Talk:Controversies about the word "niggardly"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This page has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. The transwiki process is complete.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
  • Keep, 1 July 2005, AfD#1
  • Keep, 14 March 2007, AfD#2

Contents

[edit] Resignation

Was he forced to resign, or did he offer to resign? I sort of thought it was the latter. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

[edit] Nig-nog

This article (school master reprimanded for referring to two black pupils and an Asian classmate as being "in the nig-nog corner") might be of interest to anyone reading around the subject. Far less defensible than "niggardly", of course, or maybe the teacher had been asleep for a generation or two. –Hajor 5 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'm removing these statements:

The previous sentance establishes the point, but this statement is unecessary, merely an excuse to provide another slur? The word actually better matches Jewish stereotypical behaviour. Therefore, if it were based on a racial slur, it would make more sense for the word to be "kikedly" or "jewbaggedly".

This is blatently racist: Ironically, the only thing this incident accomplished was to prove the stereotype that black people are uneducated.

yes, that was vandalism by Tony Luigi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Apologies for not catching it. I have blocked him indefinitely. — Dunc|☺ 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Niggardly/Nigger

is the comparison, or mention of the two words necessary? As is clear they have nothing to do with one another in meaning and have completely different roots. It is just testament to some people's ignorance that the assosiation has been formed. Should we therefore on this precedent mention that people in Britain harrassed a paediatrician thinking she was a paedophile in the article about paediatricians? It really has nothing to do with the subject matter [1]... It is an ancient word that appears in Utopia by Thomas More, among many other works and has absolutely nothing to do with "Nigger". Bensonby 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who makes the mistake and thinks that they are being racially insulted deserves to be humiliated. If someone uses a word they do not understand, try lookin in the dictionary, not jumping to conclusions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.102.188 (talk • contribs)

Seems relevant to me. Given that at least one guy lost his job over the word, I think Wikipedia would be remiss in not mentioning and clarifying it. The thing in Britain is a little more dubious (because unlike "niggardly" and "nigger," which are related only by coincidence, "paedophile" and "paediatrician" actually have the same Greek roots), but if people are going to get that confused, maybe so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.45.8 (talk • contribs)

I have heard of more confusion between pedant and paedophile, not least because the ill-eduacted prefer the spelling pedophile, and because the first syllable of pedant and paedophile are often pronounced thn the same way, whereas paedetrician is nore commonly pronounced pea-dee-a-trician, but also because pedant is not such a commonly used word.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.102.188 (talk • contribs)
Referring to the entire United States and all who use US dictionaries as "ill educated" is not a way to win many friends on the internet. I would also say that the adjective form, pedantic, IS fairly commonly used. 76.202.59.91 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
But the original poster is indeed correct when alluding to the fact that "pedo" is an etymogically incorrect prefix. It should be "paedo" as it comes from the greek for "child" - (Pais). Pedophilia means (literally) "Love of the ground" - thus anyone who uses it instead of "paedophilia" is, indeed, ignorant. 217.196.245.2 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that anyone who uses the word greek uncapitalized and who spells Greek using Latin characters is much more ignorant. Usage, not etymology, rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the above poster's point stands, how can he use Greek characters on a latin keyboard? His point remains valid...87.194.20.119 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not valid. Whoever thinks it is should familiarize themselves with this. "Usage, not etymology, rules" is the critical part. Pseudonymed (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of Nigger

