Talk:List of ethnic slurs/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Defing Ethnicity

The UK Census office on their site descibes the problem:

How do you define ethnicity?

Definitions of what constitutes an 'ethnic group' or an 'ethnic minority' are subject to much discussion. In fact, there is no consensus on what constitutes an 'ethnic group' and the terminology used to describe these groups has changed significantly over time.

This is because membership of any ethnic group is something that is subjectively meaningful to the person concerned, and can be based upon a combination of categories such as:

  • country of birth
  • nationality
  • language spoken at home
  • parents' country of birth in conjunction with country of birth
  • skin colour
  • national/geographical origin
  • racial group
  • religion

[|How to define Ethnicity| UK Government office of Statistics/Census]

Many of the Slurs in this article concern Class or Political Affiliation. They are not Ethnic slurs. I suggest a BIG re-write of the opening paragraph. Directing Ethnicity to Ethnic groups (a socio-anthropological term) just whacks out every single category you place after it.

I nominated the list for Afd on the grounds that the article is a mis-match for any kind of nonsense people (ok, lets say editors) can think of based on this Broad view of ethnicity. Please formulate a new criteria, and then begin to purge subjects and definitions that do not meet them. For example, Gazpacho made a few deletions under T (why pic on T to start the ball rolling?) after the Afd contributors said it needs a good clean. However, with an opening paragraph that redefines the complete nature of ethnicity or sloppy editing, how can you purge knowing you have done the right thing?

Another example - before Purging the T listings Gazpacho deleted a quite common derogatory name for jews in the UK (Three by Two, its Cockney rymning slang for Jew]] on the grounds that he had never heard of it before. Not hearing of something before is, certainly being BOLD when editing, but sometimes a citation flag will do.

Oh course, I want this List to exist. I nominated in in an attempt for editors to get into action and think properly about what the list is about. Not make it some made zone where you can descibe people 3 streets away as being an ethnicity.

Please do clean up, I am only happy to help and source. but please define ethnicity, in a manner that is used in the real world, not just in this list. Mike33 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


DUB's

Derogatory term used by people outside of Dublin Ireland to refer to Dubliners, standing for Dumb Ugly Bollick's or Dumb Ugly Bastard's. Local Dubliners use it as short for Dubliner. Southside (posh) dubliners use it to refer to Dubarry shoes.

Perry

Perry used to be used as a ethnic slur towards Native American skateboarders around the 1970's in Western New York because of being from the Perry Projects

Native American skateboarders from Western New York? This sounds like it might be far too obscure for inclusion. Unless it was used outside of the community of Western New York skateboarders, it's probably not notable or verifiable enough to warrant an entry. My Alt Account 11:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cappa

can Cappa be added from the Australian term for a South African with Cappa refering to cape town.

Gay does not equal ethnicity

theres a lot of slurs here about gays and lesbians, but its not ethnic. just my two centsJigsaw Jimmy 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Then change the name of the list to simply, 'List of slurs', because it's a lot more conveniant to not have to create another page.


Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information and there are untold thousands of "slurs" of varying importance and obscurity. How about just sticking with a list of ETHNIC slurs. A list of derogatory terms for homosexuals could possibly find its home on another page somewhere. Or not... My Alt Account 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thom

In reference to Jeff's comments below - the question isn't whether or not this article is politically correct or incorrect (I think if Wiki was about that, it would have deemed it 'un-p.c.' and deleted it, rather than having this bizarre conversation about the article's relative merits), the question is why is an article like this necessary? The intention is not to delete it "because it contains..offensive words".

Granted, deleting this entry as a means of censorship is ignoring the problem of ethnic slurring and other examples of intolerance, but noone is trying to censor anything; it is a matter of understanding the purpose of this article and determining whether or not its actually a) in keeping with the Wikipedia spirit, and b) of any practical use to anyone.

To me the whole debate seems absurd, and childish. If it is really necessary to define the meanings of these words, then that should be done either on the Wiktionary, or else within relevant articles that refer to them. In my opinion, there is no purpose whatsoever of compiling a list of offensive words, and its in directly contravenes everything that Wikipedia is about - the words cannot be sourced, their definitions are frequently dubious, and there is no practical (or positive) use for the information contained in the article.

This is not an advocation of ignorance, but rather, common sense: there is no need to assemble an unverifiable list of words of hatred under some pigheaded banner of righteous liberalism! Ignorance may not be for the best, and I again suggest that the words that have need to be explained by Wikipedia can be so within relevant articles, but this list is a perfect example of what SHOULDN'T be in the encyclopedia - it is a list, with a complete lack of useful information. I defy anyone to reasonably argue for its inclusion on these grounds.

Surely that's enough said. bish 19:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree ... wikipedia does not want people to learn saying or typing hate slurs on other races or groups. I question the term "illegal alien" used alot in the immigration debates in America and Europe. In the U.S. that word is directed to Hispanics, as well with Asians and Arabs, not only immigrants who came here legally. "Illegal alien" became a racial term against persons of Mexican/Latino descent. This is not the meaning of the word originated from the INS department a long time ago to mean an undocumented immmigrant or a resident alien with expired visas or permits. That's why it's 'un P-C' to say "Illegal alien/immigrant" in America, esp. the Southwest, Northeast and Florida with a large Cuban community composed of anti-Castro refugees. I just feel we became hyper-sensitive and afraid of anything related to race and diversity, but the only thing we must oppose is bigotry and intolerance to each other, and don't blame problems on other races/peoples. Because of ten to 15 million illegal immigrants reside in the USA and the majority are Hispanic, but includes other nationalities...some US citizens white or black or whoever, assumed any Hispanic/Latino may appear or look foreign enough, and think "he/she must be here illegally." Now this is racial prejudice and nativist reaction against not only immigrants, but anyone who has brown skin, foreign accents and Spanish/other language surnames, based on hysterical fear of America is "taken over" said the US media on the immigration debate. + 207.200.116.71 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff

I agree with the comment below, that this page should not be deleted because it contains (past and present) offensive words. That sort of "politically correct" censorship is misguided and even more repulsive than using these words. Ignorance is never for the best. Nuff said.

Ignorance is bliss? Not really. "Jeff" is a pejorative for a French or German as well is "Jacque" from a common French first name, and "Jerry" is a German soldier from world war I. I wonder how the European versions of wikipedia handle ethnic/national slurs, the same way as Americans? + 207.200.116.71 06:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Shylock

Just noticed my correction has mysteriously reverted to the old error. I have restored it. Glad to discuss it here if someone actually has a problem with it, but perhaps the reversion was unintended. 66.241.86.57 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Shylock is the same meaning and it's offensive towards Jews. I think the term "Dingbat" is used against Jews, as well on Italians and Blacks (in the US as "bats"). Widely used term in Britain, Australia and sometimes the US, popularized by 1970s TV show All in the Family character Archie Bunker. + 207.200.116.71 09:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Chan, chino or chonga

"Chan" is one of the worst pejoratives against Asian Americans, and Chongas meant a temporary Asian worker in the US (China? Japan? or Korea?). The term Chino is said to mean Chinese in Spanish, an Asiatic-looking mestizo from Mexico (Chinatepec), or an American Indian in California (the 1800's). The new pejorative for Hispanics, Asians or those of Asian-Hispanic descent are "chinxicans". Filipinos are called "yellow spicks" by the fact many Filipinos have Spanish names and cultural features from the Spanish colonial era (1521-1898), when the U.S. acquired the islands, independence in 1946. + 207.200.116.71 06:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Chung-Li

A Chinese person basically.

Any evidence that you didn't just make this up? I propose NOT including this term until there is evidence that it's in widespread use. My Alt Account 11:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Farmer John/Hucker

A person from thr Midwest. It's orgin is from that there are a lot of farms in the Midwest and basically talk with a drawl.

'Mex'

An ethnic slur short for "Mexican" has been in long usage since the early 1900's. "Chicano" isn't a bad vernacular term, but "greaser" for a Mexican originated from the occupation of Mexicans oiled or 'greased' wagon wheels, and "brown brother" is a skin color term for Mexicans of various shades "of brown". The racism against Mexicans was strong in the last century, that any Mexican-American was easily a "Mexican" while an Anglo was a "real American". Old pejoratives like "zoot suiter" named for a gang attire of urban Hispanics in the 1940's and "chuk" from the term 'pachuco' as in gang isn't used as much. New pejoratives for persons of mixed Anglo-Hispanic (Mexican) descent "half Jose", "yellow pepper", and "light chocolate", then could be light-skinned African-Americans or bi-racials of white and black parentage. +207.200.116.71 03:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to sourcing

The result of the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs was "No consensus". Among those voting to "keep" a large percentage noted that the list needed to be sourced. I think we need to set an overal deadline to finish this job and when that is met to remove, and keep out, all unsourced terms. I think that one month is a reasonable time, specially since the complaints about lack of sources go back to the previous VfD. I will send a note to those who voted to keep asking them to help with the effort, perhaps by picking a letter to work on. -Will Beback 00:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction: 5 of the 26 people who voted to keep the list mentioned removing unsourced material. This is less than 20% of the total. As for deleting the 92% of the terms that are unsourced--that would be an underhanded way of deleting the list, and consensus is to keep it. I also don't think that one month is enough time to source 1,300 terms.--Primetime 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Our vote counts differ because some votes were ineligible. That's why the result was "no consensus". Anyway, some people suggested moving the unsourced material to a sub page where we can work on it. The material wouldn't be deleted, but the only material in the article itself would be sourced. Of course one month isn't enough time to source 1300 entries. But a year hasn't been enough either. Let's say three months, or four. It can be an article improvement drive. (that worked at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and List of groups referred to as cults, articles where every entry must be sourced). We can solicit help from AfD voters, projects, and other pools of editing labor. But we need to have the goal in the definite future of an article that is at least mostly compliant with WP:V and WP:NOR. This list is not exempt from Wikipedia's policies. The payoff is that a fully-sourced article is easier to maintain in the long run. It puts the direct burden of proof on the editor adding the new material. With the provided reference other editors can verify it easily. Like those other lists, this article will be made better by being fully-sourced. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a hundred percent for moving the unsourced stuff to a holding pen. Do that, you don't even have to set a hard date for deletion; we have a legitimate page the very next day, and can take whatever time is needed to rescue whatever else can be sourced. Your work won't be wasted, Primetime; quite the contrary, it's what we'll keep seeing as you validate and restore entries from the holding pen. This is clearly the best solution. 66.241.86.57 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hiding the terms from general view would be wrong because most of them are correct. I actually took it upon myself to source all entries beginning with the letter a in February. 75% turned out to be correct and 11% of the unsourced entries were in foreign languages I don't know how to reference (e.g., Chinese). Much of the remainder I'm sure were just too rare or new. I might support removing the suspicious slurs to a holding pen, but removing them simply because they're unsourced would be wrong.

Also, I don't have enough time to source every entry in this article myself. I just copied the list into MS Word, and it took up 104 pages. Anyone advocating sourcing entries should help out, preferably by visiting a library and referencing some of the slang and foreign-language dictionaries there. Many libraries allow patrons to check out such dictionaries, and if they're requested through interlibrary loan (ILL), they can always be brought home. The vote we just endured showed that a majority of voters did not want the list removed, and I consider gutting 93% of the terms the same thing as deleting the list. Us inclusionists shouldn't be burdened with all of the research because we don't care as much about the fact that they're unsourced. It's almost not an issue for me. Think about it: Is there such a thing as an "incorrect" ethnic slur? They're not used because they're accurate. They're slurs regardless of whether they're used by one person or a thousand. An argument might be made for proof of worth of inclusion (notability), but that does not seem worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater over. That's why so many voters (me included) assumed that the list was under assault because of the slurs--not because of policy. Indeed, the "Glossary of anatomical terminology, definitions and abbreviations" page has never been nominated for deletion because of the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" or "Wikipedia: Citing sources" policies.--Primetime 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Not sourced" is not an option. WP:V is our core policy. No, the burden of sourcing should not be on "inclusionists" or "deletionists", the burden should be on the editors who add the material in the first place. That's what we're trying to get to. As we're sitting here talking new unsourced entries are being added, two in the last 24 hours. Who is going to source them? I think we should expect the editor putting it in to do so. But unless we've got a fully-sourced list then we can't refuse unsourced items. You seem to think that the lump in th bathwater is a baby. I think it's excrement and should be thrown out. -Will Beback 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be able to get consensus here on the talk page to allow no NEW unsourced slurs while we work on the backlog of EXISTING unsourced slurs. How about it? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoever cannot stand looking at those pejorative words, terms or ethnic slurs should not read it. You don't have to read them and can leave for another web article. I want to discuss two kinds of slurs in America used to anyone not in the same culture or same race, that gets revived for each new group of people targeted by prejudices and are wrongly labeled as such.

