Talk:List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 13, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article incorporates text from the public domain 1907 edition of The Nuttall Encyclopædia.

This page was created in response to the existence of Pejorative terms for Germans. The encyclopedic value of both may be questionable. M123 06:04, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents


how is that for an argument. "Someone criticize me so I go hit someone else head". How mature !

Because it is american centred.

And to show my displeasure about unrespect.

Not liking content is not a valid reason to remove it. InanimateCarbonRod 17:03, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You are confused. My displeasure is not about this paragraph. It is about the existence of the article. Especially its existence alone. It is about NPOV as a global term on wikipedia. Such as the multiplication of anti-french article, with a comparative non existence of some other countries, or just poor coverage even of the US.
Besides, I fear it will always stay that way, because this project is in english. So that make sense that american people list all the offending english terms they give french people, but that does not make sense that french people create a similar list with french terms to qualify americans.
Last, precisely, why this paragraph ? Just because it is a perfect exemple of an american-centrist article, where it is mentionned when an offending term is used in the another country than US (here GB), but where just mentionning who is using a term when it is in American is not *even* worth mentionning. In short, this article is plain biaised, because it tries to make believe the whole world is using that term, when in reality it is only some americans. I guess americans can not even see why it is worth mentionning this.
I would like all the french and the german articles to be merged in a more general article, which title could be something like Offensive terms per nationality or anything better but meaning this. It is a bit easy to talk of commnunity decision, when the highest majority of people is not concerned by such articles. There are only two articles, one on french, one on german. Curiously, only two people against, the french and the german. All the others claiming there is no issue at all. Of course :-) But do anything similar with any other social group well represented on Wikipedia, such as homosexual, you will assist to an uproar and severe campaign for deletion. Well, I am not offered this. The french and the german are left with these two articles, and we find them offensive as such. I would like that other people opinions are taken into consideration, not just thrown away because they are minorities. So, I suggest that these two articles are merged into a general one; so that at list the offending title disappear.
I think that merging the offensive french and offensive german pages might be a good idea as it may at least add balance when other nationalities are added. I don't understand why you keep removing the second paragraph. If the term is used mainly in the US, simply add that fact, don't remove the whole paragraph on that basis. It seems that you are emotionally involved in this page, however I hope this situation won't cloud rational judgements on content. InanimateCarbonRod 17:48, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No, I am little emotionally involved in the topic, so I fear little problem. However, I saw these articles be quietly forgotten just because the majority does not care about them. I just do what I think may trigger an answer from anyone, while my opinion and the german one did not interest anyone of vfd. I would be glad of a merging, but am not sure what the best title would be.

I am not sure Offensive terms per nationality is a proper title. I would like someone to comment on this one, or to suggest something. To avoid renaming all these pages 3 or 4 times with different titles. Basically no one seems interested in answering me; so I will keep reverting till someone has a suggestion to offer.


Fine. I am sure this title is not english proper. But since nobody suggested a better one, this is it.

You (plural) have now succeeded in hiding the content of those former separate pages so that the uninitiated are unlikely ever to find it, as it seems that double redirects do not work. Also, the euphemistic term "informal" crops up again. It is not "informal" to call Germans the names mentioned here, it is offensive. Why you seem unwilling to call a spade a spade I do not know, but it is the words themselves which are offensive, not the existence of an article or several articles about them. --KF 08:37, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It may seem more "consistent", but I don't believe getting something wrong just for the sake of uniformity is a good idea. (See my comment above.) I did not change the other subheadings because I don't know enough about the terms listed there. Also, is it "consistent" to have "offensive" in the title then? --KF 08:07, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Okay, so it's "offensive" now throughout the article. That's much better I think. --KF 08:28, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm...My feeling is that most terms are not necessarily offensive. For example I call myself a kraut without feeling offended. The title is probably not very precise, especially the use of the word offensive. Anyway, it does not make too much difference to mee either way. --Chris_73 11:58, 31 Oct 2003 (Japan Time)

I am very happy I renamed and merge the initial articles offensive terms for french and for german. I think this page is much more satisfying :-) Anthère

I am very confused by two things about the current page. 1) How can a term be "offensive" and not be "pejorative"? Are you being redundant here? 2) I can't convince myself that all of these terms are offensive. One example - "Yank" is a term that I associate with US soldiers in WW II. What few connotations is has are mildly good, not bad. I've been called a Yank and considered it nothing more than an aknowledgement of my accent. If someone's intending that as an insult - well, they missed the mark.

Unfortunately, the only way I see to fix this article is to make it into more of an etymological study. That means a lot more detail. Who thinks the term is offensive? In what context? Where did it come from and how has the meaning changed? What exactly are the negative connotations? Is it a universally acknowledged "offensive" term or is that a minority opinion? Without that level of detail I don't see much value to this article. Rossami 04:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this page badly needs to be re-named.

