Talk:Simp

Barely any encyclopedic value in this article

The part about "No Simp September" sounds like an incel's wet dream and doesn't have any additional information about that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.82 (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree firmly. This is the preserve of Urban Dictionary. Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1923, the New York Times published a letter decrying the cowardice of simps? Source: "CALLS BACHELORS "SIMPS."; "Afraid to Take a Chance," Says Woman Referring to Club". The New York Times. 14 May 1923. Retrieved 23 December 2020.
  • ALT1:... that Archie Andrews has been described as "the simpiest of the simps"? Source:Paul, Andrew (21 July 2020). "Call Archie a "simp" at your own peril, warns Archie Comics". The A.V. Club. Retrieved 16 December 2020.
• ALT2: ... that in 1923, the New York Times published a letter decrying simps for being "afraid to take a chance"? Source: "CALLS BACHELORS "SIMPS."; "Afraid to Take a Chance," Says Woman Referring to Club". The New York Times. 14 May 1923. Retrieved 23 December 2020.

• Reviewed: Socrates Nelson

Created by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 12:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC).

• Review follows:
  • New? Yes. Nominated 23 December; created 17 December.
  • Long enough? Yes. 7,000+ characters.
  • Enough cites? Yes. Passes the 1+ cite per graf test.
  • Hook cited? Possibly. Main hook appears as a blockquote in the article, but I don't quite see cowardice described in the source. Maybe "criticizing simps", although that's less punchy. Alt1 is fully cited, and only slightly less punchy.
  • Hooks short enough? Yes.
  • Copyright? Fine. Earwig initially looked chancy but it's just quotes.
  • QPQ: Done.
  • Other? I don't quite see the utility of the big blockquote beginning "He's from Michigan", but that's not a problem for DYK. The Twitch section may also be a bit WP:UNDUE, but I'm not that up on online happenings so it may well be DUE. I leave that to you.

Overall: just waiting for a little clarity on the main hook; I'd be fine with Alt1 too. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• In the 1923 article (which you can see in this Twitter conversation involving one of the 2020 article's authors), it says "afraid to take a chance", which I think can be reasonably summarized as "cowardice" but it'd be possible to rephrase it; adding ALT2 for a more direct parallel to the source. jp×g 06:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed that it's a fair summary on taking another look. I actually still prefer Alt1 (Archie more recognizable than an anonymous letter-writer, and "simpiest of the simps" has a nice ring to it). Main/alt2 also fine; will leave it up to the promoter. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Page move quandaries

Since I made this page on December 16, there have transpired a rather byzantine series of page moves. Apparently, the strangeness goes back over a decade and a half. Before I give an opinion, I will outline the history (which you can currently see here):

In 2006, the article Simp was created by a pagemove to SIMP; in 2013 this became a double redirect when SIMP was moved to Strongly interacting massive particle. Some time after this, people got into a lot of kerfluffles between it being a redirect and a disambiguation page. This went back and forth for a while. Eventually, a RfD occurred, which concluded with "disambiguate". On April 10, it was moved from "Simp" to "SIMP" (GeoffreyT2000 moved page Simp to SIMP: Requested by Utopes at WP:RM/TR: Acronym, should be moved to the same title with all capital letters).

Anyway, by December, the situation was this: Simp was a pagemove redirect to SIMP, which was a disambiguation page. I wrote an article about the Internet thing as a userspace draft, at User:JPxG/Simp, which (after some irrelevant-to-the-issue bungling detailed below) ended up at the article Simp.

Since then, it has had the lede rewritten no less than three times, and been moved to two different titles without any discussion beforehand. The first was of the content page from Simp to Simping, at which point the disambiguation page at SIMP was moved to Simp, citing the April 3 RfD as a basis to overturn the April 10 RM, and the second was a completely undiscussed move from Simping to Simp (person), which was accompanied by yet another rephrasing of the lede. This doesn't really make sense in the scope of the article -- I wrote it about a slang term, a behavior, and a type of person.

Note: I tried to move-over-redirect my userspace draft to the mainspace page when I was done. Unfortunately, this didn't work, because I guess there had been another edit since the pagemove. Oh well. This is where I do something stupid: I figure that the move-over-redirect will work if there are no revisions since the move, so I moved the redirect shell to User:JPxG/Simping, thinking it would work after that. But it didn't. So I just CSD'd the old redirect shells to prepare for a move to mainspace, which someone else did, and it was fine.