I knew some ethnic groups and races are viewed as "drunken", thus it can be held as a pejorative. The Irish, French, Germans, Russians, Mexicans, American Indians and Japanese are labeled as "heavy drinkers" due to cultural rules on alcohol use was held as "drunkenness" in our Anglo-American culture. Other depictions of groups not seen as drinkers are Southern baptists, some Methodists, Mormons, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims and Buddhists, due to religious restrictions on casual drinking out of concern it leads to abuse and immorality.

An universal pejorative for all applicable minorities throughout history is the "ape like image" used not primarily against African Americans in the 1800s/early 1900s America. In newspaper cartoons, the Irish or Italians or Poles, Asians, Hispanics, american Indians, Hawaiians and other races are crudely depicted as primates or sub-humans in one time or another. There's a psychological explanation for highly bigoted people may look down on someone as an animal or an evolutionary throwback, thus results in racial assumptions that get into informal speech and popular culture. + 207.200.116.71 04:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

New talk-page look

AdriaDracis added some categories to this page and the instructions. They also archived many discussions. I fiddled with them a little bit. Does everyone like it? I'm not sure if everyone will follow the format, and the archiving could cut off comment on some discussions. I can still change it back, but the sooner we decide, the easier it will be.--Primetime 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a page organized quite like this. I'm not sure where I'd put a new section. Do what you think best. -Will Beback 10:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I object... it's massively more convenient to see "what's new" on the talk page by just checking from where you last left off and going "down". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll go ahead and restore the old layout. What about the archiving thing? I was thinking about at least keeping some old postings from a certain date on (e.g., October 2005), but it would be OK with me if we restored everything, also, as I've seen some discussions drag on for a very long time.--Primetime 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I just undid the layout and moved the old discussions previously archived (i.e., before March 23, 2006) back into the archive.--Primetime 02:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Revise Title?

Rather than delete entries not specifically ethnic (for example relating to beliefs, religion, and activism), why don't we just change the overall category and title from List of ethnic slurs to List of slurs. That would simplify and consolidate alot of data and not require excessive deletion of knowledge and information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exander (talk • contribs).

It seems that the title should be revised, if only for reasons of accuracy. I noticed "Greasemonkey" included as a slang term for an automotive mechanic, and I'm pretty sure automotive mechanic is not an ethnicity. Nor is homosexuality. I think dropping the word "ethnic" would be a possibility. Or we could split it into two articles... cull-out the non-ethnic slurs and move them to an article called "List of slurs" or "List of non-ethnic slurs." --redjac 16:10, 21 Apr 06 (EST)

The list was meant to discourage, not promote or celebrate hate speech. It's a learning guide on why these words are wrong and bigoted to groups of people, some aren't bad but others like the "N word" are very inflammatory. The rest are impolite and improper to use, then a person from that group may use it in a not so bad/negative manner. Sometimes, words we may find not controversial enough like "gay"/"homo"(sexual), "Jewish" and "retarded" are used in name calling, discrimination and harassment of individuals assumed to belong to that social group. Public schools in the US, esp. in California brought the issue on school children are verbally attacking or using those words in an offensive manner. Socio-economic terms like "redneck", "white trash" and "welfare queen" are sometimes disparaging and divisive to hurt people for their misfortunes related to money or class. And to end the sentence, the word "ghetto" originally meant a closed enclave for European Jews before WWII and then used by the media to indicate a low-income urban area populated by Black Americans. Today this term is applied to any isolated, downtrodden or vacated neighborhood, esp. populated by minority groups and the poor (low-income class). Often "ghetto" is used in negative and prejudicial ways, so alternatives like "inner city" and "disadvantaged groups" may be used when allowed, but those terms can be disparaging when it don't need to be said. + 207.200.116.71 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't let the Politically Correct Thought Police Eliminate or Merge this article

Isn't it ironic that the very same people who want to eliminate or merge this article because "it has no value" or is "racist" are the very same people who scream "censorship" when Jerry Falwell or one of his ilk tries to suppress porn or rap.

Censorship is censorship is censorship. You don't like the word nigger. Too bad.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.201 (talk • contribs). Note: this is an AOL IP

This article is not being recommended to be merged because it is racist, but because no one as established any guidelines as to the difference between a "racial slur" and a "phrase based on stereotypes."
For example, "nigger-rich" can be used against a person of any race, but is still located in this article rather than the later one. A "dutch bath" doesn't even describe a person. Rather, the term is simply derived from a stereotype. Unfortunately, an individual (Primetime, idiot) has decided it should remain in this article.
Jam packed 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
First, the title of the article you think this should be merged into is "List of common phrases based on stereotypes." However, much of these slurs are not "common". Also, can you please tell me what stereotype "alligator bait" is based on? Finally, if you had read the "List of common phrases based on stereotypes" page, you would have noticed the introduction stated it was for slurs in English only.

In any case, it appears as if consensus is against merging the lists, so I am removing your tag.

Primetime 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Do not call me an "idiot" because that it against Wikipedia's no personal attacks as well as civility policies.

You cannot justify a difference between the two articles. The way they're defined, they are EXACTLY the same. And don't try to talk about a word as subjective as "common". What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why is "chinese fire drill" on the phrases page when its own source admits it hasn't been used since the sixties, but "nigger-rich" is on this page when I heard it last week (and can be a slur against a person of any race -- srsly, you might as well include "dumbass").
And why is "paddy-wagon" and "model minority" over there but not over here? And "indian-giver" is here but not in the phrases article (especially when its own entry admits that it is NEVER actually used against indians now-a-days).
You need justification better than "because I decided so". And if no one can articulate a satisfactory explanation (that is, an explanation that does not result in a 90% crossover between the two articles) then they should be merged.
Jam packed 02:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
ps. And "consensus" does not mean "one other dude agrees with me because he completely misinterpreted the intent of merging".
Some slurs belong on both lists, as they are common, slurs, and based on stereotypes. I would not object if you copied and pasted them. I would object if you cut and pasted or deleted them. Also, a possible reason the person above questioned the motivation for the tagging is that when you claimed some slurs belonged elsewhere, you deleted them, and didn't even try to move them. It also looked suspicious when you tried to blank a part of the article without asking anyone if you could do it and even though the terms were neatly entered and well sourced.

As for consensus, there certainly is not any consensus for merging--and you would need that in order to merge the articles. There needs to be acceptance of changes on Wikipedia for them to take place. Your tag has been on the page for over a week now and no one has seconded your motion.--Primetime 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename... Yes, maybe. But the thing is: Most slurs are, like the youth culture they very often spring from, rather shortlived and localised by nature. What one person has experienced as very common in his state need not be known to another person, from the other side of the country, at all. It's a type of Slang, after all. So this article needs either to be deleted completely, because a slur is likely out of fashion before some linguist bothers to compile a new list anyway, or the list will be consistently and hopelessly out of date - or the wikipedian standards will simply need to be applied more loosely in this case, because there is no hard-and-fast resource on common slurs except the people who use them. --TheOtherStephan 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Hmm..hey random people...this is just an anonymous non-user (I'm too lazy to get an account) poking in with a comment...So it seems there's a big mess about all these slang lists and how they should be merged...I say, we make a compromise: We merge all of these lists into a "List of slang terms" and then have individual sub-articles that contain different types of these slang terms, with minimal room for overlapping words. If all of the lists were broken down, it would eliminate the sheer hugeness of the lists, as well as making the lists easier to navigate. _From a fellow Wikifreak_

We never shout profane, vulgar, obscene and hateful words, even children as young as six may know one or a few bad words, but won't mutter them and know those words emotionally hurt people. It may be O.K. to type nigger (but in an examplatory form) here to demonstrate what the word is and why it's bad, then we know better never call people of color that term. Same goes to Bitch, Fag, chink and spick (words I never use really until now in a non-accusatory way not directed to any one of you). I will apologize for typing the words and it may be deleted (or I get a bad letter, plus legal warnings if my state laws restrict that speech). It's the price I pay for free speech as long it's not directed in verbal or written form. Why racial slurs become so unpopular has nothing to do with the P-C movement of the 1990's, but civil rights protests attacked the word (same with "negro" capital or small N, "colored", "black" and crude ways to use "african" to denote a black person) and from millions of African Americans (the only socially acceptable term). As I said before, you can type F-, S-, G-D, etc. in here but proceed with caution and think on the words you typed. It's our responsibility and maturity, and you know that very group can be offended, and there are minors/children reading them. If any of them are here to read it, those words are bad to hurt people's deep feelings because of who they are or what they belong to. + 207.200.116.71 07:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Apache redux

I feel I need to raise this issue again. While the Apache entry is seemingly well-sourced, it is also selectively sourced. A glance at the Apache article proper and a brief amount of research indicates that the origin purported in this list is by no means definitive. Given that the origin is speculative, I am suggesting (again) that Apache be removed from this list. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we just remove the etymology? The "ruffian" sense used in France seems like a slur, and the "savage as an apache sense does, also.--Primetime 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As a person of Cherokee indian descent, hate words against native Americans like "tepee monkey", "prairie n----r", "arrow/spear chucker", "wagonburner" and "redskin" are equally offensive, like myself and my Mom's side of the family. My grandpa is part-Cherokee/osage from Ok. and he remembered racism against minorities was very common. It may not be strong or active today by comparison, but words like those (I apologize for them, esp. I happen to be the same race, although I am white/caucasian) dehumanized native Americans. My father is from France who lived here in 38 yrs. and sometimes when one says stuff about the French, he laughs and said it's dumb and ignorant to say that. I understand in America, any European immigrant comes here would not be prime targets of racial/ethnic hate than Asians, Arabs and Latin Americans receive the color-based racism. How come a group of people indigenous to this continent for 10-20,000 years are treated like outsiders or foreigners? It gets me mad and sad, but then I shove it off and think to myself "It's stupid so I'm not hurt, then don't bother with those words or comments". Others may tell me what if you're full-blooded from a reservation or raised culturally as Indian ... I say everyone of any race, color, creed and ethnicity does not like people to get called names or slurs. I don't know if "ruffian" in France is a local epithet, then France is home to millions of immigrants from North Africa and are called "melons", "bronzes", "camels" and "terrorists". My Dad and his family aren't racist at all, but our family ponders if any Jewish or gypsy descent is evident. In France to bring up a question like this is very difficult, the same goes here to ask if you're part Indian or part black. + 207.200.116.71 08:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bike Stealer

Is this for real? 71.236.33.191 02:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I know the "Nigga stole my bike" your-the-man-now-dog fad is correct.<However, I don't know whether anyone calls other people "bike stealers".--Primetime 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This phrase has been around in the UK for a long time, though not actively used and generally in a sarcastic manner, mocking racists rather than black people. For instance, in a Viz Quiz determining how apt you are to be a policeman, one question was "What would you do if you saw a young black boy who had fallen off his bicycle?". The answer that scored most aptitude points was "Arrest the thieving cunt for stealing the bike in the first place".

An example of common racism (not from the poster, but his/her example of what he/she observe or overheard) is simply blaming all crime, social problems, economic woes and the like on a minority group. This goes on all the time in America against black/African Americans and other minorities. No matter how much we're told never assume a black person (or Latino where I live in Cal.) stole an object from a house, many white people or others would think that way. "Bike stealer" reminds me of what history shown me. The Nazi regime in Germany used these tactics on their Jewish-German victims or other Jews in occupied Europe by using age-old Jewish stereotypes or blame criminal acts like stolen things (i.e. bicycles) on Jews. (or Gypsies viewed as "paupers" and "penny pinchers"). Also to point out other racial offensive terms "boogies", "aunt jemimas", "taco benders" and "cactus monkeys" aren't included (or were removed) from the ethnic slur directory. + 207.200.116.71 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ajnabi

Its not really an ethnic slur because it means the same thing as foreigner, should it be removed or should foreigner be added ?

