Talk:Grammar Nazi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Linguistic prescription.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grammar Nazi article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of Grammar Nazi.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] Other languages removed

In Spanish, the Grammar Nazi is known as Orthographic Taliban (Talibán Ortográfico)

No, it's not quite true, in fact it's only a temporal therm (now obsolete) and used "locally" (some specific forum) so i removed it.

--Magallanes 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you delete it on the spanish encyclopedia too?

--83.61.77.254 16:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More clear

Nazi (word) is also used in the way of a ADJECTIVE, about some authoritarian and destructive way and with a negative connotation (even when he was right). There was little point to talk about the nazi's party where they are different concept.


--Magallanes 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research - should be removed

This article, like most articles containing slang or popular terms used on the internet, consists of much original research, and little of it is verifiable. It should be removed for the aforementioned reason. 66.142.89.247 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between being lacking sources (which this is) and being original research. It is verifiable in principle. Subsolar 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etc

My edit wasn't that great. Right. Anyway, some popularity checks:

(Fascist) i know i rock hold the applause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[1] Grammar - 800

[2] Spelling - 170

[3] Language - 170


(Nazi)

[4] Grammar - 25k

[5] Spelling - 7k

[6] Language - 800

{Seas 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] grammar nazi != black&white

The following paragraph was removed on the basis that it is clumsy and adds nothing of value. Clumsy, perhaps. But I think it makes a valid point.

"Being a grammar nazi is not always a black & white definition. Some people let minor mistakes (such as 'theyre' and 'concieve') go by, but make a point of correcting major 'errors' (such as their <=> they're, hate = h8, tonight = 2nite, for examples.) This can sometimes earn one a title of Grammar Nazi from people who use a looser form of communication."

Eh... I don't think there's anything exceptionally important here, and I don't think it needs to go into the article, especially as it seems this person might just be dealing with personal experiences with "grammar nazis". I know I'm one myself, and it annoys me so much when people leave out apostraphes in contractions. Retinarow 16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
...or place punctuation outside of quotation marks (US English) ... or misspell apostrophes. ;-) ⇒ BRossow T/C 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It annoys me when people write ellipses as three periods in a row, rather than properly as spaced dots. LWizard @ 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The article seems (to me) to take a particularly negative stance towards grammar nazis. For example, the statement that it is a derogatory term stands out to me. Though some may use it as such, there are those who willingly use the term to describe themselves. The claim that grammar nazis tend to make corrections on statements that express opinions contrary to their own is too much of a generalisation. There are those who tend to correct only glaring errors that could prove confusing to some, errors that have been repeated, common mistakes (such as confusion between homophones like your and you're, etc), excessive use of chat speak (u for you, 2 for to or too, etc), or errors that the offender purports to be correct. --Tacubus 02:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Also, two hyphens does not equal a dash. ;) —BorgHunter (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I have cleaned it up a bit and removed the NPOV tag. NatusRoma 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Those who refer to themselves as a grammar nazi do so with a touch of self deprecation. It is still a negative term. Who in their right mind would use nazi as part of a term to describe anything positive? Jcsutton 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Some people call themselves assholes. It's still a derogatory term. It can be used in a less insulting manner, but that doesn't change anything. You can use a gun as a hammer, but it's still a firearm.

[edit] "Red Herring"

This is also used as a red herring when someone has no real argument, to discredit the other person on unrelated issues.

This statement is vague. What is used as a "red herring", the pointing out of grammar mistakes by grammar nazis or the name-calling by the victims of the grammar nazi? I'm removing it until someone can clarify (and then fix up the sentence and re-add it). appzter 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serial commas, etc.

Before an edit war breaks out, can we agree that because Wikipedia.org is registered and hosted in the United States we will agree to follow American English conventions for punctuation and spelling where applicable? Otherwise there's no resolution possible due to conflicting rulesets across the Atlantic. As for the use of the serial comma, that's a stylistic issue and I'm willing to accept either convention as long as we're consistent throughout. --BRossow 21:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brossow, I'm giving up the edit war, although being a good grammar nazi I did just have to explain British punctuation rules on your user page :-) but for anyone else reading here I thought I'd just mention that Wiki convention allows all major forms of English, not only AmE. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English for more details. Saint|swithin
Understood — just asking that we settle on one or the other and agree not to keep changing it, given that there's no possible alternative solution. I didn't want to "win" per se, just wanted to offer this suggestion in order to avoid any potential for future conflict. As long as we're agreed, it seems that we have arbitrarily set the standard for this topic as AE. I'll also suggest that the serial comma not be used here. --BRossow 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Socialism