@AquilaXIII: @Uanfala: Is there a reason why this article shouldn't be at Simp as it originally was, and why the disambiguation page shouldn't be Simp (disambiguation)?

jp×g 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my 2 cents to this debate. It should be called simp (psychological mindset), as a person isn't named simp, so why was it under person? It should be a parenthetical due to internationally, simp being known for multiple things, such as "Simp., a non-standard abbreviation for 'simplified', as in 'Simplified Chinese'", but not person, since its not really a person. Neon (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a "psychological mindset" either. The coverage that exists on the subject (it's a current item of controversy, so more is being written each day) describes a type of behavior people do online, a type of person who does this behavior, and the slang term people use to refer to the person. Arbitrarily limiting the scope of an article with a parenthetical title doesn't really make sense to me if there isn't a good reason for it (the decision to use Simp as a dab page was made several months before this article even existed, and indeed several months before most of the current sources had been written). jp×g 22:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: The page is now back at Simping. jp×g 22:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• I moved the article to Simping partly because that was how the lede introduced the term. It's up to you all to decide what the lede should look like and whether the title should use "Simp" or "Simping" – this only depends on the article's content and spin. From my point of view, "Simping" better chimes in with existing article naming practice: we've got Stalking (and not Stalker), Flirting (and not Flirt), Bullying (and not Bully).
  Once that issue has been decided, we can think about relationship to other topics: does this article have primary topic status for Simp, or should the dab page remain at that title? If the article's title should use "Simp" and it's not the primary topic, what disambiguator should it use?, etc. If the dab page at Simp is going to be moved, then we'd need another formal discussion (see WP:RM#CM). That's because the present setup is a result of a previous formal discussion – the one at RfD (the now reverted move to SIMP was a unilateral move that was requested at WP:RMT, and it didn't change the primary topic). Of course, the creation of this article substantially changes the situation, and that's one very good reason to have another discussion. However, we can't just override the previous one as the topic of simping was already considered at some length and taken into account when deciding to disambiguate.
  In an RM I'd probably remain neutral as I weakly prefer the status quo, but there's definitely a strong cases to be made. Pageviews suggest it's simping that most readers are interested in when they search for "simp". Persuading editors of long-term significance may be trickier though. Another option is to go for WP:SMALLDIFFS (as most of the entries on the dab page are upper-case), but not everybody will find that persuasive either.
  And btw, JPxG, your initial move of your userspace didn't work because you were trying to move it over a redirect that was pointing to another page. You can move a page over any of its redirects (if they don't have history), but you can't move a page over a redirect to another page). – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: @JPxG: I'm neutral to whatever the page gets renamed to but I moved it to "Simp (person)" since that matches with other terms that have different meaning like the one for "fan (person)". I personally am okay with whatever new name gets chosen for the page so long as it's not "Simping". People use the noun way more often then the verb and the noun is more widely known too. The word has also jumped to other languages like Spanish and French. It is very much used now in Spanish social media and YouTube as a noun and not verb. It would be confusing for non-English speaking users who will try to create a new page for this entry in another language and don't know what "simping" means since they don't know the language. I think it's better to change it to simp whether it be "Simp", "Simp (person)", or "Simp (psychological mindset)". Either one is good so long as the page is named after the noun and not the verb. AquilaXIII (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Simp or Simp (person) seem reasonable. I agree that Simping isn't ideal. Benjamin (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Simp (person) is the best - "simp" is what's referred to most commonly, not "simping". Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Simp, in the second case from Simp to Simp (disambiguation). (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 13:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Simping → Simp (person) – Per the above discussion, it looks like the choice to move the page to Simp (person) is the preferred choice. Please vote by saying "support" or "not support" the move request. (@Uanfala: @JPxG: @Benjaminikuta: @Elliot321:) AquilaXIII (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how you have come to this conclusion. Myself and @Mdaniels5757: (who was not pinged) opposed this move, Uanfala never mentioned the (person) parenthetical, you and Benjamin and Neon suggested it only as an alternative to "Simp", and Elliot321 is the only person who actually supported it in its own right. jp×g 12:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I prefer "Simp" over "Simp (person)" - I think I worked my point poorly in the above discussion, sorry. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Same. Benjamin (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: A parenthetical title is not accurate for the subject, and I would have to either heavily rewrite or delete most of the content (and most of my planned expansions simply could not be written) to put this article within scope at a (person) title. Do we really need to split the article into Simp (person), Simping (behavior), Simp (insult), and Simp (psychological mindset)? The last of these is a phrase which literally does not appear in the title of a single Wikipedia article. I'd propose that this RM be closed, and another opened to move it to Simp (a title that almost everyone in the prior conversation was fine with), with the page at that title being moved to Simp (disambiguation) or SIMP (disambiguation). The disambiguation page currently at Simp, which was titled that after a discussion several months prior to the creation of this article, links to five initialisms using SIMP (all caps), and a non-standard lowercase abbreviation of the word "simplified" (which is unreferenced, and the linked article does not mention "simp." a single time). jp×g 12:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Simp (person)" to anyone who's not very online would likely just mean a simpleton or similar. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm not convinced this parenthetic is an improvement.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per JPxG. Some1 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The notable topic is the slang term, not a type of person; sources I've looked at all describe it as such. Simp is mainly an insult; for WP to use it for a type of person would be highly POV. The article and title should clearly indicate that the word itself is the main subject, as with Becky (slang), Cuckservative, and Social justice warrior, among others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 17:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC))
  • Suggest alternative move to Simp (Internet slang) as more in line with RS coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I still prefer just "Simp", but if there's no consensus for that, then I think "Simp (Internet slang)" would be the next best alternative. Benjamin (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Re-reading the discussion, I think there's a case for moving the article to Simp and the DAB page to Simp (disambiguation). The different capitalization is enough to distinguish this topic from the other entries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