I'm not sure how useful foreigner would be. Ajnabii, on the other hand, would be useful for non-Arabic speakers who visit an Arab country and hear people saying "Ajnabii" near them. It can be a slur when used with adjectives like stupid, etc. So, I wouldn't stop you if you added foreigner to the list, although it might not be very useful.--Primetime 07:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In Japan, they have their pejorative word: "Hennugeijin", as it means "funny foreigner". The term comes from a history of a lack of visits of foreign groups in pre-1850's imperial Japan, once an isolated island group not just geographically, but is an ancient national policy. The meaning of "funny" is simply how a society views outsiders, due to cultural or racial differences may look odd, strange or 'funny' to a local majority. Modern Japan is different: a major global economic power, technologically advanced, and culturally westernized with evident Eastern roots. There's a dislike for Japan in China and korea, as much Chinese and Koreans are looked down by some Japanese. If you knew your history, wartime Japan invaded, occupied and oppressed east Asia and former territories of Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan. Millions of Koreans and Chinese were killed under militarist rule, but not mentioned by allied judges in the following war crimes trials. Truly I like Japan and this place interests me, so I don't hold grudges against Japan or any nation's doings in the past (whether it's Germany, Russia or France) when it came to wars, colonialism and dictators. I believe the Japanese regret having prejudices on other people, esp. Koreans living in Japan, and its' American and European residents. There must be complete awareness in Japan on what their predecessors committed over 60 yrs. ago. and how Japan moved on to become a peaceful prosperous democracy (the 127th Emperor is head of state like the queen of England or the king of Sweden). Japan can start to cease the term "hennugeijin" used in contempt is not "funny".+ 207.200.116.71 08:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ank" in Asia

In east Asia, an increasingly used pejorative for American and European is Ank, also "Yank" short for Yankee and in Vietnam, "Frank" derives from the French colonial era. Anti-Americanism is on the rise in Japan, Korea and Taiwan by those who feel the U.S. army occupied their lands too much and president Bush's foreign policy. It breeds hate and contempt for Americans, esp. the fear of civil war in Korea between the North and South gets ugly with protestors cry "(Y)ank go home". Colonialism in Asia was brief like the Dutch in Indonesia, British in Malaysia, Spanish/the U.S. in Philippines and the Russian East (and soviet occupation of North korea). Japan continues a dispute with the Kuril Islands with Russia and problems with China-Russia relations. Words and terms are part of the hostility against the West in much of Asia.+ 207.200.116.71 08:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gringo in Latin America

In Mexico and Latin America, gringo is used in contempt and ridicule against Americans. Gringo may mean "grinning" as Americans are assumed to smile alot, or "green" as in U.S. dollars. Another harsh term is "yanqui" or Yankee, and they say "pendejo" means jerk or sell out. In Chile where a rising influx of tourists from the U.S. occurred, they began to call Americans "vastidos" or annoying. There are fresh memories of U.S. involvement in the installment of dictators in South America. Rising anti-American politics like from pres. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela adapt common pejoratives on Americans in his fiery speeches. Fidel Castro uses "yanqui" or "pendejo" every time he described the U.S. and recently, the Mexican national mood began to turn anti-American over the immigration problem. "It's those gringos again don't like us". + 207.200.116.71 08:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, as I speak Spanish pretty good and have spent some time in Mex, where I got into discussions over the origin of this word: it specifically only means Americans and in its proper sense does NOT include Canadians, Australians or Europeans; it does not simply mean "a white guy" (gringa would be a gal, y'see, 'though that's not heard as much for some reason; possibly because a more complimentary guera or guapa would be used instead). And the origin of the word, according to Mexican tradition, is that it was the Mexican battle cry during the American invasion of Mexico City; American troops wore green in that war, and the battle cry when "Green - GO!!"; a differeing account was that this was the American battle-charge rather than the Mexican one; the story I heard was associated with the Battle of Coyoacan (? - battle was just north of Coyoacan; that doesn't redlink so I'm not sure what it's called now) but it may have originated in battles farther north, before the US entry into the Valle de Mexico. It may be that other Latin Americans use it in a general sense, including Canadians; but to my Mexican friends it doesn't.Skookum1 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Darn. You guys don't know what research is. First, gringo most likely comes from the word griego meaning Greek, as in the English term, "That's all Greek to me" i.e. that's unintellible. Someone who is a gringo would have likely been originally someone who didn't speak Spanish, or someone who didn't speak Spanish the way a local spoke. Second, Latin America is not a homogenous region (as many GRINGOS think it is hee, hee). Thus what gringo means in one state in Mexico can be different than what it means in another state in Mexico or in a Province in Argentina or a town in the Hispanic Caribbean or wherever! Just because you were in Mexico doesn't mean that a) you have any crediblity; you can learn that anywhere just go to a library b) that what you did "learn" was factual in anyway, look up folk etymology, (by the way, that "Green-Go" theory is told throughout Latin America, I heard it in the Dominican Republic and in several places in Central America, each nation claiming the word was theirs) and finally c) that you "learned" the universal definition. Typically a gringo can mean ANY of the following: American, American tourists, non-Hispanic whites, English-speakers, Anglophones trying to speak Spanish, amongst others. I've heard gringo used for Canadians and Brits. Then again, that's personal experience, not RESEARCH. Oh and the grinning definition is utter bullshit. Grin is not a word in Spanish. Arthurian Legend 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

really necessary?

is this page necessary? i think not. if it MUST be kept then move it to wiktionary rather than it remaining here. i for one am in favour of deleting it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by petemwah (talk • contribs).

It has already been nominated for deletion three times, and the last debate closed three weeks ago. It was kept by a comfortable margin.--Primetime 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite a few of the keep votes were keep/transwikify, indicating substantial support for moving it. Many other votes were keep/clean up, indicating a dissatisfaction with the sourcing. I think the only objection I've heard from Primetime about moving it to Wiktionary is the effort involved, and the fact that editors there are "more prudish". -Will Beback 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I made quite a few more arguments than that. For a four-paragraph summary of my objections to moving it to Wiktionary, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_slurs. As for the sourcing, I'm working on that. I added nine sources just tonight. In case anyone is about to read my summary on the debate page, one thing I forgot to mention there is that the editors on Wiktionary would probably just delete the list. That's why I mentioned that they're "prudish". I was just being polite. They're jerks.--Primetime 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want it moved then why did you ask me to change my vote to "move", which I did in good faith. -Will Beback 00:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I meant that if I had the choice between moving it and deleting it, I would rather it be moved. I was willing to take a chance if I had to. I tried adding a few terms from this list a couple weeks ago with three citations each and they deleted them! They do whatever they want over there.--Primetime 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, since I last raised the issues of sources on March 27, by my count 51 new entries have been added, 7 entries have been removed, and 27 new footnotes have been added. So we're losing ground as far as sourcing goes. Again, the answer is to move the unsourced entry to a working page, and to require all new additons to be sourced. It's the only way we'll be able to get a list which adheres to Wikipedia policies. -Will Beback 00:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I had to return most of my slang dictionaries to the library a few weeks ago. That's why it's been slow lately. However, I requested an interlibrary loan for another slang dictionary (a very large one). If it doesn't come (I'm sure it will, though), I'll buy one through eBay.--Primetime 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That's generous of you. I think that we need to set a deadline to move the unsourced material out. How about the end of May? -Will Beback 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think the "best" thing we could do would be put a moratorium on NEW unsourced material. I propose we just set a date in the very near future (I don't know, like April 19th at 00:01 UTC) and after that we agree to revert/delete any FURTHER unsourced material as we concentrate on sourcing the EXISTING material. Does that sound like the sort of thing that we could reach consensus on? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That'd work for me. -Will Beback 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if wikipedia would care to use new entries, but ethnic slurs are a touchy subject. Pejorative terms like "lazy peon" for migrant farmers of Mexican descent, "coolie" for Chinese railroad workers, "spade" for black persons, esp. in America, and "frog" for a French person, are looked at twice before the wikipedia staff will dare to add them. What's necessary is the wikipedia staff identified terms that cause anger, hate and ugly division. Then we should program ourselves to 'delete' those words or slurs out of our minds, and start thinking of people different from ourselves as people. + 207.200.116.71 04:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm. so rather than needing thought police, we just give ourselves lobotomies and be damned with it?Skookum1 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Putting the article within context, it is socially acceptable. As a generalization, most slurs mentioned within the article are ethnic slurs and thus the topic should not be merged, nor edited in any form. We should forget our political and ethnocentristic thoughts behind and publish information which is generally correct! None of this scholarlary interference.

I think you meant SOME of this scholarly interference. Both sides agree that vandalism like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ethnic_slurs&diff=48780617&oldid=48770873 "british bagler" must be removed (assuming the Irish don't really say that), and one way to determine if such alleged slurs are really used is to require some kind of reference. Art LaPella 17:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's created to be neutral and opposes the very words it has enlisted. For one thing, some British referred to Irish catholics as "pagans", "heathens" and "magic/wizard/sorcerers". Because the Irish celtic traditions remained strong, but was misunderstood by the British during the Anglo occupation that ended in WWI. The Irish are predominantly Catholics and christians, includes Protestant Irish sects, not a "pagan people" other than their ancient sense of Celtic pride in myths, stories, music and religion found in Ireland. Not many people today realized Ireland broke free of Great Britain for reasons of a want for autonomy, religious freedom, and revive a people faced extinction for 800 years. To this day, Northern Ireland is a continued battle between the two sectarian groups (by religion, but has nationalistic overtones like the "orangemen" are British, the "sinn fein" are Irish), and let's hope the current peace in No. Ireland will never end in a new era of "troubles". + 207.200.116.71 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

i applaud you

those who voted to keep this page and not delete it. even if things are offensive, they need to be said. Skhatri2005 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain that to me, please? Why do offensive things need to be said? -Will Beback 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
actually, i should explain that better. i mean to say that wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of information, and should not be censored. Skhatri2005 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It is also not supposed to be a slang dictionary. This one project is not intended to contain all information. Simple definitions of words should be placed in our sister project, Wiktionary. -Will Beback 19:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone can be a sensitive girly bagel dog like you Will Beback
The last post counts as a personal attack according to Wikipedia rules, so please refrain from typing insults, names and attacks on fellow posters. "Girly" and "bagel dog" are considered prejudical pejorative terms based on sexual, homophobic, racial and religious reasons. Some posters could reported you over this and it results in consequences, like loss of editing or posting privileges and possible legal matters (i.e. libel or slander lawsuits). We need to be mature adults in here, not like children and I think this subject (the U.S.)is restricted from minors under the age of 18.+207.200.116.71 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Why do offensive things need to be said?" They're not being "said". They're being written about. Look: If you want to fight intolerance in the world, then why don't you go hang out with some black people and introduce them to your white friends? Right now, the only thing you're doing is making everyone hate your guts. You're spreading intolerance, Mr. Beback, and making your side look fanatical.╗Creat╚ 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't think additions to this article ought to be applauded when they are stupid and off-topic, as quite a few of the entries seem to be. Many additions to this article probably should be offensive, but not every offensive term belongs here! It must be an ethnic slur.
If there were another AfD nom, I might side with the deletionists just because the quality of this article is so low, and it contains so many fanciful, unproven, and irrelevant entries. My Alt Account 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

reference for 3/5

That's from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Amendment XIV, Section 2 superseded it. 20:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That could be. But what is the reference for this being a slur? Have you ever heard it used as a put down? I think it is doubtful. -Will Beback 23:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

this is the funniest thing on the internet. seriously, who doesnt like using racial slurs?