Now, this page lists it as "... from French ... from Spanish". It seems entirely ludicrous to propose that French needs to get a Latin word through Spanish, not to mention the failure to mention the Latin root. To boot, the pages for Nigger and Negro agree with this assessment. Changing it. 69.168.161.140 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I think that this article should exist, but the title isn't right. Shouldn't the title be something like "Niggardly controversy"? HuskyHuskie 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At the deletion discussion a good number of people wanted a change in the title, including me. It seems to me that since the word has become controversial at somewhat different times, it might be better to say "controversies", although they all seem to revolve around essentially the same issues. I'm not really sure whether "controversy" or "controversies" is better. I could accept either. Noroton 15:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a naming convention that prefers singular words to plural in Wikipedia article titles (here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)), but I don't think it applies here. Noroton 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about plurals, but I'd prefer Controversies about the word Niggardly or something like that, just because niggardly is an adjective so in "Niggardly controversy" it looks like it's modifying the word controversy.Chunky Rice 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. Good point. The title should be as short as possible, but that may be the shortest while also being the clearest. I guess the link from "Niggardly" will keep it accessable to people searching for something on this subject. If that link ever went, the article would be extremely difficult to find no matter what else we name it. The meaning of the title also fits the subject matter. You've capitalized "Niggardly" but we probably shouldn't, per Wikipedia naming policy. It's better that we don't put the word in quotes or italics (we probably can't put it in italics). Saying "the word" before "niggardly" makes it clear. I don't see a better substitute for "about" either: it's a good, plain word. Did you know there's a whole Wikipedia page not just on naming articles but on the use of capital letters in article names? It's here, but it all comes down to not using capital letters except for the first letter or in names. So: Controversies about the word niggardly Noroton 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
All right, just to make it more complicated, I used the Wikipedia "Search" and "Go" functions to look up "Controversies about", "Controversies on" and "Controversies over" and "over" is the word they use most. I personally like "about" but just so you all know, "over" is the word used more, if that matters. Noroton 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd support "over" or "about". I agree that the article is primarily about the controversies rather than the word; and I agree with the need to avoid quotes and to avoid making "niggardly" appear to be a modifier in the title. Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Lots of good info in this discussion on the name that I hadn't thought about. I really prefer shorter titles, but Chunky Rice is quite correct in his point about what looks like it is being modified. As to what preposition should be used, let me throw this suggestion out: Controversy regarding the word niggardly HuskyHuskie 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm fine with Controversies about the word niggardly. Is there any consensus here? Chunky Rice 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just took the initiative and moved the page since there didn't seem to be any singificant dissent about it.Chunky Rice 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sappy personal story - really needed?

The interjection about the newspaper editors in Ohio is cute, but does it really help our understanding of the topic? I don't think so, and would recommend its deletion. Feralcats 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I went ahead and took it out. Mike Christie (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Cute and sappy don't do it for me either, but I think it shows how strong feelings can get about using the word, on both sides. That's why I included it. How many words that have a noncontroversial regular meaning can you say that about? It gives another example (and there aren't an enormous number) showing how offended people can get about it. Please reconsider. Noroton 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm. To me the story is interesting because it's not just about misunderstanding the word as most of the controversy is. It's about getting offended by the word, even understanding the roots and the fact that it has no racially based history. I think that we should keep it, with that context in mind. I realize that it spun out of the David Howard incident, but in that context it might integrate better into the last section, which I think needs some work, anyway.
At the very least, we should keep a link to the story as a reference. It's a good source.Chunky Rice 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Noroton, you have a reasonable point. I looked up the NYT reference and read it through; I remember reading that story when it came out. I think my question would be whether what it adds is what the article needs. If you decide to re-add it, I'd like to suggest that you mention that one columnist was African-American, and the other was white. Without that it wasn't clear that it was more than just a disagreement about editorial policy. The rest of that section mentions that almost all newspaper op-ed coverage argued for free use of the word; one of these columnists argued against it, so that might be a useful reference point.
Having said all that, I am still not really sure it's all that useful to add it. The rest of the section already makes it clear it sparked a national debate and gave rise to strong feelings. Still, if you feel it adds value I won't contest it again.
Thanks for the note to alert me to this, by the way. Mike Christie (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Over the next week or so I'll look into it further and I may put it back in different form. Another thing I'd like to get in the article is more of the editorial comment on the overall subject. It was overwhelmingly against considering "niggardly" as a word people should be ashamed about, and we say that, but I think there should be more quotes and reporting on the reasons editorials gave. Thanks for the suggestions about the Ohio tiff. I'll try to incorporate them. Noroton 14:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move back