Not all slang names for nationalities are offensive. "Tommy" for a British soldier is almost affectionate: "Here come the brave Tommys!"

Tommy derives from "Thomas Atkins", a name once used in the example form in a British soldier's pay-book.

see [1] DJ Clayworth 19:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are also some notable omissions in the article, such as WOP. (A group of Italians arrived at Ellis Island without papers, their files were marked Wo.P. and the name stuck.)Anjouli 18:25, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It seems like, thinking about alot of ethnic/nationalistic slurs that I recall hearing here in the U.S. growing up, alot of them seem to be examples of "names" that sound like they're from the ethnicity/nation at issue. I wonder if that's true of other cultures (I hope!) -- it seem's rather playgroundish in any case.

On a side note, I've alway's envied the cockney rhyming slang -- although it was years before I figured out why a "bhlbhlbhlbhlb"-type sound was called a rasberry.

I always thought that the story that "Pom" derived from "Prisoner of Mother England" (I've also heard "Prisoner of His/Her Majesty", "POHM") was an urban legend, but this page presents it as fact. Is there any evidence that it is in fact true? Proteus 14:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alternative_words_for_British says it is folk etymology. Secretlondon 19:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Inselaffe" als Begriff der Deutschen für die Briten? Hab ich in meinem ganzen Leben noch nie gehört :-D

I think someone just made that one up. I asked a few native German friends on a reflector, and they have never heard this word used in Germany either. They just call us 'Englander' or 'Englisch' - ignoring the Anglo/Scot/Welsh difference. In old times we addressed each other as 'Tommy' and 'Fritz', but that was way back when... ChrisRed UK 01Sept06.

I'd assume, that in all slavic languages the words for "German" and "mute person" are related or equal. --Pjacobi 20:08, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

[edit] Jew

Forget that. Could someone please explain how "Jew" is a nationality? 17;19, Sep 19 2005

Could someone please explain how "Jew" is an offensive term for Jews? —Ashley Y 06:58, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

I can't, but I've met several people (all non-Jewish) who found it offensive. They prefer "Jewish person."

Do any other contributors ever feel guilty about knowing so many of these terms already? I think that "beaner" was my second contribution to this list, and I kind of felt weird about it. I want people to know that just because I may know of a word and add it to this list, I do not employ the term myself! --Jpbrenna 04:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gweilo

White Ghost or White Devil. Description of White People by the Chinese.

No, only by the Cantonese. 84.174.140.32

[edit] Gaijin

Just similar to the Chinese description, but this time by Japanese.

This is just wrong, it is nothing like the Chinese term, according to Wikipedia itself Gaijin means `foreigner´ - and it is certainly unclear how much of a offensive term it really is. I for one believe unless explicitly used in the the negative context described in the article it is not offensive and simply a common misconception.--AndersH 09:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Think about Japanese culture for a minute. There's nothing more offensive you could possibly call someone than foreigner, and thus the connotation. 74.12.147.21 22:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zhid

Zhid (жид) - Russian term, [...] not pejorative

I don't speak Russian, so I don't know about this, but this page suggests that it is offensive term and has been for some time. Can it be offensive without being pejorative ? bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


It is highly offensive to Jews in Russia and Ulraine. However, in the past it didn't have offensive meaning and still used in some names for example Zhidovski vorota(Жидовские ворота) in Kiev means Zhid's Gates or Jewish Gates. There is also an idiom in Russian Vechniy Zhid[Вечный Жид] (Wandering Jew). The usage of it doesn't contain any offencive meaning. Also, zhid is a synonym for a greedy, close fisted man, not always Jewish. Zhiditsya(жидеться)-- refuse to give something. How I know zhid is common name for Jews in Poland and Chech Republick and doesn't have any offensive meaning in it.--Glushak 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilians

First, im glad there are no such words for brazilians (I guess theyre that friendly). Also, I was taught that the reason for calling foreigners in general, and americans in particular, gringo is different. It goes back to the 40s, when there were a number om american military bases in Brazil (mainly in NE) as supporting bases for the troops to cross the Atlantic in WWII.The unsatisfied population organized marches and riots, with signs that read "ALL GREEN, GO HOME" (referring to the green uniforms used by the american military). Thus, the term Gringo was born.

That's a common misconception, it's descended from Latin griego which means litteraly meens Greek, but was applied to all foreigners.Cameron Nedland 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Any sources on that? Otherwise, its only an opinion.~~LtDoc~~

[edit] Australians

[edit] 51st Stater

This doesn't look like a very widely used term, but from what I read from several Google sites it is normally used to criticize persons of ones own country who slavishly imitate US customs or politics. If it is applied to Canadians more than others, it is because they are geographically closer. But it doesn't make sense for people in the US to criticize others for being too much like them. Shoaler 21:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ABC

