Talk:Nigger/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nigger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121220150711/http://www.coon-n-crockett.org/cnc~glos.htm to http://www.coon-n-crockett.org/cnc~glos.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519234839/http://www.wiredforbooks.org/mp3/HenryLouisGates1983.mp3 to http://wiredforbooks.org/mp3/HenryLouisGates1983.mp3
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104191741/http://www.sumnerandstillman.com/Catalog/sumner.cgi/11456?id=QIPcubgy&mv_pc=5 to http://www.sumnerandstillman.com/Catalog/sumner.cgi/11456?id=QIPcubgy&mv_pc=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Nigga" in the lead

Soupforone, regarding this and this, regardless of what we state in the hatnote, it's likely that "nigga" should be noted in the lead, given the confusion (and debate) regarding it. That stated, I don't see that much is noted in the "Etymology and history" section about it; so including it in the lead per the WP:Lead argument is weak. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the word "Nigga" would be a dialect of the English "Nigger", Given it's usage with near-identical accepted definition and the near-identical pronunciation, it would not constitute a "separate" word, but rather represents a vowel sound as a variation of pronunciation with a mere alternate spelling. Therefore, it should be a simple "redirect" page. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It qualifies as a WP:Notable topic on its own, which is why we have an article on it (although WP:No page exists as well). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Niggardly

Niggardly is not the same as nigger although many African-Americans now consider "niggardly" to be a slur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.249.19 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. Do you have a reliable source we could use? It would be great to mention this in the article. = paul2520 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I just did a search and found the section Nigger#Homophones. = paul2520 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Within that section, there is a piped link to Controversies about the word "niggardly". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

== .— Preceding unsigned comment added by StillLong (talk • contribs)

Please read carefully WP:RELIABLESOURCES, WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH, WP:VERIFICATION and after you do that, please report back here and tell me if what you wrote is still valid. Thanks. Dr. K. 05:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017

The word nigger was a general term for an individual of any color meaning- a lazy, ignorant, stupid person. Until the blacks were treated as slaves after their freedom. ChaseAwayDarkness (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

THe oxford dictionary defines the term, in the second sense, as the following: "2a.(derogatory) A person who does menial labour; any person considered to be of low social status." (cf. "Bum', etc.) Therefore, I would find that to be similar enough to "lazy, ignorant, and stupid" AKA a "Bum", to merit inclusion as such, by virtue of equivalence in meaning, even if differing expression. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 18:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe, I did cite a reliable source, namely, Oxford Dictionary, entry for "Nigger", Defintion 2a. Did you not bother to look that up, or are you alleging that the Oxford dictionary isn't a "Credible Source"?108.201.29.108 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There used to be a common phrase "worked like a nigger", it meant "worked very hard". See http://www.henryjames.org.uk. The expression is no longer considered acceptable, either in English or in French, and Jean-Paul Guerlain was fined for using the French translation of this phrase in 2012.Grauniad, 29 March 2012.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see the information that Oxford actually uses. Let's check Webster. Same there. Do not open this again without actually providing a reliable source, as was instructed twice before. Thanks. Nihlus 22:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The river and country

The name Nigeria is named after the river Niger, which some say came from Tuareg language "Igerew n Igerewem" or similar, meaning "the river of rivers". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation of racial overtones incorrect

While Webster's dictionary defines the term nigger as "a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person", Oxford disagrees. The Oxford dictionary defines the term "nigger" as 1. A dark-skinned person of sub-Saharan African origin or descent;a. Used by people who are not black as a relatively neutral (or occasionally positive) term, with no specifically hostile intent. This appears to be contradictory to the alleged racial overtone. It is my position that the Oxford dictionary should be given credence over all other dictionaries, and hence the racial overtones should be editied out of this article, unless they have ample dictionary support which is both bona fide and credible, as to maintain article neutrality. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The term has a lot of baggage. Oxford by itself, is wholly inadequate as a source for this article. Atheist would be a word with similar encumbrances. A dictionary is not a sufficient source for either. Also, the Oxford is English, Websters is American. The issue is primarily in the USA, not England. So, I disagree on your proposal. Jim1138 (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Still, Oxford should control over Webster, or most dictionaries. The U.S. Government, particularly the judiciary,, will give credence to Oxford over all other dictionaries. However, here the Oxford definition is not even mentioned. Therefore, as the bare minimum, the Oxford definition should at least be mentioned in order for the article to present a neutral and encyclopedic viewpoint. The English language is the English language- Therefore the notion that "Webster's is American" is woefully misplaced, and is a insufficient argument, in my opinion. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 18:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your pointing to that wasn't sourced, but it would be my position that The Oxford Dictionary is itself a "reliable source" absent some compelling sources to directly contradict it, in light of the neutrality and encyclopedic tone policies. The fact that the term can still be used without racial overtones (A fact established by the Oxford Dictionary's Definition) is not so much as mentioned in the article, which inserts improper political influences into the article by extension. Even where such usage is deemed to be inappropriate by the majority, the article should still clearly reflect the potential usage existence, otherwise the article supports an inappropriate race agenda. Thus, the article at least deserves mention of the Oxford definition as contrasted to others, to make clear that the contrast still has at least a potential to exist in modern usage (i.e. the last major revision was 1920s), as it is a well known fact the Oxford is still in wide usage. See https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/our-story/history and several other links accessible from that page. Therefore, I request further clarification of what information, specifically, your saying sources are needed for, as it is not immediately apparent what direction your going in. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Which year edition of the Oxford Dictionary was this? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please do not open an edit request in order to request clarification. The information that we have requested has been asked for now four times. I provided the link to the Oxford definition above and it does not match what you are saying. So again, please provide a reliable source that matches the information you want in the article. And on top of that, please gain consensus for its inclusion and do not use the edit request until you have gotten both. Nihlus 22:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Nihlus, then you are clearly not looking at the correct portion of the page. Scroll down. its the SECOND definition, not the first. I can screenshot it for you if you like. Anthony, If you were paying attention, you'd know the year. it was in the 1920's edition, though I'm not sure the exact year it came out. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to cite an old edition of the dictionary, I think you would need very specific information, including the year of publication, and page number (the latter is required to give confidence). This is a tricky issue. If doing this, it would seem right to cite the range of editions that had that definition, and the first edition of the dictionary to stop using it. If you can get this information, it would be best to discuss it.

