Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Attestation criteria for derogatory terms

Attestation criteria for derogatory terms

Voting on: Updating WT:ATTEST regarding the attestation criteria for derogatory terms.

It is proposed that WT:ATTEST be updated by adding one of the following options as a new subsection 1.2.5. The text in option 2 that differs from option 1 is underlined.

Option 1

If a term is derogatory to an individual, group of persons, or geographical location, it must have at least three quotations satisfying these requirements added to it meet the usual attestation requirements within:

• two weeks of the term being created, or if this period has passed,
• two weeks of the term being nominated for deletion or verification.

Otherwise, it may be speedily deleted after that period.

A term is considered derogatory if it is apparently intended to:

• denigrate a named individual in any way; or
• denigrate an unnamed person, group of persons, or geographical location on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or with the use of a demeaning or obscene term.

The speedy deletion of a term is without prejudice to its re-creation if the attestation requirements can be satisfied as described above.

Option 2

If a term is derogatory to an individual, group of persons, or geographical location, it must have at least three quotations satisfying these requirements added to it meet the usual attestation requirements within:

• two weeks of the term being created, or if this period has passed,
• two weeks of the term being nominated for deletion or verification.

Otherwise, it may be speedily deleted after that period.

In addition, where applicable, the quotations must be from two or more different sources. For this purpose, a particular website (for example, Reddit, Twitter, or Usenet) is considered as one source.

A term is considered derogatory if it is apparently intended to:

• denigrate a named individual in any way; or
• denigrate an unnamed person, group of persons, or geographical location on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or with the use of a demeaning or obscene term.

The speedy deletion of a term is without prejudice to its re-creation if the attestation requirements can be satisfied as described above.

Rationale for the proposal

From time to time, large numbers of derogatory terms are created, usually by anonymous editors. Recent examples of such derogatory terms include Apefrican, Buttswana, criminigger, cumskinned, faggotface, jaboon, koala fucker, Mexicunt, negro fatigue, nigdar, Norgay, piss drinker, Porntugal, San Fransicko, suspook, teenaper, Turd World, Vladimir Pootin, and West Undies. These terms create the following problems:

• It is hard to tell whether such terms are genuine or hoaxes.
• The editors who create such terms are essentially pushing the task of verifying these terms to other editors. We are not the Urban Dictionary. The proposal discourages editors from adding derogatory terms unless they are willing to put in the effort of ensuring the terms are attested.
• Due to the dubious nature of these terms, they are rightly challenged at RFD or RFV. However, this clutters up these fora, and uses up the time and effort of editors in discussing and verifying the entries which could be used more productively.
• Arguably, the reputation of the project as a whole is lowered by the presence of such terms. There is no particular benefit in having many unattested derogatory terms; only those which are properly attested within a short period of time deserve to remain.

Please note the following:

• The proposal does not seek to ban derogatory terms from the Dictionary. Terms which are properly attested will remain in the Dictionary.
• The proposal applies only to derogatory terms as defined above. It does not seek to require all terms to be attested by at least three quotations within two weeks of creation or nomination at RFD or RFV.
• Option 2 is stricter than option 1, because it requires the quotations in an entry to be from two or more different sources. Since for this purpose each website (for example, Reddit, Twitter, or Usenet) is considered as one source, a term would be insufficiently attested by, say, three quotations from Usenet; at least one quotation would have to originate from another source.
• Please note that the proposals have been updated so that the three-quotations rule does not apply to limited-documentation languages (LDLs), as proposed in the discussion below. It is believed that this is not a significant change to the proposals, but if you feel otherwise, please amend your vote by 19 July 2022.

Instructions for editors

• If supporting the proposal, it is suggested that you vote either for option 1 or option 2, not both. However, if you do not mind either option you may vote for both of them. The rules below will apply to the result of the vote.
• If opposing the proposal, editors can oppose both options.
• If there is sufficient consensus for both options, the option with, in the first place, more “support” votes and, if there is a tie, fewer “oppose” votes, succeeds.
• If both options have sufficient consensus and have been supported and opposed by exactly the same number of votes each, option 2 succeeds.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Vote created: — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussions:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/September § Why are there so many N-word entries? Can't we consolidate them under the N-word page?
• Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § Darky Cuntinent, see: Talk:Darky Cuntinent when archived.
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/January § Updating CFI for the Internet and Offensive Material
• Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English § Norgay
• Related RFVs for criminigger, Mexicunt, turdler, nigfant, nigdar, Apefrican, teenaper, niggerness, niggerdom, niggership, koala fucker, suspook, jaboon. See: their talk pages when archived.
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/June § Stricter attestation criteria for offensive entries
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2022-06/Attestation criteria for derogatory terms

Option 1

Support

1. Support as the proposer. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. I agree that we should cut down on the amount of slurs being added by anonymous trolls, but deleting valid entries isn't the solution. Binarystep (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
3. Support This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Actori incumbit onus probandi, and in our case to the adder. I furthermore support extending this policy to any class of entries clogging up RfV (as happened with certain constructed languages before they were banned to the appendix). MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

