Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore sexual slang

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

I count 8 clear "delete" votes, 5 "keep" votes (one probable sockpuppet discounted) and 2 votes that were too ambiguous to call. The debate became very heated and appears to have focused on the content of the article overlooking the original reason for nomination - that the content is more dictionary-ish than encyclopedic.

I do note that an introduction to the article was created late in the discussion period. Votes continued to be mixed after the addition of the introduction. In my judgment, the introduction was insuffient to convince the majority to change their votes and retain the list as an encyclopedia article.

In general, "list of ABC slang" articles have been deemed necessary evils - ways of discouraging the endless re-creation of dictionary entries. Military slang is a good example. The topics were deleted, moved to Wiktionary and deleted again. The community concensus was clearly and repeatedly expressed that these terms belonged in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Yet they were being constantly re-created by new users in ignorance of prior decisions. By centralizing the terms in a single list, we believed that we were containing the policy violations somewhat and providing a way for new users to gently learn that Wiktionary is a better recipient for these contributions.

So far, no evidence has been presented that the topic of Singapore sexual slang will receive the same volume of editors nor that this topic will be endlessly re-created by new users if it is moved to Wiktionary. In fact, the evidence presented makes the opposite case very convincingly. Accordingly, I am going to exercise my discretion and call this decision as a "move to Wiktionary".

I'll further note that based on a spot check of the terms listed, they appear to already have been moved into Wiktionary. Since there appears to be nothing left to transwiki, I will execute the last step of the process and delete this left-over. Warning: I have not checked every term listed. If someone needs or wants a copy of the list in order to do that verification, please contact any admin. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore sexual slang

Delete since it goes against Wikipedia official policy drini ☎ 15:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As stated on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a_dictionary and WP:WIN, both considered Official policy.

(Wikipedia is not) A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a leet cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily-confused ideas, as at Nation or Freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

drini ☎ 15:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• As a matter of academic curiosity, I am interested to know what unique slang words a leet cracker or chimney sweep would use. Could you kindly point me to a reference on the World Wide Web where such material exists? And if you can't, don't you think you'd be doing the linguistic geeks of the world a big favour by contributing such an article here in Wikipedia, assuming that you are familiar with leet cracker lingo yourself?Groyn88
• Delete per WP:NOT. Radiant_* 15:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge there has to be something somewhere this can be merged with. Klonimus 22:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Thanks for digging out that paragraph, Drini. I hope everyone reads it and heeds it. Geogre 18:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is obviously one Wikipedia policy that needs to be reviewed. Why should Wikipedia unnecessarily restrict itself by excluding dictionary entries, especially when the information provided here cannot be found anywhere else on the World Wide Web, or even in print form for that matter. If you don't believe me, try searching for such info yourself! Starting a category of dictionaries, slang included, would be a wonderful growth opportunity in this uncharted territory.Groyn88 19:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that "the information provided here cannot be found anywhere else on the World Wide Web, or even in print form for that matter" pretty much torpedoes your case admiships, just below the keel - lost at sea, all hands, captain went down with the ship, etc, with the irony being that you fired the torpedoes yourself.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ashley Pomeroy points out the original research problem with your argument, as well as the fact that it is close to admitting that these are merely protologisms. I point out that for the very reason that Wikipedia is not a dictionary we started a category of dictionaries (actually a single dictionary of all languages) back in 2002. It's over there. The problem is not Wikipedia unnecessarily restricting itself. It's you unnecessarily restricting yourself. There are many WikiMedia projects (which complement one another in all sorts of interesting ways). Wikipedia is not one giant mish-mash of everything simply because that is convenient for editors who don't go anywhere else. When you were busy adding burung and steam to your pet dictionary here, you could instead have been improving burung and steam in the real dictionary. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete slang dictionary definitions. Megan1967 06:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it can be converted and expanded to include a linguistic discussion of the evolution of this sort of slang in the different languages, how it is used in popular culture, etc. Should be more than just a list. Blackcats 09:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Blackcats has offered a wonderful solution! I shall convert this list into a full-fledged article which discusses the use of sexual slang in Singapore.