I have seen an early 20th Century English dictionary that defined an "aeroplane" as an experimental device for flying. The relevance of that definition today is doubtful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nigger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050214121207/http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/12/23/leigh/index2.html to http://salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/12/23/leigh/index2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228222517/http://www.attheyard.com/InRetrospect/printer_699.shtml to http://www.attheyard.com/InRetrospect/printer_699.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924122330/http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2009/tabelas_pdf/brasil_1_2.pdf to http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2009/tabelas_pdf/brasil_1_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221233359/http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/negros/popnegra.html to http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/negros/popnegra.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add this to the main N*gger page

Thanks. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There was only one bare URL, so I covered it. It was already archived - but the version archived did not give access to the original page, so I have also marked it as a dead link.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nigger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909212120/http://www.mtwain.com/Adventures_Of_Huckleberry_Finn/ to http://www.mtwain.com/Adventures_Of_Huckleberry_Finn/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420085941/http://www.newsofyesteryear.com/archives/1075 to http://www.newsofyesteryear.com/archives/1075

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Nigger Music

I came looking for information on a genre that The Beatles would have called "Nigger Music," as opposed to what Bugs Bunny called "Long-Hair Music." This article seems to conflate the N-word with "Niger," from which it might have derived, but the Nigers don't strike me as a people to be be so used. 2601:18A:C781:8ABA:8949:99DF:1DE:4713 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

Change spelling of dialogue from the US "dialog" in the British usage section to British English standard "dialogue". 51.171.114.50 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Cognates

In the section discussing words in languages besides English which sound similar to "Nigger" but do not have the same meaning, the tone seems a little informal and not quite encyclopedic. Could it be altered slightly so as to sound less like an explanation and more like a statement? 173.138.49.68 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

In the "Other languages" section, the description of the use in the Brazilian Portuguese language is incorrect and limited. My suggestion follows.

Current text: - Brazilian Portuguese: negro and preto are neutral;[114] nevertheless preto can be offensively used, is sometimes regarded as "politically incorrect" and almost never proudly used by Afro-Brazilians; crioulo and macaco are always extremely pejorative[115]

Suggested change: - Brazilian Portuguese: negro and preto are neutral [114] (*); nevertheless nego, the contracted form of negro, can be offensively used. Albeit sometimes regarded as "politically incorrect", it is context dependent and the derogatory connotation is not straightforward, as it is also used across the culture as a positive designation, for demonstrating affection and also as indefinite subject (**); crioulo is mostly considered higly offensive [115]; macaco (monkey) is always extremely pejorative

• may refer to the book "Sociologia do Negro Brasileiro" by sociologist Clóvis Moura. Citation in APA format: Moura, C. (1988). Sociologia do negro brasileiro (Vol. 34). Editora Atica.

• • may refer to academic article:

Carvalho, C. L. C. D. (2018). As palavras nego e neguin no português brasileiro: um estudo linguístico. Available at http://bdm.unb.br/handle/10483/20058 200.175.215.231 (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

why is this literature work not incorporated somehow in the wiki text?

Why is Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man not incorporated somehow in the wiki text in the subsection Niger#literature? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Man - Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is, so how can this not be? --2600:8800:FF0E:1200:504A:F75F:C9AB:5DDC (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Could it possibly be because you have not yet added it? Captainllama (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

How can I the stupid thing is protected--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:504A:F75F:C9AB:5DDC (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You can write it up and submit it as a protected edit request. You could also register an account and in 4 days after you have made 10 edits to Wikipedia you could directly add it yourself. ~ GB fan 10:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

citation needed - Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., Whitson, J. A., Anicich, E. M., Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2013). The reappropriation of stigmatizing labels: The reciprocal relationship between power and self-labeling. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2020–2029. MSDerrick (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--B dash (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Negro means black, but the root of negro is cognate with "negate"

The issue with the word "nigger" is it rests on a coordiation of the two meanings of "black" (Spanish:negro) and "negate," as in negate, negligible, or neglectable person, each with the root neg-. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to provide sources and concrete source-based proposals for article improvement, not speculation. Acroterion (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• The Latin for "black" is "ater" = matt black, "niger" = shiny black. "neg-" in "negate" and "neglect" are distinct; the i/e confusion came from phonetic changes in the Vulgar Latin period. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Repeating the above: sources needed. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ni_gger acceptable use by black americans

Ni_gger is a term that is acceptable to be used among african americans the article needs to clearly state that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.206.195 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nigger is also a word that Wikipedia does not censor as Wikipedia is not censored - FlightTime (open channel) 18:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

Please change

"It was used derogatorily, and by the mid-20th century, particularly in the United States, its usage by non-African Americans became unambiguously pejorative, a racist insult. Accordingly, it began to disappear from general popular culture. However it remained in use and is, in its various forms, used with increasing frequency in the 2010s[2] by African Americans amongst themselves or in self-expression, being the most common swear word in its various forms in hip hop music lyrics.[3]"