   ...your rationale being? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

6. Support Reasonable move, and also don't mind if this makes creation of a certain group of terms stricter (as also this won't really have much bearing on their inclusion criteria anyway). —Svārtava (talk) • 11:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
7. Support I was considering option 2 before, but now I feel like the extra requirement of that is not something I want tbh. I agree with the reasoning in a discussion below "Wiktionary's job is to document language, not to control it. […] you're proposing that we remove CFI-compliant terms solely because of their offensiveness, which would be a major overstep on our part." User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
8. Support Benwing2 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
9. Support. Not that I think derogatory terms are special, I just think that speedy-deleting junk is a good idea. Thadh (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
10. Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
11. Support John Cross (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
12. Support - TheDaveRoss 12:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
13. Support with the updated wording. Theknightwho (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
14. Support (changed from oppose with updated wording). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
15. Support. --沈澄心✉ 06:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
16. Support, now that it doesn't threaten rare terms in LDLs and ancient languages. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
17. Support as this will make sure that these words meet the standard required of other words. An those that don't are removed quickly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already have a mechanism for dealing with this. It's called RfV. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Yes, and there is little point to be that butthurt about someone collecting words on the internet that one would have to tighten the rules—hey, is this denigrating something? I don’t know, shan’t care, have already outlined in the linked discussions that there is an infinite number of edge cases which you will have to quibble about. Instead of collecting lists of that which conforms the science but not your taste, the editors should quit bikeshedding and look at the regular words which are ill-defined. We are reminded of those people complaining about powerlifters performing not pretty enough in spite of following the sport by the letter – finish your sets, bro! Plus it has been left utterly unaddressed why this has to apply to other languages than English where there is yet a lot (of common slurs) to add and there isn’t the same community of anger-makers on the internet, in spite of me mentioning this. Fay Freak (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose The argument of reducing unnecessary labour is tempting but not tempting enough to go against our descriptivist principle. Some things are worth labouring for. brittletheories (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose Superfluous. If the cites exist; cite. If not, delete. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose Akonada (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose — We need not have some silly bias against certain terms based only on their usage context. Let all language be treated equally. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

   # Oppose because this option sets stricter criteria for derogatory terms in limited-documentation languages. However, I support deleting derogatory terms that can't pass RFV within two weeks. --沈澄心✉ 10:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

   @沈澄心: did you intend to oppose Option 2 instead of Option 1? Option 2 contains the stricter criterion that the quotations must come from at least two different sources. Option 1 doesn’t have this criterion. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Sgconlaw: "For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate" per WT:ATTEST, but Option 1 requires "at least three quotations". 沈澄心✉ 11:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

   @沈澄心: ah, I see. Yes, the current proposal was formulated on the basis of the rule for non-limited-documentation languages and doesn’t take into account LDLs. I suppose LDLs can be considered in the future. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

   I think that might have simply been an oversight, rather than it being specifically intended such. —Svārtava (talk) • 10:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   Yes, it was not intentional, though I’d make two points: (1) Is it likely that there will be many derogatory terms in LDLs? (2) If the reasons for a stricter approach to derogatory terms are convincing, should they not apply to all languages? — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Sgconlaw: "Is it likely that there will be many derogatory terms in LDLs?" What makes you think there aren't? Many LDLs are normal languages spoken by millions of people, so of course they possess loads of derogatory terms. This point actually makes me consider voting against option 1 as well because it will be very hard if not impossible find three citations for every single derogatory term in Alemannic. This is not only because Alemannic attestations are hard to come by full stop (see WT:RFVN#häsch_du_morn_scho_öppis_vor for an extremely common phrase that I still wasn't able to cite) but because the type of text available in Alemannic usually doesn't contain derogatory terms, especially not racial slurs and the likes. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Fytcha: My point is that if derogatory terms are generally undesirable to include unless they are properly verified, perhaps this shouldn't be different for LDLs. In any case, I don't think the current proposal can be changed halfway before the vote is due to end on 19 July. However, if it is felt that there should be a specific rule for LDLs, I think this could be quickly discussed at the Beer Parlour to get a feel of the consensus on that matter, and a follow-on vote from the current one drafted to deal with that situation. Thus, I feel there isn't a strong reason to oppose the current proposal simply because of the LDL issue. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   It doesn't feel like a materially substantive change to amend the two proposals to take this into account, and I don't think anyone was trying to imply that LDLs should require 3 cites for derogatory terms anyway - they were simply overlooked. It's not helpful to anyone for this proposal to fail on procedural grounds, because even if you oppose both, it makes it much more likely they'll get re-proposed.

   Both options:

   If a term is derogatory to an individual, group of persons, or geographical location, it must have at least three quotations satisfying these requirements added to it meet the usual attestation requirements within:

   Option 2:

   In addition, where applicable, the quotations must be from two or more different sources. For this purpose, a particular website (for example, Reddit, Twitter, or Usenet) is considered as one source.