3/5 of a person is a pejorative term for a slave, esp. of African/black race or 3/5 to mean "more black than white" when in fact he/she is 1/2 or 50% of each race. And the blood quantum of mixed white-American Indians qualified to join the white race. The U.S. constitution disposed this rule in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the 1860's after the Civil war brought an end to slavery (The emancipation proclamation). In Cal. the state constitution used racial designation to define the qualifications of mixed race persons (plus those of Chinese, Japanese or Filipino ancestry, and "darker-skinned"Spanish or Mexican-Americans) by implying the 3/5 rule to see the individual was full accultured or integrated into the white American culture, attended public education, has two married parents, and was brought up English speaking or attended Christian (esp. protestant) churches. The state courts, like the ones in the Southern, Northeast and Midwest U.S., had different rules to declare someone "white" or "non white", unless they previously voted or paid applicable taxes. Nowadays, the courts are handling legal matters on millions of American citizens of "other" racial category or ambiguous claims of being black, white, Indian, etc. such as genealogical records, tribal membership and DNA test results. This is why a large minority of Americans, liberals and conservatives, oppose all forms of racial identity and categorization by the law, either they are against affirmative action or felt it violates a person's privacy. Be in mind most states, the U.S. federal and International laws prohibit officials or authorities for classifying people a race against their will. This was especially used by the Nazis in the 1930's on Germans of one Jewish parent or grandparent and were victims of the Nuremberg race laws that segregated and discriminated them. +207.200.116.71 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The above honestly brought me great amounts of laughter. The 3/5 rule from the constitution had nothing to do with mulattos. I also seriously doubt the portion about mixed white-Americans, and even if this were in fact true, it would be entirely consequential in nature. The fact is the 3/5 rule of the constitution was actually created as a compromise between slave and non-slave states for matters of the census and ultimately the house of representatives. The Northern states felt that if for all intents and purposes slaves were property then they had no right being counted as people in the census (as this would grant greater political sway for slave-holding states because their population would be artificially inflated by people who were not actually represented by the government) while the southern states naturally wanted them to count. Also, to add to the discussion of mixed race individuals, the "one-drop" rule, which was more or less a de facto law, was followed for the greater part of U.S. history, which stated any individual with "one drop" of African blood in them was considered African. It should also be noted that while no where near perfect, the current U.S. census includes far racial categories than ever before and also allows people to mark more than one category, making the other category not necessary for those with more than one racial/ethnic background. The last bit about the Nuremberg race laws is unintelligble at best and seems to have no bearing on the 3/5 rule, or any other topic referenced in the rest of the author's rambling paragraph. Sorry if the above seemed self-righteous or inflammatory in anyway, but I always felt that it is better to not be informed than misinformed and figured it was best to try to prevent anyone from having wrong or misleading information on historical events.

other terms no longer acceptable

1. Mulatto, Semiroon, Quadroon and Maroon. People of mixed race (mainly black African and white), Quad means 1/4 black, semi as more than half, and Maroon for mostly black with little white. Since the 1960's, widely rejected as a disparaging term meant to degrade persons, now called "bi-racials".

2. Mischling. In the European Jewish community, a religious not racial group. The German (Yiddish?) word for "mixed" as in half-Jewish or a gentile with identified Jewish ancestry. Became a fighting word from Nazi persecution of religious Jews and those of Jewish parents in the 1930's.

3. Half-breed. In the New world and other colonies in Africa and Asia, the label meant persons of white and indigenous tribal parents. In America, it's of half American Indian. In India, Africa and Australia, was a white with local non-white blood. and In the pacific islands, it's hardly used.

Well, funny part is I hear First Nations persons (the Canadian equivalent of Native Americans) use it all the time, also in its short form 'breed, and usually derisively. Yeah, it's derisive from both directions, that is; but also many non-status natives (native blood, but not sufficient lineage/pedigree to have band-member and card-carrying official status) use it for themselves, and not in an ironic sense. The official/legal term in Canada now is supposed to be "Metis" but historically that refers to a specific mixed-blood culture/group originally from the Prairies, who themselves don't use it to mean other mixed-bloods (see Metis). You'll note that I use "mixed blood" here, which appears to be (for now) a "safe" variation on half-breed, which "we" are not supposed to use; but still do; with or without a pejorative sense.Skookum1 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Cat-lickers. Anti-catholic slur, sometimes directed at ethnic groups with high percentages attend or practice Catholicism. Other terms offensive to Catholics like "pop(e)ist", "feet kissers", "baby eaters", "cross wearers" and "padres" as in priests, lost common usage by mid 20th century.

5. Mohammedan. Muslims, Arab Americans and those percieved as Mid-eastern, does not like the religious (or ethnic) term. To call Islam "Mohammedist" or Muslims as "mohammedans" is archaic and just as inaccurate, like to call Christianity "Jesusism" or his followers "Jesusians".

and 6. Gook. Notably directed at Asians, Indians, Arabs and some Africans. In Cal. and the US, an Oriental (not a common term since the 1980s).In Britian and Europe, an East Indian, North African, Turks and Arabs, and in Australia, all of the above on immigrant and native-born Asians. + 207.200.116.71 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Squaw

Assuming this is a literal translation, why can't it also be a slur? It's at least politically incorrect, and so is most any kind of wordplay with somebody's heritage these days. I would certainly expect to get in trouble if I called a female Native American a "squaw". Art LaPella 19:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't in the main list anymore, if it ever was (it should be...). From what I know from soc.culture.native a native languages/linguistics listserve or two, it's definitely a slur, or has become so despite one-time usage even in Native American/First Nations slang (as with, for example, "brave", which if used by a white man is a slur, if used by a native is not). And the biggest reason it's a slur is its etymology, which is from an eastern Algonkian language I think: it means female genitalia in an explicit sense, although most who used it (native and otherwise) had no idea of that origin.Skookum1 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mocky

Check this one--I have heard this one BY JEWS used to describe foreigners (basically someone with a foreign accent)

Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged says it's "usually used disparagingly". Here's some quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary, also:
1943 I. Wolfert Tucker’s People xxix. 481 Love thy neighbor if he’s not..a mockie or a slicked-up greaseball from the Argentine.
1931 D. Runyon in Collier’s 10 Jan. 10/3, I consider this..disrespectful, like calling Jewish people mockies, or Heebs, or geese.
--Primetime 06:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OCie vs. Okie in California

In recent years, two socio-economic classes of white people in California are head to head. The "OCies" are upper class suburbanites from Orange County and other metropolitian areas, while the dust-bowl era families "Okies" are lower income or blue collar residents of Central valley. There's a growing rivalry between the two groups over how much opportunities and privileges they get.

It reminds me of the WASP/English yankee vs. WOP/ethnic American rivalries
in the Northeast U.S. in the mid 20th century, as descendants of immigrants
feel left out or a step under the economic ladder. It took another
generation for the "ethnics" to be in line with the "Anglo-Saxons"
in the U.S. by the 1970s and 1980s as the two distinctions blurred and became obsolete. + 207.200.116.71 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Anglo-Saxon is now used in a more-than-derisive and decidedly judgmental sense by p.c. historians and people whining about being oppressed and stuff; it's not a compliment anymore, and like WASP implies a whole host of uglinesses....Skookum1 17:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be split in two.

It is way too long. I tried to split it but was reverted. --Quentin Smith 08:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I usually let others decide such issues, but you could each do a better job of explaining yourselves. First, here are three relevant Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages#…but don't be reckless!, and Wikipedia:Article size. The article size here is 251 KB, way over the 32 KB limit in the policy, but that limit hasn't been updated in years and is routinely exceeded. This is still one of Wikipedia's longest articles. It takes longer to download, especially when Wikipedia's servers slow down, and it presumably overloads the servers further (I don't know for sure). Primetime says "it makes it easier to reference terms if they're all on one page" - does that mean adding references (citations) for each term? If so, why is it any harder to add a reference to a sublist than to one big list? It does add a level of complexity to make a user understand that he has to choose between A-M or N-Z. Making 26 subpages, one for each letter, would simplify that choice while staying under 32 KB. But realistically, more people may read or skim the whole article rather than use it like a dictionary, which argues for one big list. So I'm not declaring for or against, just explaining both sides. Art LaPella 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't leave it like it is - people have made edits to each sublist without editing the big list to match. Art LaPella 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that making people reference the main table of contents to find the letter they want, then visit the subpage is unecessarily complicated. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:Article size: "For stylistic purposes, external links, further reading, references, see also, and similar sections; tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting should not be counted toward an article's total size since the point is to limit readable prose." Another reason the page says the guideline came about was to accommodate "now rarely used browsers". All respectable online encyclopedia articles (e.g., from World Book Online, Encyclopaedia Britannica Premium Service, Encyclopedia Americana Online, or Encarta) use a single table of contents. You can click once and get there, or click to view the full article and scroll down. Articles in full view are up to 1.9 MB in size (e.g., Encyclopedia Americana, "United States of America"). Also, the fact that this is one of the largest encyclopedia entries on Wikipedia is a matter of pride for me and possibly others. It makes my contributions feel more worthwhile and helps motivate me. I hope that someday our list will be at the top of the list of largest articles so many more people can see it. Finally, there should always be a single reference list for any work or article. Initial references are always given fully, but subsequent items are abbreviated. This saves the writer time. He can write Ibid. or the author's name followed by "op. cit." instead of "Tim Johnson, A Dict . . ." I might consider breaking it up if it gets to 500kb or so, though.--Primetime 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. If Quentin Smith has nothing to add, we can delete both half-articles using Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Art LaPella 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the following categories of terms could be removed to separate lists:

(1) terms based on other languages that are not used in English (e.g. the Hungarian word for "Rumanian").

(2) terms that are one-time creations (often weak attempts at humor) but never gained any currency. (Is "spink" really a live word?)

(3) terms that are archaic (may have been in active use at one point, but have fallen out of use).

06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)WikiFlier

What would that accomplish? It seems to me like that would make the terms harder to find. "List of Hungarian ethnic slurs" seems like a much-less intuitive name than "List of ethnic slurs". It also makes contributions seem more worthwhile if they are posted to a larger list than if they are posted to an obscure one that no one ever reads.--Primetime 06:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The article on "Hungarisn ethnic slurs" should appear, if anywhere, in the Hungarian Wikipedia. We are utterly unable to provide verifiablity for foriegn-language slang words, except the most famous and well-sourced. The matter of archaic terms is tricky, since those are the ones most likely to be sourced. We could split them out, but how do we decide which qualify? As for one-time creations, how do we tell? Again, as I've said before, the only answer is to clear out the unsourced material and require all future contributions to be realiably sourced. -Will Beback 08:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hungarian ethnic slurs translated into English should appear in the Hungarian Wikipedia? The vast majority of foreign terms can be sourced because there are some very large foreign-language-to-English-language dictionaries available. Many are available for check-out from libraries. For example, I was able to take home my 2140-page Spanish dictionary from 2003. That's pretty up-to-date as well, by the way. That dictionary has quite a few Spanish slang terms in it. The main limitation on sourcing is the type of alphabet the language uses. I have a hard time distinguishing letters in certain languages like Arabic or Hindi and matching them to the Latinized spellings used in the list. You raised the issue of sourcing in mid-January. Thus, in three-and-a-half months, we've sourced 241 slurs. That's pretty-good progress. I estimate that before the year is up, we will know which terms can be sourced and which cannot. There's no reason to push so hard so soon.--Primetime 09:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
So soon?! I've been pushing for months, even years. Frankly, it is only the hard work of you and Art LaPella that keep me from just deleting all of the unreferenced stuff. It's an Augean stable, but I know that you two are acting valiantly. Considering how many new entries come in every month, I still and always feels that only referenced entries should be allowed. -Will Beback 10:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
None of the above discussion advocates resplitting the article into the two half-articles List of ethnic slurs/A-M and List of ethnic slurs/N-Z. So I have nominated both half-articles for deletion. Anyone who disagrees may revert my edits to the half-articles, and explain their reasons here. In the meantime, the new slur "Kasekopf" and changes to four other slurs have been made to the half-articles, without editing this main article to match. So you may want to incorporate those five edits into this article. I am listing them here:
Käsekopf
(Germany) literally 'cheesehead' - a Dutchman.

Used that way, in the English version, in Canada, too; and in neighbouring Washington State, it refers to people (border shoppers) from BC's Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver); many of whom are Dutch or Mennonite, by the way (both sides of the boreder are dairy farming areas, and both heavily Dutch/German to boot).

