what happened but I would have said "misunderstand" and "fail to assume good faith". They continue: "
which means that I will have to be much more careful in the future if taking part in this kind of discussion.. Their point on the AfD is correct, the page is not an attack, unlike Obama bin Laden, which is an attack on a living person.
It's obviously not possible to avoid all mention---which is why we have NOTCENSORED---but in many cases like the AFD incident, spelling out a slur can and probably should be avoided.Unlike the examples you bring up, at no point was the term "Nigger" the subject of that AFD; it was brought up independently by the candidate and that reflects on him, his thought process, and his judgment. We do not need to enumerate every slur to make the point that we have articles on slurs. We have Category:Ethnic and religious slurs or List of ethnic slurs, both of which are more comprehensive and less prone to start a flame war when compared to listing slurs yourself. This is easy to say with hindsight, but it is simply not true that the only options were spell out slur, bowlderize, or keep silent.The concerns here in this RFA, are not about whether the AFD had the right outcome or whether L293D's overarching point was correct. My understanding reading the original comment and the opposes here is that the concerns are: why did the candidate feel comfortable listing a bunch of slurs in a contentious AFD and does that reflect the appropriate level of clue we want in our administrators? The opposition came to one conclusion, and you seem to disagree---I'm still thinking it over myself. What I am sure of is that this RfA will quickly get out of hand if people continue to talk past each other.As a black person in the US myself, I've been the target of slurs, been privy to intracommunity discussion about reclamation, and considered my place in that debate. I have friends who abhor even hearing "nigga" and others who use "nigger" politically to discomfort white people in discussions of race and positionality. As a linguist I've discussed their properties with colleagues who study them, and we frequently have discussions about how to have these academic conversations in a way that is both rigorous and conscientious. I am trying to point out that there are a wide range of opinions on this topic, many of which have already shown up in this RfA, and we cannot simply dismiss them out of hand. If this RfA continues to focus on the AFD incident, we need to be very deliberate about understanding each other, and I hope you take this and my previous comment as an attempt to clarify the dispute rather than berate you. — Wug·a·po·des 01:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
why did the candidate feel comfortable listing a bunch of slurs in a contentious AFD? Because they believed like I do that no word is too taboo to discuss or at least mention. That the best way to illustrate the fact that even more taboo words are accepted as topics of coverage on Wikipedia is to list some of the most notable examples. We cannot expect editors to adhere to the principle of least astonishment anywhere on Wikipedia.