   Theknightwho (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   I honestly had assumed that this would apply primarily to English since it's the language that caused this discussion, but seeing the alternative framing with LDLs, I kinda agree as well. AG202 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   Me too. The best thing about option 1 is that it doesn't impose stricter requirements for inclusion - it just means we don't give them the benefit of the doubt. It's a good compromise between those concerned that we should be recording all language, and those concerned with the firehose of shit that IPs have been adding.

   The fact that multiple people are expressing concern about this issue suggests it was something people hadn't considered, rather than something they were actively voting for. There's even a reasonable argument to be made that LDLs should be excluded from this altogether, given the difficulty in finding citations for many of them, but that may be a step too far. In any event, I'm holding off from voting for that reason, but will vote in support of option 1 if this issue is fixed. Theknightwho (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Theknightwho: well, if editors don't think that your proposed change is too extensive, I have no issue with it. I have updated the proposals as you suggested, and put a new note under the "Please note the following" section. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Sgconlaw Fab - thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Sgconlaw I think it would be best to notify all voters before the amended vote of the amendment to the proposal. What do you think? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Justinrleung: I don’t have the energy to message everyone separately; hopefully they are watching this page. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Sgconlaw: Could we just ping them here or on the talk page? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Justinrleung: sure, please go ahead. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

   # Oppose Basically the same position as 沈澄心. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

   Late Oppose, just for the record: this does not belong to CFI since it does not change the inclusion criteria, merely the procedure for requesting evidence that the criteria are met. The problem this was trying to solve is just a special case of reckless users creating unattested entries in volume. Such users need to be told to stop creating unattested entries, and telling them so needs to become a welcome cultural practice rather than something frowned upon. I don't see derogatory unattested terms as a bigger problem than other unattested terms, of which I am afraid we have many. And the great majority of the allegedly problematic terms listed in the rationale now have citations in the entries, which shows these were actually attested and not actually problematic. Recall that attested does not mean having attesting quotations in the entry. Thus, even the provided substantiation of the alleged problem has now been refuted, with the help of editors who did the work of adding the attesting quotations instead of fiddling with CFI. This bad addition is now unlikely to be ever removed from CFI, but I would be very happy to see it go. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain As the vote continues on, my opinion may change, but I don't feel like this does enough. All of the terms in question did end up being cited within two weeks because they were nominated at RFV and ended up being found anywhere on Usenet, even though they were added by people who joined just to add offensive terms. There will always be editors here who will focus on citing these terms no matter who adds them or where they're found. So this proposal wouldn't have done anything to prevent them being kept, hence why I suggested the multiple source addendum. However, for now, it's better than nothing, which is why I'm not opposing it. AG202 (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   Why shouldn't those terms be kept, if they all ended up being cited? Is it not the intention of the proposal to discourage anonymous users from wasting other editors' time by filling up a backlog of marginal but offensive terms? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

   This is not going to discourage them from doing so, if I'm being honest, especially if they know that they'll be cited in the end after causing discussion (2 weeks is too long). In terms of your first question, see my comments at Beer Parlour. AG202 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment

I really dislike how wide the scope of this option remains, even though it is better than the other one. It covers all languages, so 'rare' derogatory terms in extinct languages may be completely excised from the site. There is no automatic protection for terms that are obviously in widespread use or any other measure to limit the restriction to obviously marginal terms. Extending the proposal from offensive to derogatory seems an unnecessary increase in scope. On the other some brake on the creation of marginal offensive terms is reasonably desired. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo The updated wording should address the first two concerns (LDLs and terms in widespread use). Theknightwho (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 2

Support

1. Support as the proposer. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Take a look at the terms that went through RFV and the cites for them. They are by and large nonce offensive words created in one place to denigrate people that never spread out anywhere else except in those vile spaces. Should we really be giving them a platform to grow even more? I would hope not. Whether we like it or not, Wiktionary has had effects on the world around us, whether small or large, and just like other major dictionaries, we have our own standards that we can update as we see fit, and as such, this should be a welcome change to make sure that the quality of our entries and the effect that we have do not go on a negative path. And thus, as the one that came up with that portion of the proposal, I strongly support requiring that those terms be cited on more than one source so that we make sure that we're aligning with offensive terms that actually have currency. We obviously won't "end racism" with the more aggressive verification of these terms, but we can be more aware of the real-life negative effects that this project can have. I will also paste part of my comment in Beer Parlour: "[…] This is the sixth conversation, at the very least, about this issue, and I've listened and talked with so many people and changed my proposal and approach so many times, but [not much] seems to be changing, which is really unfortunate. There was a conversation that I read from two years ago about the image that we want to give our users and fellow editors, and I think that it's something that really needs to be taken into consideration. We have so so so so many policies about which words can and cannot be included at WT:CFI, but when it comes to offensive nonce terms that were made in the pits of the most vile, white supremacist places, but did not make it out of them, we're all of a sudden hesitant to require that they be cited a bit more aggressively, and honestly it hasn't sent the best message. It's truly sad and disappointing to me that there's more energy and time and resources being spent on preserving and debating words like Apefrican and Darky Cuntinent than getting words from actual African languages on here. Our coverage on them is so paltry, though I've been able to get more Yorùbá editors on here and increase coverage significantly, and I wish that instead of lengthy RFD, RFV, and Beer Parlour discussions on preserving words that were only used a few times in the most racist spaces, we could actually spend time on preserving some of our most impacted and endangered languages, which is why I joined this community in the first place. However, the longer I've been here, the less welcome I've felt." This statement still rings true now, unfortunately, as in related discussions I've had my own and others' experiences belittled and pushed aside in favor of preserving these terms, most of which are used to target our own community, even when I've tried to make compromises, which is truly evident of why we desperately need a change now. AG202 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   Wiktionary's job is to document language, not to control it. As I said in BP, you're proposing that we remove CFI-compliant terms solely because of their offensiveness, which would be a major overstep on our part. Some of your comments also seem to suggest that these terms are being protected for the sake of defending racism, which is a gross mischaracterization of the issue at hand. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but your last sentence especially seems to imply that these slurs are being endorsed by Wiktionary editors, something which I don't believe to be the case (with the exception of IPs who exclusively add slurs).