To

"It was used derogatorily, and by the mid-20th century, particularly in the United States, its usage by non-African Americans became unambiguously pejorative, a racist insult. Accordingly, it began to disappear from general popular culture. However it remained in use and is, in its various forms, used with increasing frequency in the 2010s[2] by African Americans (see "Nigga") amongst themselves or in self-expression, being the most common swear word in its various forms in hip hop music lyrics.[3] and also by non African-Americans as a slur for usually spiteful reasons" 69.136.135.6 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 05:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Typo

2010s paragraph "continues to be UNacceptable" Bgrindro (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Why? HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You are correct; Coates argues that usage is UNacceptable for white people, even in rap/hip-hop - check the source. Fixed in text. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"dude"

There are two comparisons to the American English "dude" that are unsourced -- the claims seem doubtful (at least to me) and I wouldn't repeat them in a paper without sourcing. They need to be validated or removed. 150.243.14.45 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

Elucidating the history of the etymology and adding certain references. 171.33.195.99 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Black people

The lede says that this word is used towards "black people". What are black people? Race is a social construct. We are all part of the human race. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Language itself is a social construct. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The world doesn't need more "devil's advocates." This article doesn't need a genius in his own mind, in his own basement, undermining race discussion by trying to pretend that it's irrelevant. That attitude (even if this basement-bro held it in good faith) doesn't erase racism, it erases its victims.2601:143:8003:6500:CC7D:6117:5288:4F68 (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to have a "race discussion", don't try to have it on the pages of an encyclopedia that summarizes documented usage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2019

its usage by non-African Americans became unambiguously pejorative, a racist insult. Accordingly, it began to disappear from general popular culture This sentence is a complete fabrication and a personal opinion. By the mid-20th century the word was not at all "unambiguously pejorative", in fact, in many white sub-cultures it was simply meant to indicate the person was a 'negro'. Someone might say, "There are a bunch of niggers on the corner waiting for the bus". They were not intending the word as a racist insult at all, it was simply a White street language substitute for 'negro'. [The Movie "The Boondocks Saints' has a humorous example supporting my correction].

And the idea that the word disappeared from general popular culture is absurd. It is openly used by blacks, and it is widely popular among White people but used with discretion. While forces of elitism may be attempting to suppress the use of the word in popular culture and have banned it's usage in public, the use of the word among many white sub-cultures is still widespread. 104.244.209.106 (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

'Unambiguously perjorative'

If the term was historically perjorative, as claimed, there would have to have been another term for blacks that was neutral and non-controversial. If not, we should accept that Nigger was a term that could be used perjoratively in a hostile context, but was not 'unambiguously perjorative', as claimed in this article. Valetude (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There was: negro. 2601:196:4900:15CD:899A:3F6:8FA2:5A8 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word “nigger” by K-12 public school teachers

Lincoln Brown, the Chicago middle school teacher was suspended for 5 days without pay but was not dismissed as noted in the previous Wikipedia article. His case is a landmark case for a K-12 educator using the full n-word. His 5 day suspension was upheld by the 7th Circuit Court in 2016. Chicago public schools had a written policy against using racial slurs but never enforced it. Brown vs Chicago Board of Education: Case argued in 2016: Justice Wood of the Seventh Circuit court of appeals wrote the opinion. He started by saying: Justice Scalia once said that he wished all federal judges were given a stamp that read “stupid but constitutional.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating “not everything that is UNDESIRABLE, ANNOYING, OR EVEN HARMFUL IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW much less a constitutional problem. Today’s case provides another illustration of that fact.”

The court said that the school system had a written policy in effect and therefore could sanction Mr. Brown with the 5 day suspension even though they thought it was “stupid.” Pattyhay1 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Niggardly

Shouldn't this article carry a hatnote for "niggard" ? Please add a hatnote to handle the situation:

Not to be confused with niggard.

{{confused|niggard}}

-- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. A hatnote wouldn't be helpful here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the destination article is about confusion with this word here, so a hatnote is obvious and helpful -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Other languages?

This is English language Wikipedia. What's the point of the Other languauld exges sub-section? HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This Wiki is in the english language - but not limited to English topics. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we must. What's the point of the Other languages sub-section? HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that it being an English language Wikipedia is not a reason to throw it out. I'm actually not convinced it should stay myself, but expect a better reason than that to remove it would be needed. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Right now I can't see a reason to keep it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll put forward a reason to keep it: it gives our readers the maximum context for understanding one of the most fraught and loaded words in the language. In my experience, most monoglots need help to grasp the concept, or the implications of the concept, that sequences of written letters or spoken phonemes that seem similar to words they know - may in fact have very different meanings. (Hence Controversies about the word niggardly.) I welcome suggestions to trim or improve this subsection, but would not wish to see it removed. Just as dictionaries have warnings (Obsolete, offensive, regional, etc.) before certain definitions, so too does this paragraph serve to warn readers that not everything that seems alike, actually is. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't give readers "maximum context for understanding". Maximum would mean a lot more languages than we show. Logically, it would mean every language. The choice of languages shown is obviously a POV one reflecting the biases and interests of those editors who created that section. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore this - I didn't see your response. Yes, OK, "maximum" could go on for some length. As the section stands now, it gives what I think is "reasonable" context for understanding. The choice of languages reflects the interests of editors, yes, but it also covers several of the world's most widely spoken languages. And, as it explains, Latin-derived languages are very likely to have words which derive from the same root (negr-) and thus prove false friends: terms that are especially likely to trip up the unwary. Those who choose to read an encyclopedia deserve to have this opportunity to learn, and to avoid falling into the trap of thinking a similar-appearing word carries the meaning they assume. By all means let's improve this section, by adding examples if you wish, or possibly removing some. What do you suggest? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Hnrrep" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hnrrep. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020