Its pretty sick to see how lightheartedly the Nazis and their atrocities seem to be taken by some members of this encyclopedia. I suggest the immediate revocation of this worthless, deeply offensive and mind-numbingly insensitive phrase. Nesher 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. Just because some people have no problems with being accused of being a "grammer nazi" doesn't mean using such a term is alright. I'm not talking about political correctness. By using this term so light-hearted, everyone ridicules the victims of the Nazi regime. It does not matter whether it's because you have slept during history lessons or whether you're too self-righteous to realize this. In any case, I prefer free speech because that make it easier to see who's clearly an idiot and who isn't. --82.141.57.132 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly worthless, it's hardly "insensitive". There are many terms which you might think "insensitive" that others do not. Need you be reminded about the NPOV? Macktheknifeau 12:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the term is offensive, but it is the commonly used term. Wikipedia can't deem something worthless by the fact that it's insensitive, unless the article itself is unnecessarily offencive. In this case, it's the term that offends, not the article.12.17.189.77 01:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It may have been a bit early, but this was probably an April Fools' joke. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Trust me, it wasn't Nesher 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikipedia users should not call themselves Nazis, unless they want to do a genocide on everybody who is different and kill everybody in gas chambers who dissents. Grammar issues can be discussed in a civilised manner and there is no need for a “Final solution of the Grammar Question”. Regularly using the term Nazi in Wiki discussions trivializes the millions of murders Nazis committed on Jews, Romani, gay people, political opponents, mentally ill and many others. It makes their lives and deaths a mockery. IMHO that should be mentioned in the article and reference should be added what a Nazi actually is.
Even worse is the use of Nazi emblems for Wiki userboxes like [[7]] [[8]]. I think both text and graphic attributions of that kind violate the Wikipedia Etiquette. --Vancouver robin 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel that the term "Grammar Nazi" really trivializes the actions of what the Nazi party did in real life. If anything, the term is a ridicule of Hitler and his followers and is no more harmful than the Allied World War II propaganda posters depicting the Nazis in a similar fashion. Just because we make fun of such notorious figures doesn't mean that we're incapable of adopting a serious tone when it comes time to deal with them Masterblooregard (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have started an external links section, i think this would be a good idea, could someone please add some more and larger ones86.31.234.49 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia?

Might http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp08252006.shtml be appropriate to stick in a trivia section? Eestolano 07:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

can't stick this anywhere.. but here's a funny grammar nazi pic... http://imagehost.bizhat.com/show.php?id=178380 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pottenkulam (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

No, sorry, I dont like it.... Martin | talk • contribs 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased?

This article's facts are incomplete, and it appears to be biased towards the view of a single person (possibly the original author?). There are many innacuracies (ie. "...and often only in opinions with which the accused grammar nazi disagrees", "The grammar nazi ignores the logical correctness of the argument...") which appears to be more opinion than fact. It just needs to cleaned up a bit. 198.164.153.61 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up what I saw as POV, but it may still need a bit of work. Blast 17.03.07 1500 (UTC)

[edit] Merged elsewhere

This article ought to be merged with a more general article on some linguistic topic. "Grammar nazism" seems to me to be a conservative force against the natural evolution of a language. Not knowing anything about the linguistics articles here, I can't suggest where it might belong, though. Additionally, I am the person who wrote the article cited in the references section. I don't know why my article is cited except as an example of the usage of the term (it's fairly common around here), since my training is in physics, not English or linguistics, and I'm not any kind of authority. If no better sources can be found regarding this phenomenon then perhaps the article ought to be deleted altogether.Egendomligt 05:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe merge with Godwin's Law, although I'm not sure how we'd do the see also section. Blast 18.04.07 1517 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I am not the kind of people with no sense of humour, but don't you think the "nazi" flag might be a bit over the top? -- lucasbfr talk 08:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the rendering of the "G" as a kind of swastika is pretty pathetic. I instantly lose any respect for anyone who displays this on their user page. Shawn in Montreal 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind if it's taken out; I made it to provide a public-domain version for the JPEG flag that was previously uploaded and added to this article by an anonymous editor, and subsequently deleted because no one could figure out just where it came from. In any case, let's try not to discuss how terrible the flag is and how we lose respect for those who display it on their userpage, etc., etc., etc. Octane [improve me] 29.06.07 2325 (UTC)
I am leaning towards nominating the whole article for deletion, though. A Google test yielded pretty meagre results. You can pretty much stick anything before "Nazi" to make a point that one is, well, a stickler. I see no notability to the article, at all. Shawn in Montreal 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, ignoring the nature of Google tests, I get 1.3 million results. And while you might be correct in saying that placing 'Nazi' after any given word to indicate a stickler is possible, this particular term (as shown above) is quite common.
However, since it's rather impossible to track a slang term's history (which is what it should do if it is on Wikipedia), perhaps we can transwiki it to Wiktionary. Octane [improve me] 01.07.07 0059 (UTC)