   We have so so so so many policies about which words can and cannot be included at WT:CFI, but when it comes to offensive nonce terms that were made in the pits of the most vile, white supremacist places, but did not make it out of them, we're all of a sudden hesitant to require that they be cited a bit more aggressively, and honestly it hasn't sent the best message.

   As I pointed out before, what you're suggesting would be a drastic change to how our CFI works. Yes, we discriminate against certain words, but we do so for linguistic reasons (unattestability, SOP-ness, lack of use outside fiction), not because the words themselves are morally objectionable. What you're proposing is censorship, something which is explicitly forbidden by WT:NOT. Wiktionary's mission statement is to include all words in all languages, and while that goal has been harmed by our policies in the past, that's no reason to make the situation even worse. I believe we should strive to be the most accurate dictionary possible, and that means documenting all aspects of a given language, including the parts we'd be better off without. As for your point about endangered languages, I fail to see how that's relevant to this discussion. Our decision to include offensive words in English has no bearing on whether other languages are well-documented. There's no reason why we can't document Yoruba while still acknowledging the harmful words that exist in English.

   Regarding your comments about Wiktionary's impact, I still have yet to see any evidence that these obscure slurs have gained widespread popularity due to our coverage of them. In my experience, racists are more likely to just call me the N-word outright than dig through Category:English ethnic slurs until they stumble upon our entry for rockfish. And to be honest, even if those terms did somehow increase in popularity, I don't see how it changes much. Regardless of whether someone uses an obscure slur or a well-known one, the underlying racist attack still exists. Being called a dindu nuffin doesn't feel any better than being called a gutter ape. Additionally, and most importantly, acknowledging that a word exists isn't the same thing as advocating for its usage. I'm aware that some racists may interpret our coverage as endorsement and feel good about themselves as a result, but that's their fault for failing to understand what a dictionary is. Binarystep (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   Binarystep, unfortunately, I'm not looking at continuing this again. I don't have the energy or capacity to go through another fruitless discussion, and I had hoped you'd realized that based on the last one. And yes, we have had the issue of editors endorsing slurs and purposefully adding links to Neo-Nazi websites. That's all I will be responding to here. For anyone else, you can go read the very very very long Beer Parlour discussion. AG202 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   You still have yet to address most of the points I brought up, including my most recent one, which is that your proposal directly contradicts WT:NOT's claim that Wiktionary isn't censored. If we have a problem with racist editors using Wiktionary as a means of promoting neo-Nazi propaganda, the solution is to ban the editors in question. Our job as a dictionary is to provide factual information, which should never be censored under any circumstances. What you're suggesting would be equivalent to Wikipedia deleting its articles for notable racist movements/websites/pundits out of fear that simply mentioning them will cause them to grow in popularity.

   Additionally, though I know this wasn't your goal, your proposal paves the way for future prescriptivist policy changes. Who's to say someone won't make a good case for banning obscure vulgarities or sexual slang? After all, one could argue that, much like the Usenet-exclusive slurs you wish to censor, such terms worsen our public image and make us more like Urban Dictionary. I also refer you to the various attempts to ban fandom slang, which have failed primarily because our CFI allows us to document any word as long as it's used in "durably archived" sources. Once we start making exceptions and allowing entries to be deleted for non-linguistic reasons, it becomes much easier to justify removing terms for being "too niche". Binarystep (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   What part of "I don't want to continue this" do you not understand?! I wish that you'd at least respect that, since we're not going to convince one another, hence why I mostly left your oppose vote alone. I'll also copy-paste what I said in Beer Parlour here, "I've already addressed the other points to my satisfaction multiple times, and unfortunately, I don't think I'll ever be able to explain myself to your own satisfaction", which still rings very true. No amount of explanations on my part will ever convince you, and that's fine, and that's why I'm fine with you voting oppose. And I'll direct other folks to what @WordyAndNerdy said as well about censorship in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/June. And I was the one who's brought up attempts to ban fandom slang at the RFD everypony and TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS ALREADY, so I am well aware of it. I truly do not want this to flood and obscure this page like we did with Beer Parlour, and if you reply again in an attempt to get me to reply to certain points on the proposal, I will collapse it or make it small text. I'm tired. AG202 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   If you seriously don't want to continue the conversation, then just ignore it. It's quite rude to demand someone doesn't answer you just because you don't want to counteract the arguments that are being made. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   My point was that I already had replied to the arguments made, you can go look at the very, very long Beer Parlour discussion for that, it went in circles and circles and flooded the space. And if we want to get into rudeness, we can certainly get into that some more elsewhere, as I'm not a fan of certain behaviors that have been expressed to me in crafting this proposal over the past few months. It bothers me to ignore it, because it makes it seem like I haven't responded to certain points or that I've ignored their points, when in fact I entertained them for so long already, hence why I keep directing folks to Beer Parlour. AG202 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