Makak or Makaak
(Flanders & the Netherlands) a Moroccan; derived from macaque
Mof
(Netherlands) a German - a derogatory term that dates back to the 16th or 17th century but its literal meaning has become obscure
Teacloth-head/towel-head
(British) An Arab 1990s or the Taliban (early 2000's). It was derived from their traditional headresses. It is considered offensive.
Zigeuner
(Germany & The Netherlands) a term for Gypsies, at times seen as pejorative or at least politically incorrect; sometimes jocularly said to be derived from "Zieh-Gauner" which means "traveling crook". Art LaPella 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's more of a pun than its source; variations on Z-G-N for gypsy are found in Balkan languages; can't remember if that includes Greek, too, it might; I think the Turkish word is similar, also, not sure. Zigeuner isn['t necessarily derisive, historically; although the Romany themselves consider "Gypsy" to be....Skookum1 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my additions to the directory +207.200.116.71 06:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gulabheiter
(Germany & Northern Europe) one of various terms for Turks, derived from "garlic eaters".
Frizee
(France & Southern Europe) a pejorative term for Africans, Arabs from Algeria, and Turkish immigrants. Named for wavy curly hair found in black Africans and also in Middle Eastern people.
Sleave
(Across Western Europe) a misprounounced term for 'Slavs' or Slavic/Eastern Europeans. A term might relate to slave labor or it means an overworked guest worker from Eastern Europe.
Yenta
(Yiddish or Hebrew, but adapted in European languages) a loud obnoxious shroud woman, especially if she's Jewish.
Weasel
(England and Northern Europe) a discornful term for the French and Low countries, compared to skunks as "smelly weasels".
Sheep Greek Lover
(Britain) a crude term for Greeks, stereotyped as sheep herders, also see Sheepfucker in the ethnic slur directory.
Tacobender
(U.S.) A Mexican who sales tacos and Latin foods.
Bowl hair cut
(U.S. and Canada) An Asian person with a particular hairstyle associated with a bowl shape. Popularized by the Phil Hendrie radio show.
Paco
(U.S.) Hispanic or Latino man, perceived to have the first name.
Bigtooth
(U.S. and Canada) Asian Americans, because of cartoons had satirical depictions of Asians have big front teeth.
5 cent Indian
(North America) The term means any Native American is not only poor, but has casino money through tribal paychecks. This can be both insulting on the mixed perception of poverty and casino money.
Bronze
(France, but used throughout Europe) An Arab, north African or sub-Saharan African, mainly immigrants, named for their skin color.
Simian
(U.S., but also in Canada and Europe) A vicious racial slur to describe/compare Africans and other minorities as primates or monkeys. The term sounds like "semi" or half, thus it truly means 'sub-human'.

I want to update a term already listed in the ethnic slur directory

EuroNazi
(U.S. and Europe). A nationality slur of Germans named from Nazis, but the American depiction of Europeans follow dictators and 'big' governments, like kaisers and fascists, and even goes to monarchies. Lately, the meaning defines Europeans who follow or support Communism and Socialism. In the U.S. anything resembled fascism, communism and monarchy, is held as somewhat immoral and an anathema on the grounds of Americans value democracy and 'less' government. It's not a POV but what some people in the U.S. really believe about Europe! + 207.200.116.71 09:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs in France

In France where my father came from, there are slurs designated for the nation's array of ethnic groups: Corsicans "loves dogs", Alsatians "skinheads", Flemings "tulip dancers", Basques "bomb throwers", Bretons "frigid minds" and regional jokes/comments on his native province: Nord Pas-de-Calais, seen as backward, lack good incomes, very conservative and religiously devoted. These characteristics except this "backward" thing is true to a point, but to exagerate something leads to stereotyping. In Northernmost France are comments about Parisians as "snubs", "self centered", "materialist" and "get the good jobs". My Dad's family are proud to be Frenchmen/women/people, and don't hold grudges on other races or people. My grandpa and great-grandpa fought against Nazis for their cruelty done to France and oppose their ideology as socialists. There are depictions, negative or positive, or not always true, on France's political neighbors. They made jokes why the English have hands on their laps under the table (a breach of French etiquette for reasons I won't discuss), and Americans are always smiling (I noticed the French have emotions, but not much smiling) and demand treatment/service on the spot. Some locals said things on Belgians, Germans, Swiss and Italians. The worst comments goes to the British as "hooligans can't handle their gin". Not as bad goes to Spaniards as "flamboyant" or Austrians as "robotic". Nationality slurs aren't kind and are inflammatory, and France has strict laws regarding hate speech not just to protect Jews, Christians, women, homosexuals, immigrants and visitors from biased comments. The French has a historic custom and policy to promote strong inclusion of minorities to assimilate, integrate and acculture to France. They do this not to abandon minority status, but accepting one foreign person as an equal and as a French citizen.+ 207.200.116.71 09:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Blackfella

Blackfella is not an ethnic slur in Australia. It is used by black people to describe themselves, and good naturedly by whitefellas. mgekelly 05:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahudi

I've added some more about it,and how it clashes with People of Judas.However,it is politically correct.Musevi is used more by pro-jewish,and/or higher class people.--CAN T 20:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

SHARP

The word "sharp" is in here designated to describe a skinhead. Unfortuntly, it's not a racial slur, and is in fact the exact opposite. SHARP stands for "Skin Head Against Racial Prejudice" and is a way of describing street punks who are against neo-nazis and biggots in general and hate when people associate skinhead with their lifestyle. I believe that the word should either be removed or should be fully explained. Before I edit the article, I would like to know what other users think.

Just include a citation - this page is unusually strict about that. Art LaPella 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Giuseppe

An ethnic slur of Italians, because many Italian men's first names are Giuseppe. Was used in the U.S. to describe Italian Americans, but also in Canada, Australia and across Europe. Guappo may be another form of the term, though the offensive term "WOP" originated from Guappo or "Gwape", also said to mean grape wine, as Italian immigrants were stereotyped as heavy drinkers.+ 207.200.116.71 09:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Punjab is not in East India

The entry about the word "dipper" erroneously indicates that the Punjab is in the East of India whereas it is actually in the West. I understand that "East Indians" is a phrase used extensively in this article to distinguish American Indians, West Indians and actual Indians, but a less misleading term should replace it if possible.

I'm unfamiliar with that sense of the term "dipper", but I changed it to "Asian Indians". Art LaPella 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The usual term is South Asian now, since "Asian" has been coopted by East Asians to avoid having to say "Chinese", "Japanese" or anything more specific; since "Oriental" is now off-limits because of mounting linguistic prissiness/insecurity....Skookum1 17:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Indian" is the proper term for someone from India (from the U.S. perspective). "American Indian" is probably more accepted among most American Indians, but "Native American" caught on too quickly, and many American Indians find that term to be more disparaging, given the primitive connotation. "South Asia" covers a lot more than India. Peyna 02:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On the word "Jewish"

According to the word found in the Webster-Merriam collegiate English Dictionary, the definition of Jewish or "anything having to do with Jews ... -as Jewish" is refered to offensive, deragatory and of biased contempt, when used to defame and attack a group of people. To say Jewish religion, culture, heritage, holidays, foods and music, is not offensive and are actual parts of the Jewish people. But to negatively say Jewish things, behavior, cheapness, fraudulence, conspiracy and race, are totally offensive and of anti-Semitic nature. The definition of Jew (ish) gets sketchy with the definition of Jewess is not only a "Jewish woman, lady or girl", but is offensive and disparaging slang based on religious, sexist and cultural hatred, and the stereotypes of Jewish women as tight, gaudy, more dominant, demanding and emotional get a label "Jewess" in most anti-Semitic canards. The animated television series, South Park, has jokes, slurs and depictions of Jewish people held as shocking and mean-spirited, and critics said it's as much the 1930's Nazi publication der sturmerwas filled with pejoratives, assumptions and unscientific "facts" are another example. In ethnology, Jews don't constitute a "race" but only a religion one can convert to or leave from. However, the Jewish talmud said of a customary matrilineal lineage pattern: Anyone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew in the eyes of talmudic law with exceptions like she converted to another religion. But some parents of mixed faith families try to combined opposite faiths as a family or cultural inheritance, then it's best not to suggest are "Jewish".+ 207.200.116.71 02:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a sidebar - according to Jewish law, anyone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew REGARDLESS of conversion to other religions. Halakhically (according to Jewish law), anyone born as a Jew technically remains a Jew for their entire life, and cannot do anything about it.

Thanks for your input. But the definition is how a person identifies his or herself, whether in a religious practice or to describe their family heritage. I never understood why Jewish women, not men, recieved a heavy load of insults. It reminds me of similar attacks on black American men, are viewed as aggressive or follows white women. The stereotypes on black American women aren't severe enough than their male counterparts. Some have a sexist basis or there are cultural differences on how some societies brought up women on their status. In the Middle East, East/South Asia and Latin America, women are considered in most cases, subordinate and live under strict gender roles. But the popular assumptions of African women are strong, unregulated, to hold power, self-sufficient and 'have the last word' lacks a reliable source. It's all over the media and pop culture in the U.S. to show black women this way, or sometimes, to show Jewish women share some of those 'powerful persona' traits. + 207.200.116.71 09:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

culchie

Dubs tend to use this to refer to anyone out side of dublin, since they consider anything outside of dublin includeing other citys to be rural.

The non-derogatory meaning outside dublin is a Cultured person, as oppose to uncultured Dubliners.

guero

In Mexican spanish, it means full-blooded person of Spanish ancestry, or an urban professional/upper class Mexican. The term is short for "guerreros" or "warriors", Spanish conquistadors when they invaded and took Mexico from the Aztec empire (1520). It's widely known the elites in business, colleges, the media and government in Mexico are of mostly Castillian descent. +207.200.116.71 06:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But AFAIK its source is that it means "blondie" or "fair-hair", and it doesn't come from guerrero; it's because many latinos and criollas (the two main varieties of upper-caste Mexicans - latinos also being known as peninsulares, their lineage direct from Spain and "unpolluted" unlike criollas) are fair in complexion, if not always in hair. "Guero" is commonly used for fair-haired North Americans and others, please note, and not derisively but descriptively.Skookum1 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Illegal(s)

I'd like to know how this is an ethnic slur? Cereal Killer 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Illegal" is not a completely racial term, but was directed against foreign-born persons and those of Asian, Hispanic, African and Arab descent in the U.S. for some time. To call a brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking and immigrant person "Illegal" is hostile and disparaging, not to mention with the label "alien" is calling someone a foreigner, even the person is born and raised in the U.S. The ethnic slur directory covers the term "alien race" originated in Nazi Germany propaganda, but directed on Jewish, gypsy, Slavic and non-white persons in Germany. Neo-Nazis/ skinheads in recent years across Europe and America use the term on any dark-skinned foreigner. The term "Aryan race" is also inflammatory and was banned in any use in California public education, in order not to offend and embarass minority students. I've heard of "taco bender" by the fact Mexicans set up taco stands or eateries. "Cactus monkey" means a Mexican crossed the border by "swinging on a cactus" in the desert, and jokes or slurs about a privileged Mexican child "dos-storia casa keeds" or two-storied house must been adopted by a white/Anglo family. Cal. state officials admitted it and made an official apology for the state child social services' forced adoptions of Mexican-American children from original families in the 20th century, as the children intentionally sent to live in foster care of Anglo families. The state's child social workers once thought the children are "culturally deprived" and wanted to assimilate Mexican-American children to become "American", esp. if the foster child was lighter-skinned. + 207.200.116.71 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Maracucho

I removed the entry for "Maracucho":

Maracucho : (Venezuela) A native from the western city of Maracaibo, but nowadays the term has been generalized to apply to anyone from Zulia State. The people from this region are usually stereotyped as being excessively extrovert, loud, unrespectful and kitsch.

