Talk:List of common nouns derived from ethnic group names

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Old talk

I saw a list like this on the Net years ago but I've forgotten nearly all of it. I thought my fellow Wikipedians might be able to recreate it Adambisset 21:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why did you remove "Bugger" ? It is derived from "Bulgarian" (meaning the Bogomils of Bulgaria), which catholic propaganda said they were practicing 'buggery'.

Middle English bougre, heretic, from Old French boulgre, from Medieval Latin Bulgarus. See Bulgar. Dictionary.com: Bugger

and yes, it's an insult as it meaning may be:

2. Slang. A contemptible or disreputable person.

Bogdan | Talk 20:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry dude - I checked the Wikipedia entry for 'bugger' before I deleted it, but the article didn't explain the etymology of the word. Thanks for letting me know. I'll reinstate the word forthwith! Adambisset 22:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed "welch". The etymological root is not "Welsh" (the OED says "of obscure origin"). Comparison should be made with the term “niggardly” which seems to share an etymology with one of our most incendiary insults, but in fact has a completely unrelated etymology. All of this is sheer pedantry I guess - if a word sounds like an insult to one’s fellows perhaps etymologies should be ignored... Adambisset 02:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goth

How is 'Goth' a 'slur' (especially a question for Bogdangiusca)?[1]

"Gothic" was a synonym "barbaric", especially in the Middle Ages. The architecture style had nothing to do with the Goths but simply it was considered barbaric. bogdan 11:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I'm just wondering if it is a misconception that "Goth" is a derogatory term. I have never heard of this happening. I was wondering if, in the first place, anyone had; and second, how many people and how often. Also, when used is it labeling the person as crude or barbaric, or bleak and lugubrious:

1. A style of rock music that often evokes bleak, lugubrious imagery (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

†Sƒ 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PhilipR, who began this clause:

The word "Goth" or "Gothic" is increasingly being used as insult amongst certain social groups. This is mostly due to the general differences between gothic teenagers and their peers. This can also be used to insult one's sexual preference, as there is an untrue stereotype that most gothic teens are homosexual (all sexual preferences are present among goths). Gothic teenagers who have alcohol or drug addictions may also be treated with hostility, specifically because their appearance makes them stand out more among other teens with the same vices. The anti-religious image that gothic people give off can also create resentment among those with traditional religous beliefs, though there are many practicing Christian Goths.[2]

†Sƒ 03:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it. Just because some people use "Goth" as a slur doesn't make it an "Ethnic group name used as an insult". Rather, Goth is a label for a certain subculture (a neutral label) and people in that subculture are being PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AS SUCH by these jerks... albeit in a negative manner. Now, if you want to claim that since the Goth subculture gets it's name from Gothic rock, and you want to claim a connection between that and the usage of "Gothic" as a term of disparagement (see Gothic architecture), that's a bit different... although I think that's a tough sell. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone bickering here: derogatory usage of 'Goth' or 'Gothic' is now archaic. Don't ask, "Psh, who actually means it that way?" No one anymore, but historically, plenty of people did. Encyclopedic content can certainly be historic, rather than contemporary. The article makes the historical nature of the use explicit. It has nothing to do with modern day Gothic subculture. -69.47.186.226 05:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up "Goth" on Dictionary.com (based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary)[3] you get:

Goth –noun

one of a Teutonic people who in the 3rd to 5th centuries invaded and settled in parts of the Roman Empire.
a person of no refinement; barbarian.

Our article makes it clear that this is not in reference to the current subculture; this usage predates it by centuries (first recorded use 1663[4]). --Lambiam ^Talk 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gyp and Jew - If you are going to include Gyp, you should also include Jew, used as a verb, "to bargain aggressively". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.174.231 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy

People go around calling each other pygmies? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the fudge is Aussie doing here?!

--Steven X 09:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i am Australian and i find the term "Aussie" by no way offensive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by L-3-G-4-C-Y (talk • contribs)

No, I'm saying that Aussie isn't an ethnic group rather a nickname for a nationality (Australian). It doesn't matter though, since its been removed.--Steven X 10:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other use of Hun

A Hun is a derogatory term for a supporter of Glasgow Rangers Football Club. At Least according to Supporters of City Rivals - Glasgow Celtic Football Club.