A lot of the Google hits I saw were blogs and such, which I understand should not be used to establish notability. And I got zero hits for it on Google News, which admittedly is a much stricter test of notability. If it could be moved off the encyclopedia project I would obviously be for that. Shawn in Montreal 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My changes

I just removed a few ref tags. One was to deviantart, which although it showed the usage, it's basically just some guy selling shirts, not a real source. I also removed a few refs to blogs, blogs are also bad sources, i checked them out, and the person writing the blog didn't seem notable in linguistics or some related area, so i counted these as poor sources too. Another ref was urban dictionary, that is a site that any one can edit or add a definition to, i didn't consider that a good source either. I'm not expecting Noam Chomsky level references here, but something better than non notable blogs and other garbage is needed. I also removed the image. Even the text below said 'official' in quotes, hinting to me that it's not official at all. I couldn't find information on any group of grammar nazis, let alone an official logo. If it is official then sources to back that up need to be given. In the See Also section i removed a link to a blog. The blog was just someones personal blog, it didn't appear worthy of a link here, the writer was not an expert in the area, and the blog entries appeared to have little to do with the subject.

I agree with those who feel this page should be deleted, or at best moved somewhere else like wiktionaty. I considered trying to beef it out a bit, but a bit of googling didn't find anything i felt notable enough to include. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Champion sound remix (talk • contribs).

[edit] Proposed deletion

As someone else already mentioned the idea, and I agree, i added this template. Champion sound remix 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

Do a search on Grammar Nazi and go from there.

BUT HAY LETZ JUS DEELEET THIS ARTICLE INSTEAD LULZ. :rolleyes: Mr. Raptor 16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I did do a search on grammar nazi, and was unable to find anything notable. The problem with a lot of these kind of internet phrases, is of course many of us know it's a well known thing on the internet, but that is not enough, we need good sources to show notability, as per WP:NOTE, which are very difficult to find on something like this. I put the proposed delete template on not just because i think it should go, but also to encourage more discussion on that. Maybe someone would come by and see that, and knowing a decent source, provide it. Personally I don't think this will happen, clearly someone tried to find good sources before, but the best they could come up with was non-notable blogs. Champion sound remix 05:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

This is a poor quality article. I would also delete it. If the phrase is really in common use, then it ought to be discussed, but perhaps as a footnote in an article on internet slang. People who correct other people's grammar can be annoying, but are not an encyclopedic phenomenon. The use of the word Nazi for something so trivial is not acceptable in serious terminology, although it's probably fine in slang - which again speaks against this as an article title. I really don't think this is going anywhere. --Doric Loon 07:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I also believe this term only has significant usage in a few specific Internet communities. --Ortzinator 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related Topics

Well, I added related topics, 1) Godwin's law linked me here so there must be a link back 2) It is an internet lang -related topic so I am adding links from this page to other topics and vice versa mizzo 08:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wiktionary?

At best, this is a 'definition' article. The term has been around for a long time (I recall being called one back in 1989-90) 'but' I cannot imagine expanding it beyond words to the effect of 'slang/derogatory term for someone perceived as having a pedantic or precisian atitude to grammar and/or spelling.'Bridesmill 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move to Wikitionary.

Please keep all discussion of this vote here. Comments placed elsewhere will be moved here.

Move Per the many suggestions here on the talk page, I've added a template to a suggest a move to Wikitionary. To find out more about the criteria for that, you can read about that here WP:DICT if you'd like. At this point, the article seems like a good candidate for that transition since it more or less just talks about the term and how it's defined rather than about the people, concepts, places, events, and things the title denotes with any citation or reference beyond an urban slang dictionary which kind of further reinforces the idea that the article is much better suited for the Wikitionary. --76.214.226.199 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Move Agree with move, it's not really an article or subject that is suitable for Wiki, but is widespread enough for inclusion in the Wikitionary projectMacktheknifeau 05:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and hang all you book-burning deletionists. Ohemgee (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Either move or simply delete, depending on whether you can find reliable sources. Is the phrase in ANY dictionary? Or if not, has it been discussed by such experts on new usage as Michael Quinion? If so, it deserves a Wikitionary article. If not, if it is just a couple of people's in jargon, it deserves nothing at all. It must be verifyable to be in any Wiki, and so far there is no evidence of that. But it certainly shouldn't be here. --Doric Loon 15:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)