Change "Italian has three variants : "negro," "nero" and "di colore." The first one is the most historically attested and was the most commonly used until the 1960s as an equivalent of the English word negro. It was gradually felt as offensive during the 1970s and replaced with "nero" and "di colore." "Nero" was considered a better translation of the English word "black," while "di colore" is a loan translation of the English word "colored"" Into something like this: Italian language has at least four variants: "negro" "nero" "di colore" and "moro". The first one is the most historically attested, used in ancient italian literature as common term for black peoples, it probabily derived from spanish language In the late '80 it was gradually felt as offensive and then became part of the italian political and social debate about political correctness "Nero" is now a more polite, but non mandatory and non absent from criticism, sobstitute to "Negro" and is the corresponding of the English word "black" or french word "noir" . "Di colore" is a loan translation of the English word "colored"" but it bacame a debate what is a "Persona di colore ": A Subsharian African, any ethnicity darker than italian or what? Moro was a term originally used specifically about Mauritania inhabitants, then it was extended to all african people, then it was restricted to muslims and now, if used about skin color, rarely intended as equivalent to "Nero" and often intended as whoever has a strong dark pigmentation even among italians themselves. Occaso (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Occaso:

 Not done - Your request is confusing. I’m not sure what you mean by “historically attested.” Please follow the template message guidelines to clarify your request:

“This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".”

You should also cite your sources in Wiki format, including page numbers where applicable. — Tartan357 (Talk) 04:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

The last sentence, Nigger and nigga are not pronounced the same. 173.62.215.135 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It says In dialects of English that have non-rhotic speech..., which means it's not the same in all English variants. TheImaCow (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

The word nigga and nigger do not sound the same, the word "niggá" should have a accent at the end but it doesn't. The end should sound like the beginning of the word "up" or like "uh" whereas the word nigger has what we call the "hard R" like "trigger". Like how you would pronounce "brother" or "brotha" in slang 174.52.118.224 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

"In addition to Smith College, Emory University, Augsburg University, Southern Connecticut State University and Simpson College all suspended professors in 2019 over referring to the word "nigger" by name in an educational context.[36][37][38]" should be changed to "In addition to Smith College, Emory University, Augsburg University, Southern Connecticut State University and Simpson College all suspended professors in 2019 over referring to the word "nigger" by name in classroom settings.[36][37][38]." This is because the second, and only, source that mentions Southern Connecticut State University does not specifically mention the professor quoting the song in an "educational context."

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/SCSU-adjunct-faculty-member-suspended-after-a-12559142.php this is an article the specifies that it was singing involved in a daily ritual, rather than any educational context. Amiwrongtho (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Pronounced the same

Reading this article, I noticed a line stating that nigger and nigga are pronounced the same. I must disagree with this line, knowing all to well that the pronunciation is very different and could be more disrespectful in that pronunciation. Nigga, is more of a slang by African American's, not threatening in most cases. Nigger with the er is threatening and could cause harm to individuals who are not African American. Both Nigga and Nigger are both used by African American community.

They are pronounced the same if you have a non-rhotic accent. In that sense, therefore, the idea that one version of pronunciated is more or less 'threatening' is invalid. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Since rhoticity may indicate ethnicity (see rhotic and AAVE articles) the idea of one being threatening may actually be valid. Although of course it would need a reference to go in the article. Dakinijones (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

On the issue of pronunciation, why isnt the dutch Neger in here aswell. If anything the dutch colonian influences, and their activity in the slave trade probably has the largest influence of the etymology of the word nigger.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

2601:642:4200:77F0:400F:808E:64FD:DD41 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nigger And nigga are not pronounced the same.

 Not done You seem bent on posting the same without indicating what change you are requesting. This is not the first time you have done this here. Please explain what you are requesting, else it seems you are just intent on not helping the project. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Old discusion but they are not pronounced that same, its not hard to find a source on that subject, and to Alex you way of talking is kind of condescending and your not helping anyone or making the encyclopedia better by doing so. Vallee01 (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge request

I'm putting a template here, as I have done with the article 'N*gga'. Someone please move it to the article page where it belongs  Done- thanks. Feel free to discuss the proposal here.

My rationale for merging is that the word 'n*gga' is merely a phonetic spelling of the word n*gger, based on certain non-rhotic accents, but the word has the same meaning no matter if it's spelled formally or informally. It is essentially the same as the words 'holla' (holler) and 'fella' (fellow). --82.21.97.70 (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Support They're the same word. "nigga" is an onomatopoeia of a common mispronounciation of "nigger". All of the opposition below is based on biased rhetoric, and is a blatant violation of WP:STRUCTURE. They're not different words. To further emphasize this, the article's "Intra-group versus intergroup usage" only refers to the difference between the words based on the color of the speaker, and not on the difference in pronunciation, yet still unnecessarily links to the article that this merge request references. Adding to that, the entire article seems to have a tone that treats "nigga" as the same word as "nigger" whenever it references its use in rap lyrics and honorifics. This reeks of WP:NPOV violations, in that this article, Nigger, it treats the word as something entirely unacceptable, or only acceptable for a subset of the population, yet in another, Nigga, it treats it as merely a controversial word that pops up in pop culture.