3. Support I see this as comparable to the heightened scrutiny for biographies of living people on WP: like BLP, these are a magnate for trolls and vandals, and so IMO it's reasonable to make sure we're dealing with legit terms. If it takes 6 mos to delete a spurious synonym for toothpaste, little harm is done, but these hoaxes are intended to cause harm. I think an exemption should be made for old slurs, but we can deal with that if it ever becomes a problem. kwami (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
4. Support —Tibidibi (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
5. Support —Fish bowl (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
6. Support Benwing2 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
7. Support John Cross (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
8. Support - TheDaveRoss 12:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We shouldn't hold certain words to a higher standard than the rest. If a word exists, we should document it, and that includes offensive terms. The fact that a word is morally objectionable doesn't justify our pretending it doesn't exist. Whether we like it or not, these are real words that people have used, and pretending otherwise isn't going to make the world or Wiktionary any better. Our decision to include these terms doesn't mean that we're endorsing their usage or declaring our support of racist ideology. Our job as a descriptivist dictionary is to document language as it is, not as it should be. The fact that these terms are abhorrent is ultimately irrelevant to our stated purpose of documenting "all words in all languages", as such a goal necessitates the inclusion of offensive and reprehensible terms. According to WT:NOT, Wiktionary is not censored, and it should stay that way. Binarystep (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC) (edited)

   (vote hasn't started yet) AG202 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry, didn't notice that. My bad. Binarystep (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

   On its face, I agree with this view and I will likely vote this way. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

   Note the following statement under “Rationale for this proposal”: “The proposal does not seek to ban derogatory terms from the Dictionary. Terms which are properly attested will remain in the Dictionary.” — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

   I don't think anyone's claiming that this proposal aims to ban all derogatory terms. Option 2 would, however, ban certain derogatory terms despite them being properly attested, for the explicit purpose of censoring the dictionary. Binarystep (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

   For other folks reading this vote, see the conversation at Beer Parlour for more on the "censoring" point. AG202 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose The same set of attestation criteria should apply to every inclusion-worthy term in a language. I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of treating entire websites as a single source for the purposes of WT:ATTEST, but I think that, if introduced, this rule should apply equally to all terms. From a lexicographical point of view, there is no particular difference between a derogatory term that was only ever used on Usenet by 3 people and a non-derogatory term that was only ever used on Usenet by 3 people. This, that and the other (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   @This, that and the other I actually had considered that, but then I heard the points about fandom terms from folks like @Whoop whoop pull up & @WordyAndNerdy, and I wouldn't feel comfortable deleting harmless fandom words that are only documented on Usenet. AG202 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   @AG202 Out of curiosity, when did I talk about that? That's not a topic I recall having made points on. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   @Whoop whoop pull up I think I may have accidentally mixed you up with someone else, apologies. @Lingo Bingo Dingo is whom I meant to tag. AG202 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   @AG202 No harm done. :-P Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

3. Oppose as a confluence of the following arguments:
   • Having different attestation requirements for different words based on their semantic content is a non-starter. If we find exactly three Usenet posts saying "This person is a friendly simbyona." and another three saying "This person is a dirty kursayto." (with the context elucidating the meaning in each case) then the first one is, in the eyes of Wiktionary, supposed to be a word whereas the second one is not? There is absolutely no ontological difference between the terms.
   • The reputation of the project is hurt more if we impose stricter attestation requirements based on derogatoriness. Granted, we probably include more derogatory words than most serious dictionaries. Further granted, this does hurt our reputation in the eyes of the average person somewhat (not saying this is how it should be, but it descriptively is). However, being known for implementing inconsistent inclusion criteria based on words' derogatoriness is a worse reputation than having too many derogatory words, not least because for a dictionary, it is generally worse to have too few words than it is to have too many.
   • Nonceness is of no relevance. I personally have no doubt that some of the rare racial slur blends have been independently invented by separate users (i.e. the users have not heard nor read the term prior to using it) but I would take the same position regarding rare -ly, un-, re-, -er, -ness etc. constructions (e.g. intouchedness). This is of no concern because our mission is to document usage and to provide a reference with which to understand and analyze used language, not to venture into purely speculative inquiries into what may or may not belong to the lexical corpus of a language.
   • The proposal asks that derogatory terms be cited on at least two different websites. The issue is that currently no internet forum apart from Usenet is permitted as a source. The way I read it, even if a derogatory term can be found on Usenet, Reddit, and Twitter, it still would fail RFV because only the Usenet citations would count per WT:ATTEST. In essence, derogatory terms that can only be found on the internet will all be excluded, except if in the future the community comes to an agreement about how and which internet sources to allow. Even so, accepting the current proposal requires blind faith that we eventually fix WT:ATTEST in the forseeable future; however, this faith is misplaced.