This entry is linked to a disambiguation page (ABC) and I'd like to see it linked to an article, but without the meaning of the term, I can't update the link. Could someone provide some additional text for this entry? Thanks. Courtland 02:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I unlinked the ABC as there was no term on the disamb page related to this usage. I found one reference that indicated it was playground slang. Not enough info to make an article/not notable enough to add to disamb page. —ERcheck @ 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pepsi

In what way is Pepsi not an offensive term for French Canadians? It is not just a random piece of trivia about Pepsi outselling Coke in Quebec; the specific word "Pepsi" is quite specifically used as a derogatory label for the Quebec people, in senses such as "He is a Pepsi", "Those Pepsis...", "get out of my face, you f*cking Pepsi", etc. I have already, earlier on this page, pointed out a Wikipedia article which quite specifically details an incident in which a television journalist quite specifically got into hot water for quite specifically calling a specific person "a Pepsi". Review Gord Martineau and explain to me again how an offensive label for people doesn't belong on a list of offensive labels for people. Bearcat 04:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I grew up in Ottawa. I have spent the last 10 years in B.C.. I have never heard this term referred to anybody, derogatory or not. Then again, I haven't heard half of those terms used above. --maclean25 06:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with Bearcat. It's legit. -The Tom 13:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Frank magazine made several "Pepsi" jokes about Quebecers throughout the 1990s. It's legit, and well-documented. CJCurrie 17:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, definitely legit. — mendel ☎ 15:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not legit. I am a Quebecer and have travelled Canada far and wide, during the time of both referendums, and although I heard a lot of Quebec trashing I never heard that term. The real question is if the terms fits in the greater purpose of Wikipedia, which is to inform and not say that because a handful of people used a word it is embedded in popular culture. A pool conducted in both French and English Canada would probably demonstrate that very few people even know that meaning of `Pepsi`

[edit] Kelper

Kelper is very occasionally used in Argentine Spanish as an insult (see Talk:Falkland Islands), but I suspect that the usual usage in English is still the non-derogatory one of "born in the Falkland Islands." Unless someone objects, I will make this change shortly. Matt 11:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pepsi

Bearcat, this site is not asking about the financial position of a company. What your talking about is merely a stereotype that is fallaciously undergirded by perceptions, especially within Quebecers. For many Canadians, like myself, I have not even heard of this term applied to Quebecers.

On the site Pepsi-Cola, here is what the term Pepsi alludes to:

    "The term is now used as a historical reference to French-English linguistic animosity."

The key in that paragraph is linguistic, not national. If it was national, then it would be felicitious to apply the word Pepsi as a derogatory term for Quebecers.

As well, it would do well to remind ourselves that this site is created for offensive terms per nationality. Although Pepsi may be used as derogatory, the tastes for that drink in Quebec may fluctuate; in short, it is indelible. The terms enumerated on this site pertain to offensive terms indelibly affixed to particular nationalities.

Will you please attempt to understand what we're saying? This is not just a stereotype in the sense of "Those Quebecois drink a lot of Pepsi, eh?"; the word "Pepsi" is itself directly used as a NOUN for the people themselves, as in "Those Pepsis really oughta speak English like normal people, eh?"
Bottom line: what you guys are failing to understand is that the word is used as an offensive and dismissive noun for a group of people. In what way does that not meet the purposes of this list? Bearcat 03:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Bottom line: What does Pepsi have to do with "offensive terms per nationality?" Since when was Quebecois a nationality? Canada is ONE nationality, not two discrete nationalities. Besides, Pepsi is a term that seems to derogate a specific group of persons within the state.
The article already differentiates between "offensive terms for English Canadians" and "offensive terms for French Canadians". Your argument might actually have some merit if it didn't, but it does. Bearcat 04:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darius

"Labas" is not an offensive term for Lithuanians. It means "hello." See http://www.autoinfa.lt/webdic/ (if you can read Lithuanian, see def. 3 "said as a greeting"). All my life every Lithuanian I've known (including me and my family) have said it to one another, and we have no Russian background.

[edit] Aboriginals

Please do not put offensive terms per nationality to aboriginal peoples in developed countries, such as Australia, Canada, the UK and the US. It is with such ignominy that we have had to live in history under the iron fists of European settlers as slaves. To see these terms asseverated as merely "offensive terms" is both upsetting and very disturbing. Please do not put these terms on this board anymore. They do not warrant any a space here.

Here here! --193.60.81.207 16:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Offensive terms like "Eskimo" for Inuit people have no European origin.Wandalstouring 17:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The origin of "Eskimo" is not necessarily meant as offensive (see the Eskimo article), nor has it been used by the people who lived among them in past decades to be more than a simple identifier. I live in northern Canada, and there is a different word that serves as an ethnic slur, which I won't repeat here. 207.189.230.42 08:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Americans"

I don't want to revive the long and boring conflict about the usage of "American" to denote "of the U.S.", as there is a multitude of pages on Wikipedia where it has been debated. However, on this article here, it is outright silly (and insulting as well) to list "Americans" along with Peruvians, Chileans, Mexicans etc. So please let's keep it to some neutral wording; I don't insist on "citizens of the U.S." but "Americans" is too charged to stay. Kosebamse 18:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clutchplates

I have taken "Clutchplates" out of the South African list. It is not known to a variety of South Africans, and it has been suggested that it is a pejorative slang term used in academic South African schools to refer to vocational schoolgoers. That is, it is not a national offensive term, or and English-vs.-Afrikaans term, but an economic class term. Further, it seems not to be well-known, reportedly having appeared in one novel.