-- Mick 27th of April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.211.8.2 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

References to dictionary.com

Quite confused they are. First, dictionary.com is not copyright of Random House. Second, you must give true origin of the definition, i.e., the corresponding "dead wood" dictionary. BTW, are you aware that dictionary.com includes definitions from wikipedia as well? And you must be careful here not to include your own article? `'Miikka 23:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you search dictionary.com for, say, "wood", you get a list of sources with their separate, possibly multiple, definitions: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), American Heritage Dictionary, Online Etymology Dictionary, WordNet, Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), The American Heritage Science Dictionary, U.S. Gazetteer, Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, and On-line Medical Dictionary.[5] For each definition there is a separate link having the text Cite This Source. If you follow that link for the first definition, you get something that roughly looks like this:[6]

Cite This Source

Add these citations to your bibliography. Select the text below and then copy and paste it into your document.

American Psychological Association (APA):

wood. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved July 05, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wood

Chicago Manual Style (CMS):

wood. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wood (accessed: July 05, 2007).

Modern Language Association (MLA):

"wood." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 05 Jul. 2007.

<Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wood>.

If this is not an authority on how this source should be cited, then what is? I picked in each case the Chicago style, being the least verbose, omitting the first part as being redundant. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought you have read it more carefully.

Since you are not quoting the text from this page literally, you are not required to give it any credits whatever button they tell you to click (and there is a solid reason why, see below)
The text "Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc" is a devilish marketing ploy creating an illusion that dictionary.com is Random House, with all implied respect by pretense of association
dictionary.com is in fact "Copyright © 2007, Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.", which is nothing but data aggregator
The real respectful source, from which dict.com harvests information is given under each entry, not above.
- E.g., the first of the three "wood"s is, like this "Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006."
- A bit below on the same dict.com page some more "wood" comes, from "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.".

Now, did you get the idea what are the real sources to be cited? Why would you want to give credit to dict.com, when it confesses that it is "based" (in air quotes) on a solid source of Random House? `'Miikka 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of "giving credit", but of providing a source for the information to keep these entries from being repeatedly deleted, which is tiresome. I do not have the "solid" source, and therefore I cannot check if they provide the same information – although I expect basically any dictionary will. I am not aware of a requirement that the sources cited should make a noise when you drop them. I do not understand what you mean in this context by "air quotes". --Lambiam ^Talk 08:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say using only one questionable reference for the entire article is a bit irresponsible. If it does indeed use content from Wikipedia then it is an unacceptable source. Until(1 == 2) 19:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references are not questionable. They do not use content from Wikipedia. Insisting on multiple references for information that can be found in any decent dictionary is silly. Large-scale deletion of almost all content from the article to get one's way after after an unsuccessful AfD nomination is in my opinion not appropriate behaviour. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At that point there was not even this questionable reference and removing the content was appropriate. Even though I disagree with the value of this reference I am not removing stuff, because it is not so black and white. Until(1 == 2) 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apache

The inclusion of this term seems misleading, since the header says "whose current meaning has lost that connotation." Perhaps my personal experience is unique, but the group of Native American tribes seems like the default meaning of the term to me. It certainly has not lost that meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb144 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jap

If you are going to have hun you might as well add jap.

Jap was a derogatory term used against the Japanese during WWII.

Thug

Is thug really an example of what is being talked about in the article? I don't claim to know much about the Thuggee but from just reading their article on here they appear to be a mixture of criminal gang and religious sect. At no point does it suggest that they constituted any sort of ethnic group. Indeed the article states that they existed "across India" and given the ethnic diversity in that country it seems highly unlikely they would have been a homogeneous ethnic group if they were present throughout the country. If there are no objections I think it should be removed from the list. Keresaspa (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article for Ethnic group to see the variation in definitions for that term and comment again if you think that those definitions do not apply. I support Thuggee remaining listed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

I have removed Kike, Nigger, Jya, and Wetback as they are not ethnic group names being used as insults. This page is not just to list racial or ethnic slurs, it is explicitly ethnic group names that are now used as slurs. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar

What about "vulgar" from Bulgarian?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar does not come from Bulgarian, but rather it's an older word, from Latin "vulgus", common people. bogdan (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of common nouns derived from ethnic group names. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]