@Sangdeboeuf: I think it should be short and succinct per WP:MOSLEAD, which is why I originally wrote it that way. The definitions quoted in it weren't given inline attribution because they're already given as quotes and cited to inline references -- I don't see a need to provide the author of an article and the name of the publication before supplying a less-than-one-sentence quote. If it's not possible to simply include that quote, it belongs in the body text; attributing a definition to Urban Dictionary does not make sense to me if that definition appears in multiple RS articles that endorse it. The notability of the claim doesn't come from UD saying that, it's not a WP:RS.

But your other edit, claiming that the term applies exclusively to men courting the attention of women, seems like WP:OR; there are plenty of sources describing the situation happening the other way around, and nothing I've seen says that it is always one way or the other. As for WP:WORDISSUBJECT, I'm not sure about the scope of the article being limited to the word; plenty of the sources describe it as a behavior, or a type of person, and aren't limited to the word itself (I think that might be a big enough issue to warrant an RfC rather than two people in a talk page discussion). jp×g 22:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Concision doesn't outweigh the need to accurately summarize sources or use impartial language. Simp is notable mainly as an insult, so it's unavoidably POV to call people simps (e.g. a person "who is excessively deferential") in Wikipedia's voice, even obliquely and with qualifiers (e.g. "In internet slang"). Even wording that implies a given behavior is "excessive" is POV.

The quote from Urban Dictionary requires attribution like all quotations, even (and especially) when cited to an independent source. Otherwise we're giving the reader a false impression of where the quote is coming from. Neither Gizmodo Australia nor Ars Technica appear to be "endorsing" the definition; they're just neutrally reporting it.

Here are the first ten sources cited in the article, excluding the 1923 NYT blurb and The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, which are self-evidently about usage of the term (my emphasis):

• The Daily Dot (June 2020): "Only Twitter could take decades-old niche slang like ‘simp’ and make it look like a new viral meme ... The word is truly everywhere ... 'simp' has been a vocabulary word in African American Vernacular English ... online incel and misogynist communities began appropriating the word and using it alongside terms like 'cuck,' 'white knight,' and 'beta' ... Now, the use of the word 'simp' has gained traction outside of AAVE and incel discourse"
• Ars Technica: "Twitch says terms like 'simp,' 'incel,' and 'virgin' will soon be banned ... The term simp ... is often used as generic trash talk" (article is mainly about Twitch's anti-harassment policies)
• Pittsburgh Current: "This term is popping up more and more ... from what I gather, a simp describes a boy or man who seeks attention from or is overly concerned with pleasing women" (article is more about the NoSimp subreddit than "simp" itself)
• Newsweek: "Livestreaming service Twitch is banning terms such as 'simp,' 'incel' and 'virgin' ... the use of these epithets in a negative way to target someone will be prohibited ... 'Simp' is a relatively new term that has become popular in the Twitch community"
• Kotaku: "'Simp' is, to put it lightly, a divisive term. On Twitch, TikTok, and Twitter, people mostly use it to express hyper-exaggerated thirst ... But the word also has more negative connotations, and even though it’s undeniably become part of the broader Twitch lexicon, Twitch itself doesn’t seem too fond of it" (term is mostly used as background to article on Twitch's anti-harassment policies)
• The Tab: "But when you get [TikTok] you can’t help but be bombarded by a load of dancing teens, strange trends and most importantly – weird words. One you may have stumbled across is 'simp' which to most of us has no meaning whatsoever" (opinion essay, not very reliable)
• The New York Times: "The word 'simp' isn’t new. In fact, it’s pretty old. But it has been dragged into fresh popularity ... Simp’s new status as a prime insult — a misogynist one, that implies a person is 'unmanly' — has lasted most of a year ... In the early 2010s, the word, still used with some regularity by rappers, was seized upon by members of the nascent 'manosphere' ... Simp became a staple of men’s rights forums" (article is entirely about the word)
• Gizmodo Australia: "The former opposition leader introduced mainstream media to the term 'Simp' ... In 2005 the first modern-day definitions for the phrase began popping up on Urban Dictionary. But the term didn’t begin exponentially spreading until 2019"
• The Daily Dot (December 2020): "'Simp' has existed as a niche slang term for decades, but it’s experienced a revitalization on social media this year ... Some people use it as an acronym for "Sucker Idolizing Mediocre Pussy" (focuses mostly on Twitch's anti-harassment policies)
• AV Club: "The term 'simp' has really come into its own over the past year or so" (article is about a fictional character)