--Nat 11:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bukkakes

Can somebody please provide sourcing for the term being used anywhere in the world to denote the Japanese? I am guessing that this term came from someone's imagination. We probably all know what vernacular meaning of bukkake (from Bukkakeru - to splash water), but I have never seen nor heard the term used (I know, I am not the world's expert on slang) either in person, in writing nor in audio/video media.

user:jerry.mills

Well, not to seem rather rude but the term Bukkake is listed on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake

  • awkward silence*

user:badfishstan

[edit] Gook

Interesting word. I have heard somewhere that when American Forces arrived in the Korean Peninsula, Korean Nationals would see the Americans and say: "Megook" which means (if I am correct) "American". It did not take long for the GI to hear this and make a derog term from it.

- Korean National: Me gook!!! Me gook!!!

- American GI: Why... yes, you are a gook.

user:jerry.mills

[edit] Bukkakes Part II

Removed that particular "imaginary offensive term" from the list. I almost removed "rapists" form the list, but I imagine this is a term being used by the Chinese. Still, it needs sourcing.

user:jerry.mills

Boer , referring to Afrikaners, meaning "farmer"; originally in universally accepted usage, the term is now obsolete and used pejoratively.

Rock Spider, used by English South Africans to refer to Afrikaners, meaning that they are big and hairy - also an Australian prison slang term for a paedophile


Guy’s , you seem to have a few thing wrong here on these items

I suggest you go back to the drawing board , Boer is far from obsolete and Rock Spider has nothing to do with hair

Best regards Christiaan Oosthuizen ( a Boer and a rock spider)

[edit] How come nigger is not on this

How come nigger is not on this. Isn't it offensive.

It is - Read closer and look under AMERICAN. That is where the term originated and is used most.

[edit] Cracker

I always thought the offensive term "cracker" came from the whites "cracking" their whips at the slaves. Are you sure that it's not that? loulou 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I though it was because crackers, such as Saltines, are white.207.189.230.42 08:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cracker (cont.)

Part of my family hails from the Florida panhandle, from Quincy to Jacksonville, and the old timers who grew up at the turn of the century--and have been dead for quite a while now -- were proud of being "Crackers" and said that the term came from the whips that were used to drive cattle across river fords. Hmmm. regarding the "content must be verifiable" here poses a problem. I do have the transcript of a tape recording of an oral history of the family, by a great aunt who died in her 90's, about 20 years ago, in which she mentions that. Unfortunately we all know how unreliable oral histories are. Charles

[edit] Swedish = bøsser?

It says Swedish are called bøsser (gay) in Denmark. Never heard of that! Medico80 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear it´s because Swedish tonality makes it seem very feminine (according to Finnish sources). (BTW I´m Norwegian).AndersH 23:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard it either, but the Swedish intonation can sound quite funny in Danish ears. By Danish standards, it would be considered feminine. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merges

No reason to keep separate articles out there for just some nationalities and not others. If you are going to insult in a NPOV way, you need to insult equally. Both the German and British articles need to be merged here. Neither are referenced either. The American equivalent article was reworked and the slang moved here a long time ago. Also, Pejorative terms for Germans, which Alternative words for Germans is a recreation of was merged here. Lets be fair folks.pschemp | talk 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with the merges. --Splette Image:Happyjoe.jpg Talk 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scabby Jew

Ive added this term to the jewish section as it is used by the irish to say someone is does not share things or is unwilling to. Most people use it with out knoledge of offense and the word scabby is more often followed by bastard but jew is said a lot, in the kindest possible sense, i think, people are more offended by the scabby part.


[edit] Knacker/Nacker?

Another very common Irish one, but does someone know the correct spelling? I have seen it spelt with a 'k' sometimes so im unsure only ever with a K

I'm from Sligo, in Ireland, and I can tell you it's 100% spelled with a k. A definition of it is given under 'Knacker' in Wikipedia. I have been called a mexicano as a light hearted term for residents of the Republic of Ireland. This could be added to 'Mexican', because i think the use of mexican-like phrasing is funny. 213.200.67.154 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Knacker (as it is spelt with a 'K') should be included in the article as it is very commonly used in Ireland. Used to describe poor/Living in a caravan(trailer park)/Involved in Crime. Similar to 'Chav', 'Scally', 'Redneck' etc. History: The term is derived from "Knackers Yard" which is an area of a slaughterhouse where unusable parts of animals are dumped, or parts that are unfit for consumption. The word 'knacker' as an insult has been used for nearly 90 years in Ireland (V* Discharge 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Jew