   I have two more arguments but I decided to end it here because this has already gotten too long. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   @Fytcha To your last point, it's not just websites, it's sources in general. For example n*ggerness was cited in print, so it'd be kept regardless. And to your Reddit/Twitter point, that's still being figured out and there've been terms kept post-that change, see melanoheliophobia, that were primarily cited on Twitter & Reddit. And I could definitely see Wiktionary as a whole voting to keep these offensive terms if they were solely cited on Usenet, Twitter, and Reddit anyways. And so, as one of the people who fought for that change to WT:ATTEST, it's just a bit frustrating to see that mentioned here. This hasn't been blind nor misplaced faith if we have direct examples of the opposite of what you've mentioned happening. AG202 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   @AG202: Yes, that last point was not worded well, apologies. For derogatory internet-only terms it is two websites, which currently means having to pass a (RFV) vote. This is a strong counter-argument not only considering that some seem to oppose non-durably archived sources no matter what (which would cause these terms to fail even if they have three durably archived Usenet quotations) but also because it will be very hard for such votes to be held neutrally and fairly (we are essentially talking about the most offensive words possible). For some, it is understandably an emotional topic, whereas others don't want to have wrong conclusions being drawn from their support to keep such words. I would be shocked if this vote passing won't lead to most of the derogatory internet-only terms being deleted in the long run, no matter how frequently they're being used outside Usenet. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

   Considering how Darky C*ntinent passed RFD and some of the rhetoric I've received in going through these proposals, I'd actually be surprised if they struck down offensive terms like that, but I do see your concern. Personally, I still am very iffy on some Usenet quotes in general since some are from 2021, but that's another conversation for another time. AG202 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Binarystep, This, that and the other, and Fytcha. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose per all of the above. We should not hold terms to different attestation standards based on their subjective classification as "derogatory" or "not derogatory." Imetsia (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose as I wrote below the other option. Fay Freak (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
7. Oppose as this would prevent offensive words that have wide use on only one platform being able to be included. This would reduce the usefulness of Wiktionary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
8. Oppose I don't think there should be stricter attestation criteria for derogatory and/or offensive entries. --沈澄心✉ 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
9. Oppose Anyone can find anything derogatory and I don’t think such terms should be held to a higher standard anyway. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
10. Oppose This goes against our principle of descriptivism and, along with it, our main goals. Attestability alone should decide. brittletheories (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
11. Oppose I think site-specific slang, however offensive, still counts as part of "all words in all languages". Thadh (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
12. Oppose Superfluous. If the cites exist; cite. If not, delete. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
13. Oppose Akonada (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
14. Oppose — We need not have some silly bias against certain terms based only on their usage context. Let all language be treated equally. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
15. Oppose ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
16. Oppose Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
17. Oppose It's not necessary to be stricter than normal for a certain set of words. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Comment: was leaning towards supporting initially, but it's true this would cause a bit of inconsistency as the opposers point out. I don't oppose it if we set the requirement to disallow all Usenet-only words and requiring another independent source other than Usenet for citing such terms. —Svārtava (talk) • 11:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

   @Svartava2 I've considered this, see: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/February § Increasing the number of citations required for Usenet and updating CFI; however, it got considerable opposition there and I agree that it would limit fandom slang which is harmless. And so, I thought that this would be the compromise and was told to put this to a vote since it'd have "enough" support (surprisingly they haven't voted yet), but it seems like we were a bit too naïve to think that anything significant would change on this front for this website, though I can't say I'm surprised considering the environment. AG202 (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

2. Comment: Like one of my favorite American political commentators Bill Maher, I personally consider the term "COVID-19" to be an illegitimate nomenclature, because other diseases are named for locations too, like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, etc,., and that doesn't mean the Rocky Mountains are bad. In daily life, I do not use the term COVID-19 or its variants, and I always use the original term Wuhan coronavirus, called "sometimes offensive" by Wiktionary. (Nor, of course, would I ever imagine to use the Trump-popularized term "China virus".) I see the term Wuhan coronavirus as morally neutral, whereas I see the term "COVID-19" to be the result of a foreign-influence campaign by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and "China virus" as just absurd. In Taiwan, my Kuomintang-leaning professor (leaning pro-CCP in the climate of that time) felt that the equivalent Mandarin-language term 武漢肺炎／武汉肺炎 (Wǔhàn fèiyán) might be distasteful or perhaps politically incorrect. Also, I have communicated with friends in Wuhan who told me, in no uncertain terms, that I, a non-citizen of the People's Republic of China (PRC), should never use the terminology 武漢肺炎／武汉肺炎 (Wǔhàn fèiyán) or, in English, Wuhan coronavirus. As we all know, the entire nation of the PRC was recently designated by the thirty nations of the NATO alliance as a 'threat' to that alliance likely because of the level of control the CCP organization exercises over China and wishes to exercise globally. Now, what can happen with the wording of both proposals above is that they could be easily manipulated by the CCP regime to clamp down on dissent against their global soft power campaigns. So I count the time wasted trying to fix the white supremacist crazy entries like FaCIAbook and similar as gain, because the alternative is that the policy will be used by pro-CCP elements to further break the will of the English speaking world by denying English its own vocabulary. So-called offensive (I would say 'impolite') language is an integral and important part of English; the other dictionaries are not as descriptive as Wiktionary and lack r=these terms. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