The focus of all the sources cited, even the opinion essays and especially the more reliable publications like The New York Times, is on the term ("niche slang", "a vocabulary word", "this term", "these epithets", "a relatively new term", "a divisive term", "the broader Twitch lexicon", "weird words", "a prime insult", "the phrase", etc.), rather than a type of behavior or type of person. Therefore the word itself is clearly the notable subject here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Two additional sources, which are now in the first ten after some reorganization, contain more of the same:

• Evening Standard: "One of social media’s current colloquialisms is the noun 'simp,' along with the verb, 'to simp,' and the proper noun, 'Simp Nation' ... The term 'simp' began trending on TikTok courtesy of a user named Marco Borghi, aka 'polo.boyy' ... the term 'simp' has potentially offensive connotations ... women on TikTok have successfully appropriated the term"
• MEL Magazine: "'Simp' may be a fresh Gen Z term used mostly as a joke ... simp has increased in usage among the vocabularies of potentially violent incels ... The word itself sounds pathetic, which is surely intentional ... Simp, as an acronym, stands for 'Someone/Sucka Idolizing Mediocre Pussy' ... simp has evolved past its original, more precise definition, and is now another catchall misogynistic term ... interest in the term has doubled in the last year ... the word has been around in black culture for years ... it’s found a new life as a broader term for the 'beta' male so bemoaned by the manosphere"

The second source delves deeper into "simp" as a cultural concept, but overall the focus is still on terminology. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As regards the UD definition, attributing a definition isn't quite the same as reprinting it without endorsement, especially when the article proceeds forward as though the definition is correct (for example, Urban Dictionary defines a "dog" as a "furry potato": if a Jerkwater Picayune-Herald story about dogs mentioned this and then proceeded to talk about what type of soil was best for growing dogs, we could probably say that the JPH was defining dogs as furry potatoes).

As regards the POV issues, well, I think that this is inevitable in an article about a piece of online slang, (notorious for rapidly changing meanings). Usage has changed over time, and differences between articles written between 2020 and 2021 reflect this. There is a pile of sources in which some mention the word as a pejorative, some as a neutral descriptor, and some as positive or jocular. Some, at the edges of this pile (especially earlier ones), will talk about it being all one thing or all the other. But since none of these are the Académie Française (there is no organization which authoritatively dictates usage of the English language), it doesn't seem to me like there is a good basis for being so narrowly descriptive in the lead. jp×g 22:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

i would like to go more in detail on how its used online by teenagers and give a more in depth response 2603:6010:FD05:D000:598A:E332:88F1:EF9A (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2021 (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. 15 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

i really need to edit this because i have to write a essay on this word and they said to write soemthing on wikipedia to help make this word emphasize and be superior to other. 2601:546:300:CC0:7846:5688:4B2D:76C8 (talk) 02:44, 31 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. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The "reception" section be named criticism.

The section doesnt has any reviews defending the term, and is mostly filled with criticism for the term, should it be renamed to criticism? Powering everyone (User Talk:Powering everyone) 14:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:Criticism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "defending the term"; there are plenty of people who think it's harmless, or accurate, or funny. The article does seem to have become strangely heavy with negative opinions, but retitling a section to "criticism" would probably make it worse. jp×g 19:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sir Mix-A-Lot's Baby Got Back?