  I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these words and phrases are NOT protologisms (as defined by Wikipedia), which Uncle G has implied. The traditional slang words have been in use for centuries (if not millenia in the case of the Chinese dialects) and the ones coined in the new entity called Singlish have been around for decades.

  An analogous case in point: take the English slang words 'fuck', 'shit' and 'cunt'. Before the 1950's, say, one would be hard put to find such entries in any respectable English dictionary, comprehensive or otherwise. This does not mean that these words were 'protologisms'. They had been in use for over a century if not more. The same applies to the words I have listed. The fact that you cannot find some of this information anywhere in the virtual or real world demonstrates a salient aspect of Asian culture. We put on a smiling obsequious face while locking our dirty linen firmly in the closet. My aim is to bring out that dirty linen and subject it to academic scrutiny...and let outsiders have a sniff too.

  Let me quote from Wikipedia's original research policy: 'In some cases, where an article makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events).' The latter description fits my list to a T.

  It is not appropriate as Uncle G suggested to update the 'steam' entry in the English dictionary because Singlish is just not English. Moreover, there is no entry called 'burung' at the moment, and to create one out of the blue with no categorisation or context would be meaningless.Groyn88 15:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Wrong on nearly every single count:
    • It is not appropriate as Uncle G suggested to update the 'steam' entry in the English dictionary because Singlish is just not English. — Wrong. One doesn't even need to read any more of the English Wiktionary than its Main Page to know that it takes Singlish. The main page clearly says "all words of all languages".
    • these words and phrases are NOT protologisms (as defined by Wikipedia), which Uncle G has implied — Wrong. I didn't imply it. You did. Your very words were that this information "cannot be found anywhere else on the World Wide Web, or even in print form for that matter". If someone has not used these words with these meanings in print, then these are definitions that someone wants to be the case, not what actually is. If someone has used these words with these meanings in print, then the information can be "found anywhere else, or in print form". I suggest that you work out which of your two mutually contradictory assertions is the true one.
    • An analogous case in point: take the English slang words "fuck", "shit" and "cunt". — Wrong. It's not analogous, because those words were "found in print form" (and notably so) before they entered the dictionaries, contrary to your claim above that these words cannot be. As such, the whole of that argument is ill-founded.
    • Moreover, there is no entry called 'burung' at the moment, and to create one out of the blue with no categorisation or context would be meaningless. — Wrong. That's just an excuse and a rationalization for doing the work in the wrong project. In reality it's just as simple to edit burung, with the same definition as here and an indication that the word is Singapore slang noun, as it is to make this edit; and, unlike the latter, the former is productive, useful, the first step along the way to a full Wiktionary article, and another word that people can then look up the meaning of. Wiktionarians would certainly prefer a properly formatted article, as it would save the New Page Patrol the work, but a good faith attempt at an article on an attested word is certainly not rejected. Please lift your self-imposed restriction and come and write your dictionary entries in the dictionary.
  • Uncle G 17:13, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• Comment: At one point somebody (in favor of keeping) said that there was no documentation of Singapore's sexual slang in print or online (and that this article was therefore important to keep), and since then several people (in favor of deletion) have argued against this straw-man on the basis of orignial research. But I don't think the original assertion is actually true. Singapore is a populous enough country that there's gotta be books and websites elsewhere which could be cited that doccument this sort of slang and its evolution, use today, society's reaction to it, etc. Blackcats 05:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdefs. JamesBurns 11:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as Blackcats suggest to include a linguistic discussion, history and evolution (which will probably take time). The article is similar to Internet_slang, Gay slang, Baseball slang, Military slang. Give it more time, folks. -- Vsion 23:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unrelated entries. Some of the entries are definitely not slangs, only technical/proper terminologies for objects more frequently referred to by a slang term. It is inconceivable to say 'you're a gangmen ' (scientific name for anus) when in a bar and you wish to call someone an asshole. -Hmib 07:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Singlish to the benefit of both, --Wetman 16:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• OK, trigger-happy deletionists, I've just added quite a lengthy introduction and also a few words before each section so that it resembles more of an article and not merely a list now. Whaddyall think? Regarding Wetman's suggestion, I don't think it's appropriate to add it to the Singlish article because of the presence of the slang words in the other languages like Malay, Mandarin, Hokkien and Tamil. Well, if my effort gets zapped in the end, I'm resigned to dumping it into the Singlish or any other related discussion page.Groyn88 17:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Send for Cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I go for it. Reflects that Singaporeans have no social morale, no faith in ancestors or the gods. We must not keep such obscene terms in order to preserve the social dignity of WE SINGAPOREANS.Mr Tan 14:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though some of the above comments indicate room for improvement. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• My vote is Keep, as it is no less WikiFriendly than many other language pages. I also include the comment below which I found on the talk page:

