Talk:Nigger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

discussion[change source]

This article is POV because it states that it should no longer be used. this article is much more offensive than the full english version of the article. it's simplified to the point of being patronizing, . Delete this


It exists on the English Wikipedia, so it should (eventually) exist here also. Please feel free to edit it, but I for one won't delete the present version, since it is non-derogatory. -- Netoholic @ 06:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)



This is very POV. User:24/s 14:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A television thief? This is very derogatory. It should be deleted or modified.

I agree that this article is slanted as making the word "Nigger" apply only to those of African origin, and are not of Caucasian descent. "Nigger" does not necessarily mean a black person specifically, for it could also mean an ignorant person, as is stated by many inviduals who are not racist, some of who are even of African descent.

Please remove incorrect Hebrew interwiki[change source]

After a debate at the Hebrew Wikipedia it was decided that he:כושי is NOT the correct interwiki for Nigger. Please remove the Hebrew interwiki, Thank you. 217.132.165.135 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Thank you for notifying us. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It was unfortunately re-added, probably due to bot activity. We are now removing these links from all languages to avoid this from happenning again, so please remove again, hopefully we removed all occurences. Thanks! Odedee 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection[change source]

If somebody vandalizes this tomorrow, I propose indefinite silver-lock. This is a topic we can't afford to have vandalized at any time--what with its connotations for hate speech Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's why I semi-protected it. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 02:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I see it was vandalized, and indefinitely silver-locked. Good Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Err, whut? 4 strikes in a day does not constitute an indef semi-protection ever. Prior to this it was edited in November, and that was not a vandal. In order for a page to be indef semi'd it should be recieving multiple instances of vandalism from multiple users every day, not one IP on one day. I strongly suggest this is removed before I bring this up to the wider community's attention. Goblin 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
Furthermore, this is an incorrect usage of the "Protect" tool. The tool is supposed to be preventative, not punative, which in this instance it is. Block the editor, not the page. Goblin 14:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Goblin, there's a specific reason why I'm concerned about vandalism on this page, and therefore want it indef silver-locked. This is an especially controversal page, and vandalism on this page isn't just run-of-the mill gobbeldegook, it's hate speech. The community should want to prevent that kind of speech from happening on this page Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)(aka PBP89)

However, such reasoning goes against the entire ethos of Wikipedia and is against the useage of the Protect tool. There is not sufficient vandalism of this page to warrant a protection - indefinite or otherwise - and the protection tool is preventative, not punative, as I said above. There are plenty of other controversial pages both here and at en that aren't indef semi'd - why should this be different? Furthermore, none of the vandalism can really be called "hate speech" - it is very much your run-of-the-mill vandalism - sad people with nothing better to do. I've seen plenty of "nigger" vandalism on other pages too, not to mention vandalism worse than this. This is completely uneeded, and I will now be bringing this up at the AN. Ta, Goblin 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

Could we settle for something like, 1 week for the protection? - indef protection is warranted almost never; given this originates from a few IPs blocking those is probably better. And please note: we do have a few "highly-controversial" pages that are fully unprotected (and get protected for a few hours at intervals). --Eptalon (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AN, though at this point even a week's protection would be inappropriate. Goblin 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!