I've just noticed a usage of the word "simp" in Baby Got Back (1992) which predates the 1999 Three 6 Mafia example currently in the Origins section of the article. The usage seems to be relevant to the usage discussed in this article...

Baby got it goin' on | A lot of simps won't like this song | 'Cause them punks like to hit it and quit it | And I'd rather stay and play

I think this example is relevant and notable enough to add to the article.

SloppyG (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I also found another use of the word simp, referring to a man that is chasing after women, in the sing Play No Playa by Shawty Pimp "Breaking wimps, breaking simps, hoe drop that cash flow". 1999 was definitely not the first time it was used in the modern form. Noideawhatiamdoingohdear (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The word "simp" was also used by The Pharcyde in their 1992 hit "Passin' Me By," in the lyrics, "When I try or make some sort of attempt, I simp. Damn, I wish I wasn't such a wimp." 2601:647:4D80:A9F0:B5A6:9878:11E1:50EC (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

I would like to add a very good example of a simp (a humayun) as i have met almost 10 Humayuns and they are all in my top 10 simps of all time, this must mean that most likely anyone who has met a humayun will agree and will have this example help them if they don't understand even after reading the article. Iwanttochangethewiki (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: @Iwanttochangethewiki: 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. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 17:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the term

" The term existed for quite some time, but had a sporadic usage until it became widely popular on social media since 2019," Huh? I've seen more than one Harold Lloyd one and two reelers use the term, which suggests at least common usage in the mid to late 1910s. I have no experience how people are using it as an insult on internet message boards, but a wikipedia article referencing urban dictionary seems problematic. 23.28.56.171 (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

So is the term ‘simp’ actually offensive like Wikipedia page says?

I think the statements about “simp” being offensive are… excessive? Its not incredibly offensive, and yes, if you call someone a simp with INTENT for it to be mean-spirited it will be somewhat offensive, but so would be calling them a fucking banana, ANYTHING can be offensive if meant to be. And i personally get called a simp somewhat frequently, and idk why it bugs people so much, cause if you ask them to elaborate, they usually are only describing you being a good person to a girl, whether you like her or not. So honestly, i think its fine. Also, if it changes the nature of my argument any i am afab, ftnb. 204.237.50.202 (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the author of this article is mad at being called a simp Synotia (moan) 08:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Edits

@Altenmann: Regarding this edit: the reference for the claim is not Urban Dictionary. The citation is to the references "Jones" and "Orland"; here is the article. What it actually says is this:

Urban Dictionary has a few more varied and colourful definitions. The top hit encompasses what the term has evolved into over the last year or so — “Someone who does way too much for a person they like.”

The reason this article phrases it in such a bizarre way is that, in 2021, someone insisted that the statement had to be attributed to Urban Dictionary and not Gizmodo, because the Gizmodo story mentioned Urban Dictionary. I was opposed to this at the time, but I did not have the stamina to keep reverting; perhaps we can form a new consensus to just attribute the quote to Gizmodo. jp×g 04:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

UD is not a reliable source. Period. Three key points from your quote above: 1: UD had several definitions, no reason to pick this one. 2: Gismodo picked it for us 3: basing on trends in urban culture (for which clearly UD has influence because teen dimwits abound). So Gizmodo ref is not so much about the definition, but about its effect on popculture. I will be not against the ref to UD, but only as a primary-source ref supporting the claim of Gizmodo or the likes. - Altenmann >talk 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

1960s usage

Elizabeth Taylor was fond of using this term in the 1960s. Actually an Ad Lib dialog in dome movies. This, of course constitutes more verifiable proof of earlier use than originally stated. Totalce (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for that? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I came here because I just came across an instance of this word being used in the 60s:

'You see?' Maudy said with scalding accusation to Chic. 'I told you so! The bastards have it in for us. We're the fall-guys in this. The lowest dupes on the ladder - the ultimate simps.'

- Philip K. Dick, The Simulacra, p. 207, Eyre Methuen Ltd, 1977 (copyright 1964)

In the book, there is a matriarchal figure, but the person speaking here does not appear from context to be referring to her. To me, it appears to refer to a useful idiot more than anything else. Lennartvdvelden (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Tye above also makes intuitive sense to me, by the way - when I first heard it I just thought it was an abbreviated form of "simpleton". Lennartvdvelden (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

Hi can I get approval to edit so I can edit a wrong word AhMKDerb (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2024 (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 may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)