Talk:niggerness
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Fytcha in topic RFV discussion: May–June 2022
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Needs cites, and also using slurs in the definition is pretty abhorrent. - TheDaveRoss 13:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not always an ethnic slur. See the entry at nigger. It's a WORD, and is therefore treated as any other word. Consider assholeness. It's defined exactly the same way. How would YOU define the term niggerness ? Please, I'll wait... Leasnam (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is pretty much always an ethnic slur nowadays... AG202 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not. You almost NEVER hear someone calling an African American this word, and in true hate and disgust, in contrast to 50 years ago, where it was quite common and offensive and abhorrent. The majority of uses today are by blacks themselves. How out of touch with reality are you ? Sheesh........ Leasnam (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Um... yikes. As someone who's been called this word before derogatorily... as a Black man... I would think that I'm as in touch with reality as one could be... It's unfortunately still common in racist circles, like look at some of the Usenet cites lmao. Also, as a side note, it's generally offensive to refer to Black folks as "Blacks" outside of an academic context, where even there it's being reduced in usage, see the usage notes at Black. AG202 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Leasnam Nice try but I saw your comment. "You referred yourself as a "BLACK" Man" so which one is it", this is how I know you didn't read the usage note, because it clearly referred to the usage as a noun, not the adjective. At the very least, this is stuff that you can look up, but I don't feel like you want to either way. AG202 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh I knew you would. I did read the note - that is the reason why I removed the comment. I'm glad you're so smart ! Tell me more about myself. I'm dying to know ! Leasnam (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the edit summary you left though? I'd give you the benefit of the doubt but with that initial comment + the other comments + the edit summary really makes me doubt that you're acting in good faith. I'd hope at least that from editors here, especially veteran ones. AG202 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- When it's serious work related to terms and entries, yes, the edit summary I leave (which is very rare, btw) relates to my edit...yet in touchy discussions, like this one, where I'm being singled out for something I feel is unfair to me, I oftentimes will just record how I'm feeling at the time. I've cooled off now, but yesterday, yes, I was hot - I won't lie. Leasnam (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No hard feeling toward you or anyone else, btw. Sorry if I did or said anything that offended you or anyone else. Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the edit summary you left though? I'd give you the benefit of the doubt but with that initial comment + the other comments + the edit summary really makes me doubt that you're acting in good faith. I'd hope at least that from editors here, especially veteran ones. AG202 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh I knew you would. I did read the note - that is the reason why I removed the comment. I'm glad you're so smart ! Tell me more about myself. I'm dying to know ! Leasnam (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Leasnam Nice try but I saw your comment. "You referred yourself as a "BLACK" Man" so which one is it", this is how I know you didn't read the usage note, because it clearly referred to the usage as a noun, not the adjective. At the very least, this is stuff that you can look up, but I don't feel like you want to either way. AG202 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Um... yikes. As someone who's been called this word before derogatorily... as a Black man... I would think that I'm as in touch with reality as one could be... It's unfortunately still common in racist circles, like look at some of the Usenet cites lmao. Also, as a side note, it's generally offensive to refer to Black folks as "Blacks" outside of an academic context, where even there it's being reduced in usage, see the usage notes at Black. AG202 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not. You almost NEVER hear someone calling an African American this word, and in true hate and disgust, in contrast to 50 years ago, where it was quite common and offensive and abhorrent. The majority of uses today are by blacks themselves. How out of touch with reality are you ? Sheesh........ Leasnam (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is pretty much always an ethnic slur nowadays... AG202 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Easily cited. @TheDaveRoss: Please note that WT:RFV states: "Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA)." After all, WT:RFV is not
{{rfquote}}. As it is apparent that you haven't done any searching into any of the terms that you've mass-listed here, I will take the freedom of closing your requests without citing them in the future. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)- @Fytcha I don't think that's fair at all. Some of these terms are found in the most vile and horrible places, and I don't think it's fair to expect people to do a deep dive into them to cite them. And like I've said before, these terms should be held to a higher standard with a hopeful future CFI change. Edit: While I've argued about people mass-submitting RFVs before (ex: with Wonderfool), I do feel that the case is very different here.AG202 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha Strongly object to this. In a big list of ethnic slurs, it's reasonable to be sceptical of all of them, and a cursory search reveals a lot of mentions. Theknightwho (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AG202, Theknightwho: The first page of Google Books already yields multiple usable cites (besides yielding 620 hits in total). In my opinion, it is fair to require people to at least look up the words on Google Books before posting a request (how else could they know that a word is potentially uncitable?). It's just basic courtesy towards the people who will have to cite them. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha What could possibly have been added here that would have aided anyone? That sentence in RFV is a request to provide citations yourself before requesting them from the community, and it is completely reasonable not to do so when adding a list of dubious ethnic slurs. That one of them turns out to be easily citable does not change that. Your interpretation seems to be that it's about informing users of how easy the word seems to be to cite on first look, but I fail to see how the requester adding "not seeing much on Google Books" or "likely to be straightforward" is so vital that it warrants closing any future requests from people who don't say that on sight. That is a ridiculous overreaction. Theknightwho (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: First looking for citations oneself and then only requesting verification if the term seems uncitable are both common sense in my book. When adding a large list of terms, it becomes even more important to follow these steps so as to not put unnecessary strain on the system. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha: That isn't reasonable when it comes to controversial words that are likely to be challenged as RFD if they aren't cited, like ethnic slurs. Your view just makes it impossible for someone to flag a bunch of them at once without being forced to do half of it themselves.
- In any event, closing nominations out of process is unacceptable, and I will reverse them if I see you doing that. Theknightwho (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: First looking for citations oneself and then only requesting verification if the term seems uncitable are both common sense in my book. When adding a large list of terms, it becomes even more important to follow these steps so as to not put unnecessary strain on the system. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha What could possibly have been added here that would have aided anyone? That sentence in RFV is a request to provide citations yourself before requesting them from the community, and it is completely reasonable not to do so when adding a list of dubious ethnic slurs. That one of them turns out to be easily citable does not change that. Your interpretation seems to be that it's about informing users of how easy the word seems to be to cite on first look, but I fail to see how the requester adding "not seeing much on Google Books" or "likely to be straightforward" is so vital that it warrants closing any future requests from people who don't say that on sight. That is a ridiculous overreaction. Theknightwho (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AG202, Theknightwho: The first page of Google Books already yields multiple usable cites (besides yielding 620 hits in total). In my opinion, it is fair to require people to at least look up the words on Google Books before posting a request (how else could they know that a word is potentially uncitable?). It's just basic courtesy towards the people who will have to cite them. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha I have no interest in researching how much ethnic/racial slurs are used by mouth-breathers on 4chan and UseNet, so I'm not going to. On the other hand, I don't think it is a good thing for Wiktionary to contain a bunch of entries for unattested racist (or other generally offensive) language, so if I see those I am going to keep flagging them for research. I would be happier if we required that they have evidence of usage before we list them, since there is a higher rate of fake nonsense among these types of entries. You can feel free to ignore my requests going forward, I will not be offended. - TheDaveRoss 13:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and to your other point,(This was Leasnam's statement) you are wrong. There is no reasonable person who would suggest that the n-word is not offensive and can reasonably be used (not mentioned) in an academic or other professional setting, such as Wiktionary purports to be. A less offensive analogy would be replacing penis with ding-dong in a definition, while it might have that meaning the register is wholly inappropriate for a dictionary definition. - TheDaveRoss 13:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
RFV-passed. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)