Oppose. They have different histories and context. These articles are about the words. And these are often considered two different words. Others consider them the same thing, but still. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Major differences and the "Minor differences" section below that. And see Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles, which states, "[I]n encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term. (cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)" Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose. These two words have drastically different usages and meanings. One is considered by many to be the most offensive slur in English, while the other is used frequently in AAVE and music. Even if you do not agree with this, the two words each have very different contexts when used, and definitely deserve multiple articles. I-82-I | TALK 09:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose after reading Flyer22's reasoning. --Enjoyer of World (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flyer22's reasoning. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong agree as “nigga” is considered merely a phonetic variation of “nigger” by e.g. Merriam-Webster. — VectorEyes (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Flyer22's reasoning. -- Dakinijones (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose So like considering they got like different connotations I would generally strongly oppose this, they are two different terms, one is a definite slur, and the other is not. They both mean different things and this can be seen as how they are used. (Yes I am intentionally speaking like this, hopefully you get the obvious undertones, if you don't its about Language and differing accents and pronunciation, as this is how I generally would speak.) Vallee01 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Oppose Did a Black person even make this proposal. Judging by the asterisks, no. Mind y'all business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.16.171.226 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This word is not a joke.

This word contains Slavery towards the black people - Samiwikia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiwikia (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The word Nigger, has multiple definitions and should be listed as such.

The term my "Nigger", or What's up my "nigger"? Implies a significant brotherhood or relationship/friendship between the two parties.

Also, the term "Nigger", can and does represent an expression of a low-life, Thug, and/or Scoundrel of ANY Color, Race, Creed. At least that is what I was raised to kn9ow that the word meant.

People do still use the term 'Nigger' in a racists fashion, I am sure. I have just never heard it used that way myself. It has always been used 90% of the time in a way of calling someone "Close Friend". The other 10% that I have heard it used has been in calling someone "worthless" or "Low-life" feeding off of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bet555 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

What did this have to do with the article? Call me Deathisaninevitability Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe contributions from User:Bet555 propose that the word can also be used as a term of endearment and examples of this use could be added to the article, with appropriate notable references and citations, of course. See WP:REF. Mediation4u ^(chat) _{nb: editing is fun} 09:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Would we be able to get an example list of niggers, just as we do with other ethnic groups? Thanks

"Chernozhopyi" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chernozhopyi. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Chernozhopyi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

The word originated from the taking of Africans from the region of Niger and Nigeria. This article starts on a false premise. 2601:800:8200:92A0:51CB:F697:FACD:8129 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? -- Alexf^(talk) 22:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nigger in Bulgarian language

In Bulgarian the word nigger (негър) means a person of African descent and it is not used as an offensive word.

I think you mean the equivalent of negro/neger which in most European countries describe someone of African origins without a derogatory meaning. Nigger is mostly connected with the history of the United States and the Anglosphere. 92.220.158.37 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection edit request on 26 April 2021

This sentence, "In explaining his refusal to be conscripted to fight the Vietnam War (1965–75), professional boxer Muhammad Ali said, "No Vietcong [Communist Vietnamese] ever called me nigger";[20] later, his modified answer was the title No Vietnamese Ever Called Me Nigger (1968) of a documentary about the front-line lot of the U.S. Army Black soldier in combat in Vietnam." in the Usage section reads wierd. Can it please be changed so the end reads as, "...his modified answer was the title of a documentary, No Vietnamese Ever Called Me Nigger (1968), about the front-line lot of the U.S. Army Black soldier in combat in Vietnam." Thank you. 2601:203:203:DEF0:C9BE:4754:28CA:A41D (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

I want to edit the article to fix a few grammar mistakes. NBA2K16 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 17:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

2600:387:C:6B14:0:0:0:9 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that there's 2 definitions for the word I hear a lot of white people get called the word I think a correct definition for it could be "a dirty snake like person" nothing to do with race or color

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Personally, I've always thought it to be an attitude, not a skin color. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021

The sentence “Some white Frenchmen have the inherited surname Nègre: see this disambiguation page on the French Wikipedia.” should be removed, or completely reformulated. The surname Nègre has nothing to do with black people: negre is the normal Occitan and Catalan word for “black” and the surname designates someone with black hair, just like its equivalents Lenoir in northern France, Noir in eastern France, Noirel in Lorraine, Noiret and Noirot in north-eastern France, Noiraud in Poitou, Deswarte in Belgium and French Flanders or Le Du in Brittany. -- Yadönapya (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The context states that "Nègre" has become derogatory, but is still used as a surname. These two statements are tied together. I would not want to remove one without the other. To my ear Nègre is pronounced close enough to nigger to be included but the only reference was a dead youtube link (now removed). I do not want the page to become a compendium of original research on words derived from Latin for black so am interested on what others think. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the context is misleading. Nègre the common noun and Nègre the surname are different words, even though they sound alike, and no native French speaker would confuse them. To give another example, bar is a kind of fish, but it’s also a pub, and there is no confusion between these two words for natives. To give a bit more info, you can see in the article about the common noun that the first attested use of nègre in French to talk about black people dates back to 1529, whereas the surname is attested since the Middle Ages. For instance, see this inventory of notarial archives from Anduze, where you can find a testament dated 1334 of an Ermessende Delaporte, wife of Bernard Nègre. -- Yadönapya (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2021

Coloureds from South Africa may not use the word Niger as they are not seen as a black person therefore,using it is considered a racial slur 102.250.0.36 (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Publishing the n-word in full

