Talk:Sexual slur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs work -- it needs to be structured better, and explore the issues at hand a little more deeply. I cleaned up some of the writing in the first paragraph, and reordered the material slightly. StrangeAttractor 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
The existing List of sexual slurs is well-referenced, but what encyclopedic purpuse does it serve? Better to havethe effort concentrated on making this article as good as possible. - brenneman 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not against merging them but surely the encyclopedic value of the list is in your first clause: that it's a well referenced list of sexual slurs. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll spare you the link to wp:not and the line about "indiscriminate", but there is more to encyclopedic value that simple existance. A huge amount of effort is being expended on trivialities when the parent article suffers in the doldrums. However, I'm going to leave this alone for a day or two, as I'd prefer to let other contributors make themselves heard, and ask that you do the same. Just for once be a bit quiet and listen, ok Tony?
brenneman {L} 03:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)- I think you're abusing What Wikipedia is not here. You can hardly call the list "indiscriminate". All the words and phrases there are selected as sexual slurs. --Tony Sidaway 09:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- One can argue, if one wishes, which I don't particularly, that it does not discriminate among them. In any case, might we please keep this on one talk page? -Splash - tk 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide."
- [Wikipedia is not a] usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate."
- How does the list avoid violating that? -Will Beback 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Glossaries are an established feature of Wikipedia. Glossaries are lists of definitions. There's no denying it: they fly in the face of policy, but have a long-established precedent on Wikipedia, and are an established exception to the rule. That they contradict the whole rule is simply a reflection of Wikipedia. It contradicts itself all over the place. So to say the list of sexual slurs violates the whole dicdef thing is completely countered by the fact that it is a glossary by virtue of its definition annotations and citations. And Wikipedia has a lot of glossaries, including glossaries on jargon from many different subjects. See list of glossaries. I don't see what the big deal is here. Why censor the list? It's useful for teaching kids what the real topics behind the swear words are. That's a healthy thing, and may help to reduce their predudices. There are 2 basic strategies censors on Wikipedia use to get rid of lists:
- Nominate it for deletion - that was already attempted and failed.
- Merge it and chop it. That appears to be where the current effort is headed.
- It's not hard to spot the censors. Just look at their contribution list. It becomes as plain as day. They tend to hide behind certain policies, like "verification", but their application of those policies is very discriminating - aimed primarily at what they want to censor. --List Expert 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Glossaries are an established feature of Wikipedia. Glossaries are lists of definitions. There's no denying it: they fly in the face of policy, but have a long-established precedent on Wikipedia, and are an established exception to the rule. That they contradict the whole rule is simply a reflection of Wikipedia. It contradicts itself all over the place. So to say the list of sexual slurs violates the whole dicdef thing is completely countered by the fact that it is a glossary by virtue of its definition annotations and citations. And Wikipedia has a lot of glossaries, including glossaries on jargon from many different subjects. See list of glossaries. I don't see what the big deal is here. Why censor the list? It's useful for teaching kids what the real topics behind the swear words are. That's a healthy thing, and may help to reduce their predudices. There are 2 basic strategies censors on Wikipedia use to get rid of lists:
-
- One can argue, if one wishes, which I don't particularly, that it does not discriminate among them. In any case, might we please keep this on one talk page? -Splash - tk 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're abusing What Wikipedia is not here. You can hardly call the list "indiscriminate". All the words and phrases there are selected as sexual slurs. --Tony Sidaway 09:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll spare you the link to wp:not and the line about "indiscriminate", but there is more to encyclopedic value that simple existance. A huge amount of effort is being expended on trivialities when the parent article suffers in the doldrums. However, I'm going to leave this alone for a day or two, as I'd prefer to let other contributors make themselves heard, and ask that you do the same. Just for once be a bit quiet and listen, ok Tony?
[edit] Article misnamed
This article is misnamed. The standard used throughout Wikipedia is to identify a topic in the singular. There are cats of many breeds, yet the article for them is called cat. See also dog, country, game, list, topic. The plural is reserved for lists, as in list of cat breeds, list of historical cats, list of dog breeds, list of famous dogs, list of fictional dogs, list of fictional cats, list of countries, list of games, and "List of ____ topics". See also List of basic topic lists, List of topic lists, and Lists of lists. --List Expert 02:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