   ...wait what? This isn't even really relevant and just gives a big feeling of yikes to me. (also COVID-19 is definitely not the only disease recently to avoid using a location as that's more accurate and less dehumanizing, see: Ebola, SARS, swine flu/H1N1, etc.) And don't even get me started on the claim that this would be "denying English its own vocabulary". This is not the place for the kind of rant that you've posted. AG202 (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

   The WHO changed its policy on the naming of infectious diseases in 2015 because it creates a stigma to name it after places. That doesn't mean we're going to go back and rename every disease that already has a name, though. Theknightwho (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Geographyinitiative: I'm actually quite bemused by your comment here, because you previously rightly lamented the "hyperfocus on crudity", and asked "You care so much about internet racist slang, but 'discrimination' literally has no cites but one I just added. When will 'discrimination' as an entry be ready to be considered as a word of the day?" Well, this proposal is an attempt to address that issue. At the end of the day, as is pointed out above, if a derogatory entry is properly attested it will remain in the Wiktionary; the proposal makes this clear. Thus, even if there is some sort of concerted effort to remove certain terms from the Wiktionary it will fail unless the terms can't be attested to begin with. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY the place for the kind of respectfully-worded comment I've posted above. CCP propaganda, relevant to a NATO identified 'threat' to NATO (in their words), is pushed at every turn on Wiktionary: see diff for an example CCP propaganda forced on the readers. So the relevance of my above comment to this page is obvious to me at least: English language words and concepts (as Wuhan coronavirus) will be boxed out via the doctrine of political correctness on the basis that they are offensive, when in fact they are representative of a normative system of usage (until 2015). The idea is to say that I'm racist because I'm using the original term; I'm not- I just don't accept influence campaign to stop me from using the word. I wasn't racist then. I wasn't racist now. I will not be racist later. Just cite the words. I am against focus on the evil crazy words, but just delete them if cites can't be found! Easy! The extra analysis about the intent of the word is the dangerous part, and more especially if there aren't cites. This is exactly the place, exactly the time, and exactly the content you need to see. Bill Maher said Wuhan coronavirus was okay, but the 'window' can and will be moved on even historical terms, like Spanish flu. It's a problem; I suspect this policy would exacerbate not reduce it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

English speakers as a whole have strongly favored COVID-19 or similar terms since it hit the pandemic stage. COVID-19 did not exist before 2015. The trends of speakers change all the time, that is how language development works. You are the one going out of your way to use the other term. There is no CCP-driven campaign BS. The diff that you've provided is not relevant to this instance. The usage of COVID-19 is not relevant to what's considered a NATO "threat", otherwise every country in NATO would not be using the equivalent translation for their language. Seriously. This is not the place for theories like that. AG202 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"There is no CCP-driven campaign BS." As regards to the use of "is" (present tense) in the quoted sentence, yes. As regards to "was" (past tense), Wiktionary disagrees. Wuhan_coronavirus#Usage_notes "Separately, China protested to the WHO and media outlets that such terms unfairly blamed and stigmatized China and other East Asian people in a racist manner." In my view, the campaign happened and succeeded. Now I'm a Trump supporter racist because I'm using the words China doesn't want. As low-brow but formerly loved political commentator Bill Maher, noted racist and Trump supporter, pointed out at that very time in the YouTube video here: "New Rule: Virus Shaming" (10 April 2020), a very large number of diseases up to whenever WHO started not doing it were and still are called by their location of discovery. I don't mean to get too political here, but I have to point out what's going on. Note that the example I gave above was irrelevant not because it wasn't CCP propaganda, it was irrelevant "to this instance". I don't mean to get people too angry so I will try not to respond to any more comments. I love you all. Thanks for your work. Take care. (Note: I will not continue the conversation beyond four posts from me; I have reached three.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

No one here called you or implied that you are a racist, but you have now referred to yourself as it at least twice. Also, no, I’ve already provided other examples of where diseases weren’t referred to by the location where they originated. Also, the Wiktionary usage note is poor and should be rewritten, but I’m not going to do that now. AG202 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Well okay. I don't agree. Here's another irrelevant "to this instance": diff. Also: "They have accused Beijing of conducting a vast, secret economic and political offensive that is looting billions of pounds worth of advanced technology, trying to influence elections, and infiltrating academia." in China poses ‘breathtaking’ threat to West and bigger danger than Russia say MI5 and FBI --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (modified)

Once again, if that was an instance of CCP influence, so be it, but it has nothing to do with the proposal at hand, nor did it frame the proposal (all of the discussions are linked), hence why I said it’s not relevant to the discussion at hand and takes up space. Also, this proposal is not solely for English to begin with, and there have been RDFs for Chinese terms too, like it’d be absolutely ridiculous to say that the deletion of Chinese terms here by Chinese editors is evident of American intent to limit or deprive Chinese speakers of their language. And so, the inverse applies as well. AG202 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Decision

• Option 1: Passed 17-6-1.
• Option 2: Failed 8-17-2.