"Maracucho" is not an ethnic slur - it is a commonly accepted term for someone from Maracaibo. JPMcGrath 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In Hispanic communities, the term "Morocho" is similar to mean dark-skinned immigrants, often of Mestizo/ mulatto (pardon my words) or resembling a Moor-Arab than a full-blood spaniard/ criollo (white Europeans in Latin America). Another defined term, "chopalan" is a rural Mexican worker "dancing" as he moves all day to do his work. Also the term "chilango" is alike "Chileno" or people from Chile, since many people in Mexico City and some South American nations are often more Spanish than Indian in ancestry. The majority of people in rural parts of Latin America are predominantly Indian and mixed Spanish-Indian, usually a cultural and socio-economic identity than a racial one. Virtually everyone in Mexico, Dominican Rep., Puerto Rico, etc. may have an African or American Indian ancestor. It's widely said, but this is also a stereotype, the wealthy urban elites are often Spanish with English-French-German-Italian-Portuguese or some cases, Arab and Asiatic lineage, indicates Latin America attracted many immigrants in the past 500 years, esp. Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Cuba, Panama and Brazil. I believe "Maracaibo" is a Caribbean term for black or race mixed persons, similar to "Boricua/-en" used by some mixed-race persons in Puerto Rico. The US census claims most Puerto Ricans are "white", then noted the majority of them possess some amount of African ancestry. + 207.200.116.71 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is incorrect that the name "Maracaibo" means "black" or has a racial meaning. It is derived from the Cacique (indian chief) "Mara", who dominated the Zulia region around the year 1500 when the Spanish arrived. What you say about the ethnic mix is reasonably accurate, but not relevant to whether "Maracucho" is an ethnic slur. -- JPMcGrath 11:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FIB

FIB ("Fucking Illinois Bastard") isn't a racial slur, but rather a regional one. Should it be removed? Wangoed 14:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, terms like this are clearly not related to ethnicity and therefore are not ethnic slurs. Such terms should be deleted from this article. My Alt Account 11:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In Southern Cal. the word became synomynous to mean a newcomer from another state like 'okie', 'yankee', and 'snowbird'. In other US states, Californian move-ins are refered to as "greek lifers" and "prune pickers", and share the same New York Liberal stereotype (not everyone here is gay, Jewish, yuppies or movie stars). FIB is another Midwest term not well known to most American linguists. It's like some Iowans, Kansans and Nebraskans call themselves in a comical way 'Hogs'. The term was supposedly to make fun of Midwesterners as fat or corn-fed, then the word changed to a sign of regional pride. Imagine one says "Hey...Iowa is a first prize/blue ribbon hog", one way to fight back an insult and make it appear like "so what? it's how we are, prune picker". + 207.200.116.71 07:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gook

Gook actually has been in use much longer than the korean war. It was around at least as early as the Fillipino insurrection in 1890, and was used in some cases during the second world war. Obviously this means that the etymology given in the article is suspect. 128.187.184.75 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Drew Nelson, 6 June 2006

The term gook came from the Korean War not the Philippines. It came from the word hanguk and miguk. Hanguk means the Korean country[1] and miguk means Americans.[2] Some Kyopos I know (Korean Americans) told me it came from these terms. Vietnamese also have a similar word called “Han Quốc” which means Vietnam country. I know some tagalog and some Korean/hangul. I know it doesn’t come from Tagolog or any of the other Filipino languages. It came from a Han based language. Not an Austronesian based language. There’s no word called “gugus” in tagalog or any of the Filipiino languages . I never heard of the word “gugus” in tagalog meaning "tutelary spirit" or whatever the heck that is from the original meaning in wikipedia. The only religion Filipinos worship is Catholicism for the past 400 years, some protestantism from the American evangelical missionaries, and some islam in the southern Philippines. There’s a word in tagalog dictionary spelled “gugo” which is a kind of vine or shampoo used in washing hair or “guguan” which is a verb to clean hair. There’s also two other words in tagalog called “gugol” which means expenses and “gugulan” which is a verb meaning “to finance” or “invest money”. None of the veterans I know (which includes my former high school math teacher) that served during the Korean War and/or Vietnam War never heard the term used for Filipinos before the enlisted. Filipnos (who weren’t called Filipinos before the Spanish American War where they gain independence on their own from Spain without American help) were called “Little Brown Brothers” by the white American soldiers in the Philippine American War.[3] I’ve seen all the racist posters for the Philippines (which was called Filipinas by the Spanish), Cuba, and Puerto Rico that the U.S. cartoonists made of these countries. And none of it has the word “gook” on it the way the American Propaganda Artists used the word “Hun” for World War 1 Germans and “Japs” and “Krauts” for Japanese and World War 2 Germans.--James 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gook was commonly used like "Charlie" by American soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam wars. During a battle, soldiers are urged to memorize hateful slurs about their enemies, this was meant to promote an angry violent attitude to fight needed for battle. "Hajj" an Arabic term for 'warrior' or short for "Mu-HAJ-edin" is commonly said among U.S. soldiers for terrorists in Iraq.

The world Charlie came from the Vietnam War not the Korean War. It’s from the U.S. Military phonetic alphabet “Victor Charlie” which means VC or Viet Cong.[4] --James 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Other terms on Asians like "dog eaters" promote a crude limited stereotype of Asians (i.e. primal tribes of 'Montganards' in Indochina and 'Luks' in the Philippines) eat dogs. Please note Asian Americans abide by our customs of what's allowed to eat in the West, since dogs are food taboos to Westerners, like pork in the Middle East, shellfish to Orthodox Jews and Beef (cattle) is to India. + 207.200.116.71 09:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add one more: In Japan, the term "filipina" is synonymous with a prostitute. This label is from the perception of the Japanese that Filipinas migrated to Japan for reason to sell their bodies to Japanese businessmen. Some lingustists debate if it's more appropriate to spell Filipino with the letter "P" not "F". In Tagalog, as in Spanish, the letters "P" and "F" have similar sounds, but used differently in spelling words like "P-ilipino". + 207.200.116.71 09:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Roaches

This is a very awful word to describe either black (American) or low income renters. To compare them as "roaches" and label them like pests is one of the worst things one can do to perpetrate racism. Also to attack persons of a low income class, to call them that is like they're dirty when it's untrue. + 207.200.116.71 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"UFOs"

On California freeways, the term means Unidentified F-----g Orientals" and based on stereotypes of Asian Americans are terrible, wreckless drivers or drive in a frenized hurry like "they live in Asia". Sometimes used against Hispanics as slower drivers crowding roads and made more traffic, but are called "caminos" ('to walk' in Spanish, as Hispanics are assumed not able to afford automobiles). There is a code 'DWH' or "Driving while Hispanic" to mean Hispanics are poor drivers. Both the immigrants and ethnic groups are blamed for creating auto accidents and grindlock, as some drivers shout "This isn't some back alley in Mexico city or Tijuana" to perpetuate those views.+ 207.200.116.71 03:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

mulatto

The definition means a person of black (African) and white (European) races in the Americas. No longer considered acceptable to many in North America, but this Spanish term for "mule" or "mixed" remains tolerable to most in Latin America, esp. the Caribbean where majorities of people are "mulatto". Because of it's controversial nature and used as a racial epithet, the use of "mulatto" to racial identify people is in decline in the U.S., Canada and British crown colonies. In Puerto Rico, alternatives of the term came upon in the 20th century, but not much change in Cuba and Dominican republic. The use of this term in Britain, Europe, and rarely in South Africa or Australia is not polite in most social circles. Racial identity of people, including actors, music stars and celebrities of mixed race, from Halle Berry to Lenny Kravitz, Mariah Carey to U.S. Gen. Colin Powell, consider themselves "black" or "Bi-racial" to mean two or more than one race. Other terms like "semiroon" and "quadroon" once commonly used in the Southern U.S., as well informally in other U.S. regions, are avoided like the plague. It's widely said the U.S.' upper-classes, institutions and policy makers in the late 20th century reject racism to a point they banned virtually every racial or ethnic slur, since it's downscale or declasse or "taboo". There's a continual use of "mulatto", as well "Negro" and "colored "in jest among few older African Americans, who noticed the younger generations preferably use "black", "mixed" and "Afro-American" to mean terms of positive pride. "Mulatto" like "mestizo", "guero" and "zambo" remain in casual usage in Mexico, Brazil and Latin America.+ 207.200.116.71 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Caribbean, AFAIK, terms for the sliding scale of mixed blood lines are an established part of the dialect(s) and are not derisive, e.g. octoroon and quadroon refer to how much of this or that you've got in you. Maroon on the other hand AFAIK is from the sp or fr for runaway slave or rebel slave; thought it had to do with a certain shade of purple used in the Toussaint l'Ouverture rebellion on Haiti; or they used that colour because of the word's associations, I'm not sure.Skookum1 17:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

'K K K'

Remarkably, the Ku Klux Klan's initials are something not said out loud or written as much. In the presence of black people (or some places, other races or ethnic minorities), the triple-K word is threatening to create a social problem like a disturbance. In the Southern U.S., whites and blacks together find this a curse word, but not totally dangerous in some social situations. In Cal. the triple-K word will create bigger danger, since racism targets Asians, Latinos, Jews and Muslims as much it harms Black Americans. My Mom's family includes Cherokee Indians, while my dad is from France, both brought me up to stay away from racism, Nazism, political extremism and prejudice. They belong to the generations (Baby boomers in America, post-war in Europe) both ashamed of discrimination and anti-Semitism ran amok in their memories. The KKK is one of these things they never want their children or descendants to repeat the same mistakes, while neo-Nazis are treated a social disgrace in France. The two share common traits and characteristics of promoting hate and violence, while their prime enemies are different (but neo-Nazis hate Black people, the Klan equally hates Jews, and both groups dislike liberals and homosexuals). +207.200.116.71 10:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

bukrakumin

An underclass caste in Japan, considered dirty and polluting had pejoratives for thousands of years. Like the untouchables caste in India, the Bukrakumin of Japan are often impoverished and kept away from general society by ancient social codes. Bukarumin are in professions like cemeteries, tanning, butchers and anything exposed to body parts/ fluids. Japanese religion and authority felt these individuals will forever be polluted and must not come in contact with others above them. The Bukrakumin minority are culturally, ethnically and nationally Japanese, but are viewed as sub-human or like a pest in the eyes of their society. Japanese myths spoke of their "lower" or inferior origins, like Bukarumin's ancestors came out of the underworld or their forefathers' souls are from gutters or cesspolls. Or some historical detail they were a captured enemy tribe when feudal Japan conquered all kingdoms of the four main islands (500 AD). Only 2 million people in Japan came from traditional Bukrakumin classes, families stuck in poverty and still avoided by people with age-old prejudice. The Bukrakumin are alleged to commit petty crime and associated with "Yazuku" gangs built on organized crime, drug sales and "our turf" rivalries. The term "Bukrakumin" originated from "village dwellers" lived in walking distance of their places of work. In the 20th century, they were confined in decaying urban enclaves in Tokyo, Osaka and other cities. In the 1990's Bukrakumin activists entered the national conscious by protests and calls for full civil rights. The news media began to drop the term, along with government officals and now the general public, no longer comfortable in usage of the term "Bukrakumin". + 207.200.116.71 06:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indigenazi

Indigenazi is a play on words combining the words indigena (indigenous in Spanish) and Nazi. It is used against members of the Mexica Movement because the Mexica Movement claims Mexicans are indigenous American Indians and its opposition claims they are racist Nazis. -- Dark Tichondrias

please add these ethnic slurs

This Kount Sto - (U.S.) An alleged 'ebonics' version of the term 'discount store', based on stereotypes of African Americans shop in low-price discount stores.

Brown brother- (U.S.) a disparaging term on non-whites (Africans, Latinos, Asians, east Indians, etc.) and said widely used by liberals, the new left and the civil rights movement, when they refer to minority groups.

Nappy- (U.S.) A term about the width and style of hair of African Americans.

Olive Oily skin - (U.S.) An Italian American of 'olive' brown complexion.

ShitStein- (U.S.) Conflicting, whether an insult to African Americans or to crudely mimic last names of Jews, like 'goldStein' or 'Steinberg'.

McNegros/ Nigger King- A fast food restaurant frequented by black/African American patrons, also a stereotype of poor blacks' dietary habits.

Jewess- an offensive remark/slur of an (usually shroud) Jewish woman.

Bomber- Any Arab/middle-eastern young male, caught on recently in U.S.

Pagan- In Britain, a pejorative on Irish Catholics, deemed as "pagan" and "heathen" due to heavy Celtic influences in folk christian religion.

Mail Order Bride- In the U.S., an Asian woman who migrates to the U.S. , but held as "mail order" brides to white/non-Asian American men.

Half Jose- a person of mixed Anglo/Hispanic (Mexican) descent.

Dune Bunny- a Middle-Eastern person, increasingly held as offensive.

Island Monkey- A West Indies black person, typically called "monkeys" the classic racial pejorative. But implied to pacific islanders, held as similar to primates in size and appearance, like body hair and large body weight, somewhat offensive.