This is a page of important academic linguistic information. It is difficult to locate such topics on the internet. Please do not try to prudishly censor or deface it, or try to get it removed.Groyn88 13:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Can you please define the significance and importance of such crude language? Crude, sexual slangs are always despised by the average person. And it is very easy to find on the net for many Singaporeans have their own blogs, and adding in vulgarities is no rare phnomenon. I did not say that I will vandalise the article at all, Groyn88.

And Wikipedia is a place that is not meant for such crude terms. If all the sexual slangs from every language in the world are to be listed, I feel that wikipedia will become a cheap-skit encyclopedia if this goes on. Wikipedia knows it well: Writing such obscene terms are banned from Wikipedia; and even the official wikipedia policy agrees to my viewpoint.

Let's come down to the social factor; does the world leaders ever use such obscene terms? I believe that they never do such sinful things that go against the will of god. And wikipedia is a high-class encyclopedia that will and always defend itself against such sins.

Mr Tan 17:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, Mr Tan. I would like to express my disagreement with some of the points you have raised:
• "Can you please define the significance and importance of such crude language?"

From an academic linguistic point of view, every word has a rightful place and context in any language. Calling them 'crude' is making a sociological value judgement. Linguists document all elements of a language, and do not try to whitewash or censor aspects of a tongue which offend their subjective personal sensibilities.

• "Crude, sexual slangs are always despised by the average person."

You must either be living in an ivory tower or have earplugs permanently stuffed in your ears. Sexual slang is used frequently in everyday life by average people. Can you truthfully declare that you have not heard a person whose mother tongue is Hokkien often use the expletives I have listed in the 'Hokkien' section? And have you, your family, your friends and fellow Singaporeans not occasionally uttered them yourselves? Let's not be hypocritical, naive and narrow-minded. Or try to paint a rose-tinted view of reality.

• "And it is very easy to find on the net for many Singaporeans have their own blogs, and adding in vulgarities is no rare phnomenon."

Vulgarities in English and Singlish, yes, but can you point me to a single blog that uses Hokkien, Cantonese or Tamil expletives? And wouldn't it be helpful for a foreign sociologist researching local linguistic culture and evolution to have a guide to these phrases, one that is so difficult to locate anywhere else?

• "If all the sexual slangs from every language in the world are to be listed, I feel that wikipedia will become a cheap-skit encyclopedia if this goes on. Wikipedia knows it well: Writing such obscene terms are banned from Wikipedia; and even the official wikipedia policy agrees to my viewpoint."

You obviously have not read the lengthy Wiki article Sexual slang, or any of the numerous articles in the Sexual slang category like Fuck, Pussy, List of sexual slurs, List of names for the human penis, etc. Or any of the even more numerous articles in the Profanity category like Cunt, Cock, Dick, Crap, Arse. etc., etc. Please check them out yourself before making such totally inaccurate statements.

• "does the world leaders ever use such obscene terms? I believe that they never do such sinful things that go against the will of god."

Some 'world leaders' have included history's worst mass murderers such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein and closer to home, Qin Shi Huang who united China through a torrent of bloodshed. How do you know that world leaders do not cuss in private? The Bible or other religious canons have never expressly labelled vulgarity not directed against religious figures as a 'sin'. That sexual slang is a 'sin' is your personal opinion. Moreover, Buddhists, Daoists and atheists do not believe in the existence of an absolute God.

• "And wikipedia is a high-class encyclopedia that will and always defend itself against such sins."

The existence of numerous articles in Wikipedia on Sexual slang makes it in your eyes, a sinful place, and to save your soul from hellfire, I suggest that you stay clear altogether.Groyn88 18:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Thanks to the introduction, I found unique value in this article beyond just a list of words. merbst

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