Isn't it wrong that a Wikipedia article that describes the n-word as being extremely derogatory and an offensive racial slur publishes the entire word with impunity. When people read, they say the word in their head. I believe it would be triggering to many people to see the word published in full. If it's not acceptable to say the word out loud, why is it acceptable to print it? The article would be improved, and become more in line with accepted convention, if it was replaced by "n-word" or n*****r. Wikipedia, please reconsider your policy on this. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.79.102 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning can be found at WP:NOTCENSORED. Essentially, Wikipedia covers many topics that people may find offensive, but appealing to everyone's social and religious sensibilities while keeping the encyclopedia informative is impossible. Readers are advised to take note of the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and judge for themselves what is acceptable for them to read about. clpo13_(talk) 19:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Although, I agree with the hypocrisy of the use of the uncensored word itself in this article, unfortunately it would NOT appear in search results unless it is spelled correctly. For historical and educational purposes, it appears to be used appropriately in the Wikipedia article on the day I read it, 1/6/2022. I suspect the readers here are interested in the origin and usage of the word over time and the negative influence it has. If authenticity is not presented, then would it have the same shock and impact to the reader, as the word itself should have to world? Preservation seems appropriate in this case of educating, but obviously not out of the mouths of racially motivated individuals. Jcurtice (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal comment quote in the Washington Post

This particular incident is getting a lot of media coverage, and I wanted to point out this quote that was reported by the Washington Post. First, some background. A white guy repeatedly used the word against a black guy. The black guy then fatally assaulted the white guy. It was not his intent to kill him, but that's how it ended up. Anyway, the Washington Post has quoted this legal expert explaining why the black guy avoided going to jail. These next two paragraphs are a direct copy and paste from the Washington Post:

In agreeing to a plea deal, prosecutors considered the “totality of the circumstances,” including Pujols’ youth, his lack of criminal history and the fact that he did not intend to cause Cook’s death, Grayson Kamm, a spokesman for Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren, told the Tampa Bay Times. He said they also considered the behavior of Cook and what he said.

“Two of the primary factors were the aggressive approach the victim took toward the defendant and everyone working with the defendant, and that the victim repeatedly used possibly the most aggressive and offensive term in the English language,” Kamm told the newspaper.

Source: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jK07KW-7H0EJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/florida-dunkin-worker-sentenced-for-fatal-punch-of-customer/2022/03/08/1062d7ac-9ee5-11ec-9438-255709b6cddc_story.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

So based on those two paragraphs, it appears that the white guy's use of the word was one factor in why the black guy did not go to prison. I think this may be the first time that such a thing has been reported in such a well respected source.

I'm not a lawyer, and I have no legal training. But I think what the Washington Post reported is notable, and may deserve inclusion in this article, or perhaps a different wikipedia article (if someone can suggest a different article where such inclusion might be more appropriate, please do so.)

54mmkds (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I just added the following:

In 2021, in Tampa, Florida, a 27-year-old black employee at a Dunkin' Donuts punched a 77-year-old white customer after the customer had repeatedly called the employee the word. The customer fell to the floor and hit his head. Three days later, he died. An autopsy report said he suffered a skull fracture and brain contusions. The employee was arrested, and charged with manslaughter. In a plea bargain, the employee pled guilty to felony battery, and was sentenced to two years of house arrest. In 2022, in explaining why the employee did not receive any jail time, the Washington Post quoted Grayson Kamm, a spokesman for Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren, as saying, "Two of the primary factors were the aggressive approach the victim took toward the defendant and everyone working with the defendant, and that the victim repeatedly used possibly the most aggressive and offensive term in the English language."

54mmkds (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Negus

It was taught to me that Nigger isn’t a pejorative remix of the word negro but the word Negus which in Afrikaans means King. 2600:8807:5489:B700:1584:DC67:ED8F:5734 (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I have never heard of this and I believe you are trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There may be something in the OP's claim, but perhaps not as much as, nor quite what they think. Unsurprisingly, we have an article called Negus. It says "Negus...is a title in the Ethiopian Semitic languages...usually bestowed upon a regional ruler..." I doubt the people who first used "nigger" in a pejorative way were aware of this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t the n-word a corruption of “negro”, itself a corruption of Spanish negro (black)? Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The Etymology and history section of the article answers that question in considerable detail. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there some way we can limit IPs from this talk page?

I've never followed a page like this where IP comments are constantly being removed for policy violation. Is there some way of protecting talk like a normal page? Anyway if not IMO there should be, because this talk page is placing exactly the strain on editors (thanks guys) that page protection was supposed to prevent. Usually IPs don't make use of talk on protected pages so much, but here it's a real and constant issue. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Portuguese use of "negro" and "preto"

As a native portuguese speaker i must add that this topic need some editing: "Portuguese: Negro and preto are neutral; nevertheless preto can be offensive or at least "politically incorrect" and is almost never proudly used by Afro-Brazilians. Crioulo and macaco are always extremely pejorative."

1- Some Black-brazilian associations advocates that the term "preto" should be use proudly aiming on removing its negative meaning.

2- "Crioulo" and "Macaco" is more than pejorative, it's 'extremely Offensive'.

Sources: https://www.uol.com.br/ecoa/ultimas-noticias/2021/08/25/preto-ounegro-qual-a-relacao-dos-termos-com-a-historia-do-brasil.htm https://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/gerais/2020/11/20/interna_gerais,1208016/negro-ou-preto-liderancas-negras-refletem-sobre-o-uso-dos-termos-ao-l.shtml Filipelsr (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this article bothers with similar words in other languages at all. This is English Wikipedia. The ONLY reason we have an article on the word is because it is SO derogatory in English, especially in one primarily English speaking country. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there some way we can limit IPs from this talk page?