Jungle Music- (U.S.) Originated in the 1920's, it became a racial term and used widely in the 1950's & 60's, deragatory term of disdain for African American music (i.e. Jazz, soul, R&B, motown, rock n' roll). Since the 1970s, the term fell into general disuse and no longer acceptable, but revived by hate groups against rap, hip-hop and urban music in the 1990's. Also used against Latino music like latin jazz, salsa, cumbia, reggaeton and tropical varieties, esp. Cubans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans find it equally offensive. +207.200.116.71 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might as well add "WBRO" which is slang for a black-owned TV/Radio station.71.244.220.237 10:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You should add the following ethnic slur: "Napkin Nigger" for Indians--68.41.197.130 08:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't add any of those unless we have sources for them. -Will Beback 06:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

source? The racial slur database: http://gyral.blackshell.com/names.html --Googleplex5 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The top of that page says it was ripped from some guy's personal home page. How do we know it's any better than urbandictionary? My Alt Account 23:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well it is on the "external links" of this page. If it is an unreliable source, it shouldn't be in the "external links" section of this page.--Googleplex5 04:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk is too long

Expect an archive very soon, so any issues that are old list below and I'll brutally refactor and put a summary here after page move.
brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 08:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Example isssue one
  • example issue two

Inclusion guidelines

I'd suggest that a single reference (once confirmed) isn't enough to merit an item being included. (Of course unsourced items can't stay at all.) Two suggestions for dtermining what's appropiate are below. - brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 08:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Low hurdle - Anything found in a reliable source is in.
  • Medium - ???
  • High hurdle - Only itmes with their own article are in.
No, please don't give any thought to the "own article" criterion. It would encourage people to write hundreds of single-sentence, unsourced, crap quality entries, and WP:NOT a dictionary. My Alt Account 11:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

I'm converting to the "cite" method at the footnotes page. I'm concerned about the sources provided at that method makes it easier to get an over-all view. - brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be doing this in stages and then reverting back to the last version before I started. Save points, this is a pretty big job.
brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Or not. The two styles aren't that bad when smashed together, so I am not going to revert. - brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mullet Head

Most of the terms on this page refer to the three Rs--race (too many to mention), religion (terms against Catholics, Jews, etc.), or region (Okies, etc.) I'm happy to agree to this expanded definition of "ethnicity" but I'm not sure how "mullet head" fits in here, as it seems to be based on an unfortunate choice of hairstyle.

Good point. A term that refers solely to hairstyle doesn't sound like an ethnic slur, and should probably be deleted. My Alt Account 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Illinois Driver?

Is “Illinois Driver” really a derogatory slur? Where’s the source on this? I’m from Chicago and have often visited the beautiful state of Wisconsin when I was a kid to go fishing. I use to know a lot of Wisconsinites and I never heard of the term “Illinois Drivers” from them. I also visited Indiana Beach Water Amusement Park every summerbreak when I was in gradeschool and I never heard of “Illinois Driver” over there. I know about “FIB” for Illinoisans and something else for those from Minnesota visiting Wisconsin. But I never heard of "Illinois Driver"!

Hmm, it's difficult to see how bad drivers from Illinois could possibly constitute an "ethnic group". Sounds like a good candidate for removal, no? My Alt Account 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes one "us" and "them"?

If the U.S. social mores insist we must never be prejudiced or never fear others from different backgrounds, then why many Americans I noticed like to call others names and discriminate? In Europe, where international borders overlap and redrawn many times for centuries, the question of ones' ethnic or national identity is interchangeable. In Northernmost France and Belgium, for example, people on both sides of this border share a common history and many people had family on the other side. There is generally little hate and both peoples seem to get along, because it's very possible their families could be the very same ethnic origin, but have different national citizenship or use a different language. A part of Northern France is mostly Flemish Dutch and few older persons still speak the language in addition to French, while one half of Belgium, the Walloons are French speaking or share common origins with their counterparts in France. The bilingual and dual-ethnic identity in any country can lead to some friction and animousity, Belgium remains a stable country and the French-Belgian border never did away with the original past of peoples, because their neighbors were once French or/and Flemish. The thing is why human beings want to become "us" against "them" when in fact we're truly one human race? Every cross-border people or region will share commonality with a neighbor, which is natural and a mixed/merged culture can also result in international contact if there's no war or conflict. + 207.200.116.71 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat absurd...there is no more or less hate and/or name-calling in Europe than in the U.S. Try going to Germany and see what they think of Austria...AND vice-versa. Most Austrians I spoke to referred to Germans as "Damned Germans" or Nazis. Germans actually had the nerve to refer to their Austrian neighbors as "Krauts". Similarly, Sicilians dislike Romans and many French Canadians wish they weren't Canadian at all. So, what's your point? That Europe is so much more "civilized" than the U.S.?71.244.220.237 11:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ginny

Ginzo is in the atricle, and if I recall, Ginny was also at one time. I think it was quite stupid to delete it, as the two are entirely diffrent terms att his point.

You might have noted that the edit page states now (though not on May 8), "Please provide citations for all new additions, or they will be reverted." Conforming to that much-debated policy is at least better than "quite stupid". Ginzo survived because Primetime added a citation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ethnic_slurs&diff=51805888&oldid=51800777 here, but Ginny had no citation when it was deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ethnic_slurs&diff=52148743&oldid=52148226 here. Art LaPella 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Its very hard to provide citation of years of being called that for years. The article is lcoked now though, even thoguh I have found a dictonary entry.

why 'Nigger' is worse sounding than ever

The shocking nature of 'Nigger' became what it is now considered a very bad word, came from the O.J. Simpson trial in the 1990's when the court asked Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman, if he ever used the "N word" in his career. This generated a media frenzy, along with the political correctness at the time caused quite an emotional reaction against the "N word". Despite most of society, esp. white people will avoid the term, but certain white celebrities in politics, comedy, and hip-hop culture (Colin Quinn, Kid rock, Eminem, Jennifer Lopez, Cruz Bustamente and Ralph Nader) are known to used the "N word", but had no huge protests and escaped media scrutiny. It seems only conservative white people get in serious trouble for saying this racist, profane, obscene, inflammatory, hateful and 'taboo' word. Not only the civil rights movement, and rejection of the word by several black comedians in the 1980s got more attention, but the "N word" never received this amount of controversy, until the O.J. Simpson trial. + 207.200.116.71 09:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It was perfectly okay to go around spouting "nigger" left and right, until that darned OJ Simpson trial ruined it for all of us. Right. Wavy G 20:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

why 'Nazi' is just as worse

According to the ethnic slur list, Nazi means a German person. The term isn't limited to that, but a politically charged word to insult anyone with a different political viewpoint/opinion. To call someone a 'Nazi' who don't affiliate or believe in Nazism is name-calling. I want to warn everyone the term 'Nazi' evokes hurtful and disturbing images of WWII, the Holocaust and racial hatred to many people, esp. Jews, gypsies and blacks in Europe and North America. In countries where Nazis occupied in the war, the term 'Nazi' takes on a much painful description to those who lived it, now in their older years, want to make it clear 'Nazi' is a shock word. The term is so strong and controversial, the Comedy Central web page banned the word "Nazi" as it's not suitable, inappropriate, emotionally charged and of ill repute. + 207.200.116.71 09:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Slur (Independent Article) Chinese Pig

--Chungkwok 09:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

This list should be reserved for slurs used in the English speaking world only. There are billions of racial/ethinic/self-identifying/nationalistic slurs of every kind in every language against every group. But this is the English wikipedia, and thus this list should be reserved for slurs used in the English speaking world by English speakers only (Hungary would NOT be the English speaking world, among others) Any slur that has to be followed by a language will be deleted outright.--Esprit15d 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully. -Will Beback 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : Nowhere in Wikipedia does it says that a few foreign words are not allowed. It only says that articles written or written mainly in foreign languages are not allowed. I can understand that some people who cannot stand a slur in their own language, but that is no reason for deletion of the article. There are thousands of articles with a few French words or other languages. --Chungkwok 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Repy: Chugkwok, you might take a moment to notice that the article has not been nominated for deletion.--Esprit15d 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Question: Esprit15d - It appears we are in the wrong section. We are discussing about the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 28 The separate article "Chinese Pig" was wrongfully deleted by Xoloz. --Chungkwok 09:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply: I have not participated in this articles proposal for deletion, nor do I plan to. Until that issue is resolved however, in the meantime, the article can still conform to Wikipedia policy, namely, to not be a clearing house for every foul word in the world. Keeping it English is a basic requirement.--Esprit15d 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that foreign slang words are not verifiable. If they can be verifiably sourced then that'd be different. -Will Beback 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The author has provided sufficient verifications from reliable sources and that is all that is needed to prove that the slur is indeed in public use in different countries.--Chungkwok 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You're talking about one entry, we're talking about all of the entries in foreign languages. "Chinese pig" is an English phrase, so it isn't covered by Esprit15d's proposal. -Will Beback 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment The wrongful deletion by an administrator of the independent article "Chinese Pig" is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 28 separate article "Chinese Pig" was wrongfully deleted by Xoloz.
  • Honestly, I feel the recent pruning has been excessive, and possibly misdirected. a) true, a lot of the words pruned are not in common use among English speakers, then again, I could point a lot that are still there that are not either (see many people referring to whites as "gwaai lou" in English?) b) a word not being in common use in the language does not preclude its being borrowed or quoted in English language texts (I know English books about China that use "gwailo"[a term still in the list], or books about West Africa where "toubab" [one that got cropped out] appears. c) some of those slurs are "eye of the beholder" or PC language stuff : I know people who don't know that Gypsies call themselves "Roma" and who regard "gypsy" as a normal, non slurring term. d) I do agree that referencing every racial slur in every language is impractical, then again, if you can't find them in an encyclopedia, what's the specific use of an encyclopedic database? This is an encyclopedia, not an English language dictionary. people come here to find what they can't get in lesser works. And anyway, mr esprit, who are YOU to decide what's worthy of inclusion or not? --Svartalf 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Zulu

The slur Zulu should be added. I was quite surprised it wasn't on the list. It's obviously used against black people, comparing them to the African Zulu tribes.

Do you have a source for its usage? -Will Beback 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


yeh that is crap. how on earth is zulu a slur? or is there something derogatory about being a zulu warrior?

im a zulu warrior, and i use wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

Baak-Gwaai 白鬼

It's lacking on your list but is only mentioned after Gwaai-Lou. What gives?

chuk

Chuk'

   (THAILAND) a Sikh person, usually a tailor (Chuks are the things on their heads)

Do you mean turbans?

Piefke

"derived from the German word "piefig", meaning boring or dull."

This is wrong. See Johann Gottfried Piefke for the real origin. -- 62.46.220.219 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ajnabi?

It’s absurd to include the Arabic word Ajnabi.

It has only one meaning and that is foreigner. When you go to any Arab airport from Morocco to Oman, you will have a line at passport control which says Ajanib (plural of Ajnabi).

It absolutely has no negative or offensive annotation attached to it.

Why don't we add the word foreigner to the list?

Thanks for your testimony here. People will hopefully take this into consideration, and start deleting such terms. My Alt Account 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Blaxon

(US and UK) Refers to a Black person that has largely adopted or assimilated into cultural traits typically associated with Anglo-Saxons to the exclusion of his own cultural traits. Depending upon the context of usage, the term may or may not have an expressly pejorative connotation.

--Cavalawman 02:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What?

This is the dumbest article I've read in a long time. Any word/term in the list that is not defined in a proper dictionary should not be here. I can understand if a term is regional, but it seems that some of them are terms that someone heard someone else say once, and calls it "common usage." 71.244.220.237 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my goodness!

To think that some people actually use words like this! What kind of people say cruel things like this. Oh my!

Rat Catcher

Used in the UK, a derogatory term for a Roman Catholic. Origin unknown but perhaps to the similarity of the sound of 'catcher' and 'catholic'. Possible also originated during the Irish Famine when many Irish (mostly Catholics) came to the UK and were only able to get unpleasant or low-paid jobs, for example pest control.

Unlinking weblinks

I am using Special:Linksearch to identify excessive linking, to help reduce the use of Wikipedia as a SEO tool and for Googlebombing. The text of the links remains, they can be accessed using copy & paste, and if they are reliable sources they will be in the article by now. Almost all of them I am unlinking are not, but I'm using a generic replace script so one or twoi reliable sources might be unlinked. As I say, the text remains, so you can still go and see the content. Most of them on this Talk are niggafoo.ytmnd.com - all very amusing and everything but nothign to do with an encyclopaedia article. Just zis Guy you know? 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

African queen

I didn't put this in but just saw the deletion....and I've never thought of it as a slur, partly because I've never associated it with an African-American queer (using "queer" here in the p.c.-o.k. sense, rather than the derisive sense); the only contexts I've heard it are in African-American slang, with the guy saying to the girl "you're my African queen", or referring to a woman as an African queen; a high praise, also implying she's powerful as well as beautiful, the archetype of what an African-American woman is. Never heard it before used to refer to a black gay....Skookum1 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmong-key

Hmong-key is a derogatory play on the word "monkey" used to denote a person of Hmong ethnicity.

There's been talk and debate about how difficult it is to source racial slurs. I first heard this slur in a work cafeteria in 2004, "man, I was so hoping for some quiet neighbors this time, but a bunch of Hmong-key kids moved in next door."

Since then, I've heard it in bars and other places, but have never seen it in print, on T.V., or a film.