While I don't find the list, per se, offensive, I am perplexed that Jews have been classified as a NATIONALITY, perhaps indicative of a UNIVERSAL anti-Semitism, as evidenced by the numbers of perjorative terms - FORTY - listed. Also, can a reader intuit that by the count, Italians and people of the USA (NOT all Americans, North, Central and South)with 36 and 34, respectively, are 2nd and 3rd on the "hit parade?" Personally, the phrase "(S)He's a JEW" always seemed a bit harsher than "(S)He's Jewish." Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid. By NOT categorizing Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., as separate entites further reinforces my paranoia, especially with ever-escalating Anti-Semitism in all corners of the world, not to mention Islamic extremists vowing to kill all infidels regardless of Nationality.

You have a point about Jewish not being a nationality, though bearing in mind the general tone of the page there's very little point getting upset about who has the most offensive names associated with them. Should terms for Jews be removed from this list, perhaps relocated if they are thought worthy of preservation? Alternatively the article could be renamed 'Offensive terms by ethnicity', which would include Jews.
Jews are more nationality-like than Catholics, Muslims, etc. because in Judaism there's no proselitizing and if you decide you want to become a Jew, you have to go through a long and difficult process. As a consequence intermarriage has been rare (you couldn't convert the bride to fit your religion). The result is that most Jews are born into families that have been Jewish for as long as anyone can remember.
In the past, if a Christian king conquered new territory, the people living on that territory would become Christians too, and so the worldwide pool of Christians became ethnically and geographically diverse. A similar thing happened in Islam. Not in Judaism. (I don't know enough about Buddhism to comment on that.)
Of course there are regional differences, but as a whole 'the Jews' are a more uniform entity than 'the Christians' or 'the Muslims'. There are diseases and genes that are linked to Jewishness, I've never heard of 'Christian genes' (but perhaps they exist, I just haven't heard of them). Summarizing: 'Jews' is not a nationality as much as 'Italians', 'Germans' etc. are, but there is more to say for classifying Jews as a nationality than there is for other religions.

[edit] "Kraut-Eating, War-Mongering, Jew-Gassing Fascist"

Just delete this rubbish...some nerd just made it up. I am British, 50 years old and have never heard of, or seen this phrase in my life until now. The only (mildly) offensive term for Germans still used here is "Krauts", but even this is falling into disuse. Nowadays we just call them 'The Germans", sometimes in a silly accent such as mock-german (i.e."Zee Gerrmanns") or a broad 'Scouse' accent (after Liverpool comedian Stan Boardman). 160.84.253.241 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't read The Sun, do you?

[edit] Quisling

Likewise, never heard 'Quisling' used in Britain to mean 'A Norwegian'. I've only heard it used as a synonym for a political 'Traitor', 'Turncoat' or 'Collaborator' in general - regardless of nationality. The Brits don't have an (intentionally) offensive term for the Norwegians. Some (especially in the Royal Navy) nickname the people 'Noggies' and their currency 'Nogs'. ChrisRed 08:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banabak.

I personally never heard about this word. This article says it's an ethic slur for Armenians. This is what I found in Russian Wiki: Banabak is widely in use in Ukrain and South Russia for Middle Eastern looking people, commonly Caucasians. Here is the link: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Банабак--Glushak 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabs

I see that the complete removal of the Arab Section was done at 17:08, 26 August 2006. Are Arabs not considered an ethnic group? Is this just vandalism out of ethnic pride? user:Jerry.mills

[edit] Arabs Continued

After reading the definition of Ethnic Group in this here wikipedia, Arabs are concidered an ethnic group. The list goes back. I appreciate the middle eastern culture, but it is unfair to remove them from reality. Equality for all. user:Jerry.mills


howcome the term 'Paki' is listed under the Arabs subtitle? a Paki means pakistani, and pakistani's are not arabs, if anything they are indians, but definatly not arabs, fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.67.173 (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete

I was referred to this list by a friend and after having a good old laugh at the names for Brits and Whites (being a Honky Island Monkey myself) I thought I'd look at the rest and I can't find a 'Black' section? How can you have a 'White' section and not a 'Black' section?

I believe that people are removing that section.

[edit] Sources

This article needs sources for its entries. Unsourced entries may be removed at any time. -Will Beback 20:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finland Paragraphs

Please shorten these paragraphs.Everytime the word "Finnish" or "Finn" is referenced,theres a huge explanation on why it was given.Obviously written by a Finn.