I've never followed a page like this where IP comments are constantly being removed for policy violation. Is there some way of protecting talk like a normal page? Anyway if not IMO there should be, because this talk page is placing exactly the strain on editors (thanks guys) that page protection was supposed to prevent. Usually IPs don't make use of talk on protected pages so much, but here it's a real and constant issue. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Bermuda section

The article seems to give undue weight to the way the term is used in Bermuda, given the fact that the island makes up a _very_ small proportion of the world’s English-speaking population. There is nearly as much prose dedicated to Bermuda as there is to the USA, even though the main point seems to be that Bermudans _don’t_ use the n-word very much. Some of it, like the political party coverage, doesn’t even directly relate to the n-word at all.

You’d think there’d be focus on other Anglophone countries, too; particularly ones where the word was historically used mainly to refer to non-African groups (like Australia), or otherwise could have different connotations then in the USA. But no, it’s only Bermuda that gets that treatment.

I’m not saying the section should entirely be deleted, but maybe it could be spun off into a separate article specifically about the use of the n-word in Bermuda? 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AD07 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, its too big.

No, cant make point of view POV fork. And everone says German actor Terminator surname Schwarznegger- translating to english BlackBlack. Is also no one listening to American songs? So then if theres censorship then maybe also could make for countries having nigger and countries having neger and some having neger translation since as bad word its only in countries where have some discriminatory disputes of who chose to use one or other word to describe themselves and allowed still in pop culture around world.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Point-of-view_forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia.

All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.

Bermuda part is too long, doesnt seems encyclopedia worthy- it gives nothing positive to learn not a bit in any sentence. Actually a lot here is hatefull, saying that word is bad in one language translation in one part like USA or Bermuda. Each language might have had different history in different time, but one history doesnt change its meaning in other place in other time. Like for example Latvia and many other european countries- no one to call, nothing to do, so has just observative translations, while in country America, where in first sentence of this article is mentioned its bad, then later in article section "2.6 Intra-group versus intergroup usage" mentioned contradiction that can use depending of race, its been used even more contradictionary if singing, while children around world influenced to use word around world also, where have not had been able to use it derogatory or would use any other word deragotory, like communist, so not word but usage action, like non-bermudians word beeing used.

Looks like about Bermuda metioned that its forbidden censored word by law like genocidal regime symbols like communist or nazi flags. Kangarooo (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

nigger

is wikipedia blocked for nigger? 71.223.83.247 (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is wp:page protected. Is that what your question is? You can do a wp:Edit request. Please be careful to follow the directions! Thank you Adakiko (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Title change request

Please change the title of the article from "Nigger" to "Nigger (slur)"

Reasons: - calling this out is critical for readers that have not previously been exposed to the history - Creates parity with other terms in the slur category (example: "Wetback (slur)") Grokante (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I'd move it myself, but the article is move protected so that only sysops can move it. Carlstak (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out in response to your similar request about Nigga; parenthetical qualifiers are there for ambiguous terms like Wetback; see WP:DAB for more info. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, because that’s simply your opinion because it’s not a "slur" to me, and I'm proud to be a Nigger.

Being referred to as being Black or African-American, those are slurs to me, and yet, the so-called white people don’t care about my opinion, and they're not gonna stop using it.

As a so-called black man, I would much rather refer to myself as being a Nigger, than ignorantly refer to my nationality/race as a color "black" out of a crayon box. Just because the so-called white nation wants to ignorantly refer to themselves as "white", that doesn't default my nation to ignorantly being "black".

I'm a proud so-called black man and I most definitely will not ignorantly refer to myself as being an African-American. I'm a "Real Nigga" and I definitely didn't descend from two non-melanated and recessive genes so-called white men named Scipio Africanus and Amerigo Vespucci.

Also, the same so-called white nation that came up with the ignorant definition for nigger, is also the same people that came up with the more ignorantly definition for the color of "black". That definition for the color "black" is way worse than being called a "NIgger". That's the racial slur you should be focused on. SMDH, these so-called white people are laughing at these ignorant Negroes that are out here walking around and calling themselves "black".

One thing about these so-called white people, they actually know that they’re not "white", but these so-called black people, they actually think they’re "black".

They're not black, they are different shades of brown. Also, there’s no land of black, there’s no kingdom of black. SMDH, my people are destroyed. Charles H Moore 03:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide me with actual evidence of why I need to remove it. Your opinion and feelings are not evidence of anything. Charles H Moore 03:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck51070 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

Indian people were also subject of this verbally abusive word. Although not commonly talked about, often Indians would be called this word in their own country before receiving independence and in the United States as well. 128.6.37.153 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

missing links

some of these are links that are no longer active 71.223.65.91 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Should this talk page be permanently semi-protected?

Per a request at RFPP I have semi-protected this page for two weeks. I am tempted to suggest permanent semi-protection for this talk page. Over the past several months it appears that almost every edit by an IP has been reverted as unconstructive, and about a third of them had to be revdel'ed. I know we are reluctant to protect talk pages because it prevents all input from unregistered users, but I think it may be called for in this case. On the other hand, two reasonable edits by IPs appear above this note. Is that enough to keep the page open? @Callanecc, Alexf, GeneralNotability, Lofty abyss, and Acroterion: Looking for opinions from other admins who have recently been active on this page. MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue isn't it. My gut says permanent protection because of the subject and effect of the worst of the unconstructive edits. But if we effectively block IPs from contributing to this article, we're countering a cornerstone of the project. Perhaps a solution might be to place a header and edit-notice describing how "because of the situation..." IP editors wishing to request edits should make the request on their own talk page, using {{help me}} to call attention to their request? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree with @Fred Gandt:. Gut says semi-protect, but we must make every effort to keep it open. A request-in would work better. An EditNotice saying that due to the subject matter, this is a one-vandal edit, immediate block situation, would work for me. If that does not deter and reduce vandalism/racism, then we would have to take stronger measures. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! And I agree that it's something we are always reluctant to do. The "header and edit notice" is a great idea except that in my experience, such notices are always ignored. Is there any way to make them effective? Are you suggesting that we semi-protect the page in connection with the "put it on your own talk page and say help me" notice? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