Honey Child

I had no idea there were more than about ten derrogatory "names" for people of various ethnicities, until I found this article. Amazing -- the intollerance and ignorance that runs rampant in the human race.

As a very small child, I was taught to call African-Americans "honey childs," "honey child," singular. I have no clue regarding the origins of this term, but I have seen it used on the Internet. Surprised not to find it listed in this huge list, I would be interested in knowing about it, if anyone knows.

Oh -- and what about "Saltine" for white people?



Deletion Means Denial

This article really shouldn't be deleted. It gives much information on the deregatory terms used by stereotypists and racists, and because such people are out there, it is good to know that these articles are here giving us the information on what they are saying. By all means I am not telling you to stay up late at night pondering over the "mean words" people say, but to be aware that they are out there, therefore they have information on the words and subjects at hand.

Don't delete this article just because some followers of the PC fad say it could be deemed offensive, because then you would make a point of what was offensive and what isn't. Soon, you'll have to delete the article on the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Slavery in the U.S. and other topics deemed as offensive. This is an encyclopedia, and as long as there's fact-finders willing to contribute to the information site that is Wikipedia, we shouldn't deny them their right to make articles that clearly state controversial topics in a truthful manner. As long as it isn't biased in anyway nor in any form, this article should still be running.

If you delete this article you will only be adding to this "Political Correctness" fad, which is wrong in itself, with a philosophy that anything sounding offensive is offensive. Yes, it's a controversial topic, but why should it uphold to the standards of someone who just can't handle what an ethnic slur is supposed to do. They should just ignore it or better yet ignore the article itself.

Okay, so I have read that it's being put up for deletion because new words - made-up words - are being added to everyday, probably made up by hack-jobs. The list is longer than needs to be, of course. But why not just scan it over and see what is verifiable as an ethnic slur that is well-known and in the dictionary and delete the slurs that can be defined as "slur made by 40 year old who lives in his mother's basement". As for the slurs toward homosexuals, I would say that they shouldn't be on the list, due to the fact that, as stated before, homosexuality, or gay, is not an ethnicity like Jewish, African-American, Irish, Latino, Slav, etc.

--Tromboneplayer 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Tromboneplayer

I think the best grounds for deletion of this article is that it just plain sucks. It might be easier to start over from scratch than to reform it into something passable. I think I'm about to try to reform it so it doesn't suck so much. My Alt Account 11:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trombone above

This is educational for me. To me, the most politically incorrect thing would be to hide from the truth, and as Trombone wrote, "Soon, you'll have to delete the article on the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Slavery in the U.S. and other topics deemed as offensive." In the same token, we should not destroy the classics that use derrogatory words, because they are mirrors of history. When we refuse to acknowledge the truth, as history and many concerned people have pointed out through the decades, we are bound repeat it.

However, I think they decided against deletion. Raina 06:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

'Cracker' etymology error

The 'ethnic slurs' page has the term 'cracker' derived from the cracking of slave-drivers' whips, which is contradicted in the individual article for 'cracker'; the term instead refers to the cracking of yeomen's whips in the deep South. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_%28pejorative%29

The individual page on the term "cracker" also cites the etymology with the more documented history, saying that it comes from a Scottish or Irish term for a loud, boasting person and was later used for the Scots-Irish in the American colonies, then for lower class Southern whites.

FILTH

One expression I have come across in Hong Kong. It stands for "Failed In London, Trying Hong kong", and means expats who just moved to south east asia because they couldn't hack it in the UK.

Should this be added? --62.253.208.109 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo Momma

Uh oh...guess who really doesn't give a rats @$$? Me!

What are you yabbering about?

Leopard Gecko 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Nigger Knife

Described by Randal Graves in Clerks II, a Nigger Knife is a broken bottle

...

WIGGER PIRATES UNITED!!! LONG LIVE THE PHAROAH!

This article should be renamed

I think this article should be renamed like List of offensive slurs instead of List of ethnic slurs. The reason why is because there are some terms here that are not ethnic slurs but regional slurs or political slurs like FIB (Fuckin’ Illinois Bastard), BIFFO ("Big Ignorant Fucker From Offaly"), Preacher, Minnesootan, and 51st stater. A person might be of the same ethnicity or race and call a fellow countryman of the same ethnic background these slurs because they live in a different state/province, root for a rival baseball teams, or have different political views. --Pilot expert 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By definition, slurs are offensive. Perhaops this should be merged with List of sexual slurs in order to create "List of slurs". -Will Beback 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged. Sexual slurs are nation wide, while ethnic slurs kinda divide the nation, you think? Fllmtlchcb 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a national encyclopedia, so I don't know what you mean. -Will Beback 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Sexual slurs can be used against anyone. Ethnic slurs don't apply to everyone. Fllmtlchcb 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, "ethnic slur" is a pre-existing phrase, not a neologism. The fact that it's usage is not strictly in-line with how it really "should" be used is a peculiarity of the English language and has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The article title is appropriate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Water Buffalo?

The water buffalo incident would lead me to believe that "water buffalo" is not a proper slur, since only a small group of individuals found it offensive, rather than a people. Should the listing in the article be removed, or should a note be added indicating it is a "false slur" or something? --Beefyt 04:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Water buffalo, kwai ควาย is a slur in Thai, but not an ethnic one; it just means someone who is stupid. Pawyilee 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Paw Yigh Lee

Ginny be included

A term for Italian-Americans. The following is source to "prove" this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ginny --68.192.188.142 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely many urban dictionary entries are slanted towards things someone made up in school one day. Maybe this is, in fact, a real ethnic slur, but urbandictionary proves NOTHING most of the time.My Alt Account 11:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thai-language ethnic slurs proposed for inclusion

bak (Thai) [[5]] บัก in the Isan (also Isaan or Esarn) language of the Isan region of Thailand, mister; in Thai [[6]] slang, a man's privy part, a cock; bakgrok บักโกรก (bak + washed out) bak grok bak aan บักโกรกบักอาน (bak + washed out and saddled) worked to exhaustion, exhausted, done for; bak naan บักหนาน In Isan, a man who has just left the priesthood, in Thai, a boor, hick, hayseed, country bumpkin. Not slurs but standard Isan usage worthy of note: bakham บักหำ literally Mr. Balls, a grown boy or man, and bakhamnoi บักหำน้อย Mr. Little-balls, a little boy. C. ee อี, elah อิล่า

ee (Thai)[[7]] อี a designation used in contempt or abuse before a proper or common name of a woman or a female animal of or in the Isan region of Thailand. Not a slur but standard Isan usage worthy of note: elah อิล่า e + verb to hunt, little girl

Farang (Thai)[[8]] ฝรั่ง a white man (probably by way of Arab traders from the word Frank of the Levant5) (often used interchangeably with Yeramon เยอรมัน German). Western = farang mang kah ฝรั่งมังค่า (some + wealth, value, price, etc.); of plants, a guava, a native of a foreign country as mon-farang มัมฝรั่ง potato, mak-farang หมากฝรั่ง chicle, chewing gum; farang kangsy ฝรั่งกังไส china made in Europe, esp. willowware; willow pattern. C. ma'am แหม่ม

jay (Thai)[[9]] เจ๊ Chinese businesswoman; by extension a newly prosperous Thai woman or businesswoman; not considered offensive C. jek เจ๊ก, ma'am แหม่ม

jek (Thai)[[10]] เจ๊ก a Chink, considered an offensive term by some but considered a Chinese businessman by others; jek doon fy เจ๊กตื่นไฟ n. adv. literally, a Chinese alarmed by a fire; panic-stricken (but self-mocking, for Chinese merchants alarmed by a fire swiftly move their wares to safety while Thai merchants gape) C. jay

kaak (Thai)[[11]] แขก a visitor, a guest; also kaakrua แขกเหรื่อ (เห่เรือ rua meaning 'sing while paddling a boat'; when not used in the general sense of a guest or visitor: a stranger, a foreigner, except Chinese (jeen, jek, jay), Japanese (yipoon), Vietnamese (yuan), Cambodian (kameen), Lao, Burmese (pamah), or a white man (farang):

an Indian; a Malay; a negro; a person from the Near East or Middle East; a person from North Africa; kaak poo rap griat แขกผู้รับเกียรติ honored guest, kaak muang แขกเมือง: guest of the government (enjoying extraterritoriality under Bowring treaty with Britain, consequently most kaak were originally from British India); kaak yahm แขกยาม an Indian watchman (generally considered more trustworthy than a Thai watchman who will watch but not interfere) C. Farang

ma'am (Thai)[[12]] แหม่ม Madam, a white woman; also ma'am farang แหม่มฝรั่ง a white woman; ma'am kapi แหม่มกระปิ Thai woman putting on airs as a Western woman but still wanting her kapi, a pungent shrimp paste C. Thai madam หมาดำ, farang ฝรั่ง

Madam If Thai [[13]] deliberately pronounce as mah? dum หมาดำ it means black(-hearted) bitch. C. ma'am

ngaw (Thai)[[14]] เงาะ rambutan 6 from its resemblance to a bushy head; a member of the Sakai and allied tribes in the jungles of Malaya and southern Thailand; C. Sakai

Sakai (slave in Khmer, Cambodian); a member of the Orang Asli and allied Negrito tribes in the jungles of Malaya and southern Thailand; Sakai now considered an offensive term by some. C. Thai ngaw

tameen (Thai)[[15]] ทมิฬ As a noun, a Tamil from Madras, Malaysia or Ceylon; as an adjective, cruel, savage; ruthless = tameen heen-chaat ทมิฬหีนชาติ like a baseborn Tamil (the adjective ทมิฬ appears frequently in newspaper accounts of particularly savage Thai killers). Antonym araya อารยะ adj. Aryan, civilized; arayatom อายรธรรม civilization; arayachon อารยชน civilized man; arayatet อารยประเทศ civilized countries. Modern Thai-English Dictionary, S. Sethaputra,.ed Bowring Treaty. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 14 Aug. 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9016040>. THE ORANG ASLI (Sakai) OF PENINSULAR MALAYSIA, Colin Nicholas http://www.magickriver.net/oa.htm

Pawyilee 09:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)PawYighLee in Siam

Day Laborer

The entry for day-laborer seems to lack an understanding of nuance. The term is used in news broadcasts and in political discussions without fear of offending people, and is often considered the proper term for a person who works by the day and is paid by the day for manual labor. So, is it ever a slur? Or maybe there should be a note about it not being considered an insult unless the context is negative.

The intended message could be that the job itself is an insult, and it should be noted that most of the time it's not used as an insult. Also if used as an insult the user might be assuming the other is an "illegal Mexican"(as stated in the def) but it could be used against people from Mexico along with any other Latin American country and they might be illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, or U.S.- born. I think the current def is innacurate in saying that it refers to Mexican immigrants for their "propensity for migrant work".

Nigger lover

"(U.S., but also used by the extreme right-wing in the UK)"

cool, didn't know that only the extreme right wing used this term in the uk must be impossible for anyone else to use it right, im sure this is verifiable. this page sucks lol Lenn0r 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref converter

I don't understand the point of removing all the references from the A's and replacing them with a Citation Needed template. Is it a bot bug? Art LaPella 21:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlie

In the 1950s and 1960s in the UK, a Charlie was also an inoffensive term for an idiot, an example being its regular use on the BBC Home Service's "The Goon Show" throughout this period.

Shoe-bomber

Relating to the failed bid by Richard Reid, the British born Muslim to blow up a US bound flight with an explosive device hidden in his shoe the term is used by some towards Muslims or South-Asians.

Call Centre Workers

Sometimes shortened to Call Centres the terms refers to South Asians and originates from Western companies outsourcing their telephone call centres to India.

Who calls people this? What's our source? Likewise for the above terms. -Will Beback 01:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugly Europeans?

Surely this is a political slur as it refers to politicians' policies.

Too large

This page is beautiful. It truly reinforces my lack of faith in humanity. I've always said that most people, no matter their race, color, creed, gender, sexual preference, age, education, etc, are jerks. The length of insults kind of proves that correct. That aside, I agree with the various arguments that some of these are not ethnic slurs, but rather religious, regional, etc. What about, instead of merging this with sexual slurs, this page get divided up into ethnic slurs, regional slurs, religious slurs, and so forth? It would be a lot of work, but it would make this a much smaller page. --Raulpascal 19:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Preto

"(POR) a black person"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_ethnic_slurs_Archive_2_613d.html"