[edit] ”Kalboj, Hamburger, Hitlerowiec, Gestapowiec, Faszysta, Gebels”

To my best knowledge the above terms are not in use as ethnic slurs in Poland. In just one silly joke Kalboj is used to mean a person whose profession is cleaning water closets, not an American person! ("Kal" -feces- is pronounced similarly to "cow"). It is sometimes used as a nickname by home grown Polish “cowboys”. Hamburger is not a derogatory term for an American person, either. It is used to mean a sandwich and nothing more. Hitlerowiec, Gestapowiec and Faszysta are not slurs used for Germans. These are clearly historical terms. The obvious disinformation is that Gebels is the ethnic slur for a German person. I can only guess that the connotation of the word “Gebels” is dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels. I hope that the authors will correct all insufficiencies ASAP.

Pretty soon we're going to delete all unsourced entries. I'll do these now. -Will Beback 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


This might be the worst page on the entire wikipedia. What purpose does it serve? 124.182.234.173 02:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't serve any purpose. It just shows the stupidity of some people. MetsFan76 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT A GREAT ARTICLE

This article is truly encyclopedia-worthy. Oh wait, disregard that, I was lying. I find it hilarious that the NPOV wikipedia has such a long article on this, yet talking about Encyclopedia Dramatica is some kind of taboo. 203.26.16.68 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this article shames Wikipedia. It may have had some slight value at first, but has now almost become a vehicle for hate. If I were Wikipedia I would simply destroy it in one click without comment. ChrisRed 09:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I second that. I have no idea what the purpose of this article is. Is it so kids can read about them and then go to school the next day and use them? I mean hey...its an online encyclopedia. What better place for a kid to learn what to call his asian, black or Hispanic friends!!! This article is a travesty and has no place on here. MetsFan76 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where da niggas?

How come there are no racial slurs for blacks?

Doin' it man! Firts thing in the mo' `'mikkanarxi 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] START ALL OVER

The article was a pile of garbage. Some order has been done in the List of ethnic slurs. But this one sits unnoticed. I moved it to List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity/old, for possibloe reference, but nothing can be re-used from there, because it was ridiculously 100% unreferenced.

I would suggest to start from copying a reliable indormation from the alphabetical List of ethnic slurs and go from there. `'mikkanarxi 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a pile of garbage. This bs should be removed from Wikipedia, and protected from recreation. Not useful whatsoever. All it is good for is spawning random name-calling between ethnicities and placing it as valid encyclopaedic content. --Ryouga 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
There will be no random name calling, according to wikipedia's policies of no original research, cite your sources and reliable sources. `'mikka 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] asians

this article doesn't include desert monkey, dune coon, sand nigger and camel jockey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.122.18 (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

They will not be included until reliable sources will be provided for them. `'mikka 01:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
the movie Three Kings can be used as a source for thatSkhatri2005 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is the only source i can give but type any of them in and there will be several results for each which shows they are used as racial slur.

Please see about wikipedia's reliable sources. `'mikka 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality or ethnicity?

Could someone please explain to me why words like "Bai Gui", "Cracker", "Pale face", and other similar epithets are on this list? I just don't understand why a list of "Offensive terms by nationality" would include these words when they are clearly indicated to be based on race and not nationality.

Please read the introduction of the article. `'mikka 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squarehead

This was a very common term for Germans during WWI and is still considerably popular. From what I know, It comes from the helmets worn by the Germans during the war.

::::whether its nationality, like where you're from or what your religious beliefs are or color, doesnt matter.  this shows slang terms used by most, but not all, people...... git over it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.169.108 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WP:V

From the verifiability policy: "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed."

Mikkalai, please stop re-introducing uncited material. Wikipedia is not a source of citation, simply having an article is not enough to be included here. Please find citations for these terms or stop re-adding them. Until(1 == 2) 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source of citation, but it source of wikilinks. Ever heard about such nifty trick? We request citations only in the immediately relevant article, not in every article where some word is used. If you think that the items in question are invalid, please post the corresponding artiles for deletion. `'Miikka 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm I understand how Wikipedia works just fine thank you. Wikilinks are not a citation, and does not provide verifiability. If there are citations in the other articles then copy them over before re-including them. Another policy I think you should read is WP:3RR, it applies at this point. Until(1 == 2) 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks are not citation. Wikilinks point to the places where citations should be found. We do not copy citations with each wikilink. This would be absurd, which wikilinks help to avoid. If we follow your logic, wikipedia will be littered with hundreds of millions of duplicated citation. WP:V is about verifiability, not about citing eac and every word in every article. There are thousands of wikipedia list articles that rely on citations in the listed articles. `'Miikka 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just copy the citations over for gods sake. These needs citations, they don't have any, they have been challenged. A citation that is not in context is not a valid citation. I understand what you think, but it is just not how we do things. We want hundreds of millions of duplicated citations so that the context of the citation can be clearly shown. Linking to an article that contains citations is not helpful because I don't know which citation supports the claim in the article which does not have a copy. We have room, there is nothing absurd about it. Until(1 == 2) 15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Those thousands of Wikipedia lists that don't have their own citations are problems waiting to be fixed, I started here. I don't appreciate the resistance in the list cleanup I am trying to do. Until(1 == 2) 15:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is, that I don't know what citations support the facts you want to include. Each article linked to contains many, and it is hard to a reader to confirm the facts stated in this list. That simple. Until(1 == 2) 15:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When making a WP:3O report, please use a neutral description of the problem and not sign your name per the instructions. I don't think wish to have citations next to claims is a "very strange opinion", it is pretty much a literal reading of the policy. Anything you wish to include is in the history just waiting for a citation to be added, if that citation is already in another article is should be easy to find. Until(1 == 2) 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists do not require citations. If we start demanding citations in List of Romanian actors that each person in question is indieed a Romanian and and actor, then something is seriously wrong with wikibrains.
Also, if you don't know which citation to copy, it means that you don't know the topic, and in such cases it is recommended to stay away of it, or you will create mess. Ignorance is not a reason to bug other people. If you do something useful in the area of your expertise, it will be much more beneficial for wikipedia. `'Miikka 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, I am reading a policy that says everything needs a citation or it can be removed if challenged. Where does it say "Wikipedia lists do not require citations"? Is that a policy, or an opinion? This has nothing to do with me not being able to find the citation relating to the fact, it is about the reader, remember the reader? To assume that the reader will not be ignorant of the subject they are looking up is contrary. I don't need to know a subject to check its citations, because the citations will teach me what I need to know to confirm the article content, but if I cannot find the citation... Until(1 == 2) 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, if you failed to find a citation for Sambo (ethnic slur), you deleted it means that you didn't execute due diligence (which is a politically correct way to say that you were kinda lazy, colleague). `'Miikka 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sambo is used in Coloured Spade, a Hair song that enumerates many other pejorative terms