CSS animation can certainly get some attention if used to pulse a colored background or border, but is that something we'd ever want to do? I don't suggest this as a joke BTW; movement is more likely to get attention than color alone; the best camouflage is keeping still. As noted; editors with ill intent don't seem to generally care less if there's a warning before, during or after the offense, so we'd only be annoying the good guys by amping-up the visual alarm. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

An alternative to warnings might be appealing to better natures with reminders and education. Explaining clearly and concisely that bigotry and hatred are damaging and degrading to individuals and society as a whole could give pause to some who were perhaps just taking a chance, and not really thinking about what they were doing. It would likely not stop anyone with an axe to grind and could, by them, be seen as a goad. Just a thought. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

CSS is not a good idea. I added a prominent edit notice It is now basically like 1RR. Any vandalism or racism will lead to an immediate block. The page can and will be semi-protected again if needed, but we try to keep at least the Talk Page open if possible. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I now think pending changes is a better safeguard, allowing IP users to make legitimate edits that can be checked by other users, while keeping vandalism hidden from logged-out users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the attitude that bigoted remarks should bring a block, so I've just been blocking them as they appear. It's not like they need to be warned that they're doing something wrong - they know that already. I've not seen pending changes used on a talkpage, but that might be worth a try. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the pending changes suggestion; an effective way to maintain ability to contribute while putting up a technical wall against some negative effects. In addition to the new notice and thereby policy, we might see a real improvement. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt and LaundryPizza03: Unfortunately, pending changes is not configured to be used on talk pages so isn't an option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with indefinite semi-protection of this talk page. I don't think an edit notice threatening blocks as the IPs who are making these edits aren't aware what that means, don't care because they'll still have made the comment or won't read an edit notice. Even if it's extremely obvious, the type of vandalism we're seeing likely won't be affected at all by an edit notice which leaves us semi-protection as the next option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • That would bring us back to IP editors wishing to request edits should make the request on their own talk page, using {{help me}} to call attention to their request yes? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Or an alternative or adjustment to {{request edit}}. Without some mechanism for unregistered editors to affect the article content, we'd be taking a sledgehammer to the assumption of good faith and other fundamental principles. Whether justifiable or not; this would not be even close to uncontroversial. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Not that controversial, here are some examples of indefinitely semi-protected talk pages: Talk:Keith Henson, Talk:Sol Trujillo, Talk:Chester Yorton, Talk:Perizaad Zorabian, Talk:Fashion Bomb, Talk:Duke of San Donato, Talk:Illeana Douglas, Talk:Yelena Dembo, Talk:Chaz Bono, Talk:Alison Weir, Talk:Huizhou University, Talk:Inspire (magazine), Talk:Causes of autism, Talk:Australian flag debate, Talk:Al-Shuhada Street, Talk:Rick Alan Ross, Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), Talk:Anita Sarkeesian, and (potentially relevant to this page) Talk:Poop. The protection template says If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account but there's also WP:RFED. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks for this very helpful research, Callanecc. These are examples of talk pages that are perennial targets for inappropriate edits - like this page. They combine indef-protection of the page with the notice in the protection template; that is pretty much what I had in mind. I also note that some of these perennially-vandalized pages have had this protection for years: Poop since 2015, for example, or Chaz Bono since 2012. IMO this page above all attracts not just vandalism, but vandalism of a particularly abhorrent nature. Such that about a third of the reverted edits have to be revdel'ed. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm surprised so many articles have been effectively shut to unregistered editors; like you say then; not so controversial. Evidentially, leaving the door open is just asking for trouble, and the result is often, as Melanie says, abhorrent. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this settled then; permanent protection? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We seem to have an alternative solution in place for good-faith editors; WP:Requests for page protection/Edit is another option if they are seeking to make an uncontroversial edit. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all. This is looking like pretty clear consensus for permanent semi-protection. I will set it, but first I would like advice about what the top-of-the-page note should say. I think this could be appropriate: {{pp-vandalism|small=no}}. That is the note at Talk:Poop. I think that's better than the generic {{pp-semi-indef}} which is used on several of the permanently-protected pages. Anyone got any other suggestions? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That certainly looks like the most specific option right now; all the common options appear to utilise Module:Protection banner, which itself offers a limited set of possible reasons, and vandalism is the reason. Stating |small=no appears unnecessary; that's the default. If indefinitely protected; the edit notice will be redundant. On a personal note: I watch this and Nigga (along with some other pages) purely because they are sensitive and subject to these problems; it will be nice to not feel a rush of dread every time this pops up in my watchlist changes. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be over with, so I am going to go ahead and indef-protect the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good job 👍 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Use in popular media not mentioned

Clawfinger named a song Nigger (lyrics from Musixmatch.com) on their debut-album Deaf Dumb Blind, which became a semi-hitsong in Norway, Sweden and some other countries. Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 16:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

N-word in the Russian language

@MBH In response to your revert, I'd like to clarify that I did not make an "unreasonable deletion of text." I provided specific reasons for the removal and even explained the issue in detail to you personally in the chat. The primary concern was the absence of a reliable source to support the content. It's essential to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and avoid sharing content that promotes racism or offensive ideas. – Mariâ Magdalina (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In no way does a neutral explanation of an ethnic slur "promote racism". However, the lack of sourcing and questionable relevance — this section should concern only those words etymologically related to nigger — was a valid reason to delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)