I'm requesting a move back to Controversies about the word niggardly. The article is not about the word itself as much as about the controversies that have been caused by use of the word. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose the re-naming since the top content has been changed to suit it's new name. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master of Ballantrae reference, other additions

Among other additions recently added to the "See also" section, I found this, which I removed:

If this is a case of "niggardly" being confused with "nigger" then, even though it might not be a controversy, it seems to me it would be of enough interest and related enough to the subject of this article that we could keep it in, but it would also have to be given an exact citation. And even then, the "See also" section is not the place for it. The article on Master of Ballantrae does not mention this. This article is about a sensitive subject, and we need exact citations even more for sensitive subjects. Noroton 03:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, if there's disagreement about this we should come to some consensus here about whether to keep it in or out of the article, which I certaily don't own. Noroton 04:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of paragraphs from top section

I added a brief explanation about the meaning of "niggardly" in the top paragraph and removed these paragraphs from the top section, since I can't see how they are necessary to this article. All the confusion comes from a simple similarity in the way the words sound, not because there's a controversy about how the words came into being. The origins of the words belong in articles about the individual words, not here:

"Niggardly" (noun: "niggard") is an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly", related to the Norwegian verb nigle. It is cognate with "niggling", meaning "petty" or "unimportant", as in "the niggling details".
"Nigger" derives from the Spanish/Portuguese word negro, meaning "black", and probably also the French nègre, which is likewise a racist insult derived from negro (the ordinary French word for "black" being noir). Both negro and noir (and therefore also nègre and nigger) ultimately come from nigrum, the accusative form of the Latin word niger, meaning "black".
The William Shakespeare play Macbeth, written several centuries before the development of the racial slur, uses the word niggard in its proper context, and is often used to demonstrate the unrelatedness of the words.

If anyone objects to the removal, please discuss the matter here and we can come to a consensus. Noroton 04:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no article about "niggard" other than this one, so that should be restored. There is simply a statement that "niggardly" and "nigger" have completely different origins, and that needs to be elaborated in the article. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that a brief etymology of both niggardly and nigger is appropriate, given the nature of the controversy. I removed the bit about Shakespear since I didn't see the relevance and it was a bit weasely. Who exactly are these people who use it as an example? We need a cite for all of it, but this in particular seemed suspect. -Chunky Rice 17:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also explanations

An editor removed the explanations after the dot points in See also, with the edit summary "We don't usually explain 'see also' items - the relevance should be obvious once the reader looks at the articles". WP:LAYOUT states "provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent", which seems to be the case for Tar baby and other links. So I'm restoring the descriptions, which help a user to decide whether they want to follow the individual links. –Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I changed to simpler descriptions which more clearly describe the relevance to this article. Nigger was linked in the article so I removed it, and Profanity says nothing about word meanings not in this article so I removed the suggestion that it did. –Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student name removed

I thought we had a discussion on this page before about this subject. The name of a college student involved in one of the controversies has been repeatedly removed and put back in. It's my understanding that there are more editors who think the name of this nonnotable person should be left out since it contributes nothing to the article and there is the possibility that someone would be embarrassed by having a permanent record of one's views in a controversy while at college. If there were some reason why the person's name would actually add to the article, that would probably overrule these concerns. The name has been added back yet again, and I'm removing it yet again, and I suggest that we form a consensus on the subject on this page if it is to be added back, as per WP:CONSENSUS. If no consensus is reached and an editor starts an edit war, I feel strongly enough about it that I'll take the editor through a dispute resolution process.Noroton (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of leaving the name out, based on my understanding of the BLP policy. The student has no notability outside of this one incident. Including the name doesn't add anything to the article. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)