for blacks (including elevator operator and shoeshine boy).

But the job is yours, as your seek to include the information. The burden of providing a citation is on the person wishing to include the information, not the person trying to remove it. Once again, please do not resort to Ad hominem attacks against me, in fact refrain from personal attacks about me altogether, as an admin you should know better. I have not called you any names. Until(1 == 2) 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Right out of the WP:V polciy, emphasis mine: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." In the article, your burden. Don't call me lazy for not doing your work. Until(1 == 2) 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The citations are provided, only in different places. Deletion of valid information without having good reasons to believe it is false is a disrespect to other fellow wikipedians and disruptive behavior. `'Miikka 17:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." don't you get? "in the article". If you want the policy changed go to WT:V, otherwise just follow the policy. Removing uncited material is not disrespectful, even if someone does take it personally, it is an important job that needs doing. Until(1 == 2) 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If a material is challenged by a lazy reader who fails to click the wikilink, then this reader must be pointed (politely) that wikipedia is a hypertext, not a book or newspaper. And I don't take it personally. I didn't add a single entry to this article. I deleted from it even more than you. `'Miikka 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are placing your opinion over policy, your opinion is fine to have, but it does not dictate how we do things here. The policy is very clear that citations are to be in the article if the fact is challenged. Once again you have resorted to personal attacks by calling me lazy, when the work you want me to do is yours as you are the person who wished to include the info. I am going to place a warning on your talk page about personal attacks so that there is a record that I asked you to stop. I see now that the second "lazy" comment was directed at our readership, not me. Not much better, but not quite a personal attack either.. Until(1 == 2) 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy is superceded by common sense. Not to say that we have the disagreement about the interpretation of the policy. `'Miikka 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, you have a very selective reading of the policy: "but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references, etc.etc.". `'Miikka 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You have all the chance in the world to add citations. I don't object to the content if it is cited. I suggest you try the talk page of verifiability policy, WT:V, if you disagree with how the policy is now. I agree that common sense overrides policy, but if the sense was common we would both have it. That is what common means. It is not common sense when you think one thing and I think another. That is why there are preexisting consensus based policies. Simply put what you are arguing for is contrary to policy and is preventing me from performing regular cleanup of unsourced additions. Until(1 == 2) 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see this is a dialogue of blind and deaf. That's why I requested the third opinion. If you like to cleanup of unsourced additions, you have a HUGE jobe to do, colleague. As a distraction you may try List of Romanian actors. WHOA! NOT A SINGLE entry referenced! Good luck. I am retiring from this thread. `'Miikka 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I on the other hand am going to go through the articles they are wiki-linked to and find citations, bring the entries into line with policy, and re-add them. I am not blind or deaf, we just disagree. It is okay if we disagree, it does not mean one if us is blind or deaf or lazy. Until(1 == 2) 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I hope you see now that many of those entries were not cited, even the ones with wikilinks. They often link to uncited articles, they often say things the article does not say. Often the article says it, but no citation in the article says it. The reason for this is that WP is not a reliable source. By putting the citations next to the text I have found that about two thirds are uncited. And that list of Romanian actors, that is gunna have to change a lot or get deleted. Until(1 == 2) 14:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finding sources for removed content

In an effort to move forward instead of in circles I am gathering citations. Here is my work log:

  • Re-added Golliwogg
  • Re-added Coloured
  • Skipping "Darky" no citation for the term in either of the linked articles.
  • Re-added Jim Crow
  • Re-added Mammy archetype
  • Skipping "Niglet", this has no source, no wikilink.
  • Skipping "Zanj", none of the references in the article Zanj mentions it being used as a slur, it is the name of a people.
  • Skipping "Raghead", "Ragtop", "Towelhead". No citation, no wikilink, Fact tags since May
  • Skipping "Chigger", links to disambiguation page, no reference to a slur
  • Skipping "Nip", while the disambiguation page it links to says "Nip is a highly derogatory term for a Japanese person", it does not cite any reference or refer to any article on the slur. A citation for this can most likely be found if searched for.
  • Skipping "Niglet", no citation at all, links to piglet
  • Skipping "Ping-Pong", it links to table tennis. This looks like a local Spokane, WA slang.
  • Skipping "Gaijin", since all sources are not in English, I cannot personally confirm any citations. If someone can read Japanese, or can find an English citation, please do.
  • Added reference to "Cracker"
  • Re-added Gringo
  • Skipping "Lao Wai", no citation, no link
  • Re-added Ofay
  • Skipping "Paleface", it links to a disambig page, which links to "White people". The disambig page does say it is a slur, but has not citation
  • Re-added Peckerwood
  • Skipping "pretendian", Wiktionary is not a reliable source, no sources listed there.
  • Skipping "White trash", no citation here or in article
  • Skipping "Whitey", disambig page calls it a slur, but links to non specific articles that do not mention the term. No citations
  • Skipping "Wigger", only source is not accessible to me, if someone else can confirm this source(Bernstein, Nell: "Goin' Gangsta, Choosin' Cholita", Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers, 5th ed. 605) supports the entry then please return it.
  • Skipping "Jjokbari", I cannot find an English source for this. Unless a word has a strong and demonstratable English usage then it does not belong here.
  • Skipping "Kraut", sources are in German or are dead links. This word should be citable with a bit of googling.
  • Skipping "Ivan" and "Ruskie", no sources given, no link given. These are words that can be cited with a bit of googling.

Any help would be appreciated. Until(1 == 2) 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am taking a break from this now, but it appears that many of these were not cited at all, not even in the articles they linked to. Going through and actually placing the citations next to the facts has helped me find that over half of them were uncited. Until(1 == 2) 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Phew! That was a lot of work for a lazy guy like me. Many are uncited. Several of the uncited ones are likely to be citable, others look like local slang, or just something someone made up after school one day. I think the article has improved significantly due to this vetting. Until(1 == 2) 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dicdefs

I have a better suggestion for cleanup. Since wikipedia is not a dictionary, not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a slang guide, I suggest to remove all nonnotable obscure and trivial entries, especially the forieign language ones. `'Miikka 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be in line with WP:NOT, unless a term has a demonstrated English usage, it does not belong on the English Wikipedia. Until(1 == 2) 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion regarding citations

Anything added to an article that would require a citation if it were to be included in a high school report should possess a citation. The fact that such a thing does not occur does not justify continued lack of adherance. While additions are, for the most part, not removed because they lack a citation, edits containing outlandish, ridiculous and wacky information often find themselves reverted without a warning. In this case, if Until(1 == 2) finds the edits made by Miikka to be so far-out that they are not to be believed without a citation (as they would not be by a high school history teacher), they should be left in the article, perhaps for a few days, with a [citation needed] inserted after the sentence, to give the initial editor a chance to source. Sources and citations should be included in each article, regardless of wikilinks. If, after a few days, citations are not provided, the edits can be reverted due to lack of verifiable sources. They may even be reverted immediately, but this is generally not done, in order to encourage new editors to stay with the project and not be scared away, or even for seasoned editors, as perhaps they sincerely made an error and forgot to cite. I hope this helps. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am okay with restoration of the entries with citation needed tags for a few days. I have been going through what I removed and re-adding that which I can find citation for. I have gotten through the slurs against Africans, and am going on the the other ethnicities. Until(1 == 2) 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable sources

Okay now that I have removed the clearly unsourced, I am going through the existing source. Here is a tip folks:

Blogs, Forums, some guys webpage are not reliable sources.

Some of these "references" are stories about the day some guy met a crackhead. Look at WP:NEO for what constitutes a reliable source for any new word. Older words need citations that actually show how the word was used, not just the word being used. Until(1 == 2) 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just went through the unlabeled refs and either labeled them or removed them for not being a reliable source. I will go through the rest later. Until(1 == 2) 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABCD

abcd is defintely not an offensive term. i'm indian, i use it. i've heard countless other south asians use that term. it's a description, not a slur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.133.169.226 (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Shyster"

I removed this word. It is not an ethnic slur: the OED says it is of obscure origin but conjectures that it is from the old sense of 'shy' to mean "disreputable." It has no particular history of use for Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasala (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)