Now look at what's happened. Users are using this as an incentive to mass tag entries for speedy deletion that were created over 7 years ago, like donkeyfucker or camelfucker, only because of the incentive this vote has caused to do so (and for no other reason whatsoever). Leaving my fundamental disagreements with this entire rule aside, I am starting to see the consequence of having the deletion be based solely on the date of the entry's creation. Normally I wouldn't comment on the decision section like this, but seriously, this is hurting Wiktionary, and I think it'd be worth at least giving this vote another look. Couldn't we at least have it be based on when the tag is instated, so that the entries can be given more of a chance? Keep in mind, the deletion of an entry means that the entire edit history is removed (unless undeleted by an admin), so even if the entry were recreated with citations, the old information that existed on these entries is no longer available. So yes, I do think this is harmful to the site. Allow that we at least give these older entries a little more of a chance than that. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I will add to this that I undeleted the entries I mentioned, and cited them. And both of these entries were pretty easily citable for me and usage on Google Books was readily apparent, so I think that this vote is encouraging people to lazily tag for deletion rather than take the time to cite the entries themselves. I hate to say it, I really do, but this is appearing more and more to be a very Wikipedic precedent... PseudoSkull (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(Replying because you initially directly pinged me) I would go back and look at the rationale behind the vote in the first place. You think that the deletion of these terms hurts Wiktionary, but I personally think that having these nonce derogatory terms in the first place hurts the project, groups of its editors, and its readers. We disagree there which is fine, but that’s why we had this vote to see where consensus is and option 1 passed. I have gone through the painstaking process of finding durable and accurate cites for words like Mickey Mouse ring & yassification, but I’m not keen on doing it for offensive terms per my own principles. This vote is very much not my only reason for using this template, and I would highly suggest reading through my many comments on this issue to see where I stand. Nor am I doing it lazily; while the two terms in question may have been a misstep, I have been going through terms methodically, seeing which ones had cites or not and see whether or not they seemed citable to me. I do not care if you disagree, but please do not make judgements about my motives without at least asking me first. If you like, you can go through all the derogatory terms listed in the categories and add cites to all of them, but part of the rationale of this vote was specifically to avoid clutter and avoid long lists of RFVs. (Edit: will also quote Theknightwho here: “The policy specifically says that it's without prejudice to re-creation.”) Also, as a side note, it’s been interesting to see the same folks as the entry creators for some of these, especially IPs, from whom I’ve received rude and targeted comments after adding the template, only furthering my thought about some of the folks creating and furthering those entries and why we needed policies like this in the first place. AG202 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: let the policy operate for a month or two, then raise any suggestions for tweaking it at the Beer Parlour and we can have a follow-up vote if necessary. Personally I think there is little loss to Wiktionary that unattested derogatory terms that were created some time ago are removed pursuant to the policy. If there are any quotations in such entries, I have moved them to citations pages. It remains open to someone, if they really want to, to maintain their own list of such terms, find the required number of qualifying quotations, and request for the verified terms to be undeleted. (Like @AG202, it’s not something I’ll be spending time on.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@AG202, Sgconlaw That solution is fair, but please, if I may ask, be a little more careful for the time being. You deleted goatfucker, which had 4 definitions and a pretty lengthy translations section for an entry like this. As such, it had a pretty sizable edit history with many experienced users editing the page (though about half of the edit history was vandalism, I'll admit that much). I did shorten the definitions down to one because I felt like 4 definitions for this was unnecessary, but the edit history ought to be there in case we ever want some of those defs reinstated. Citations for this were also very obviously there. Also, with 662 page views in the past 30 days alone for goatfucker, 114 for camelfucker, and 23 (not so impressive but still) for donkeyfucker, it's clear to me that entries like this are, in fact, relevant to the dictionary, whether we like the terms or not (and they're pretty unlikable, with many being blatantly racist, so I certainly don't). I know it's a hard request given that this ruling seems to support free-for-all deletions of entries which are, otherwise from having no citations at the time, completely valid as entries, but I ask to at least try to be a little more gracious despite that. Given concerns outlined here, I will be bringing this issue back up in the near future. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: at the time I deleted it, it did not have any qualifying quotations, regardless of the number of definitions. I see that you have now added some quotations. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw No, you miss my point. Don't rely on a newly instated policy to do your work for you. An entry (on a moral level) shouldn't be deleted for reasons like this if there is a massive edit history, many translations, and several definitions, with over 600 page views per month. It's just wrong, and before this vote, such behavior would be classified as reckless. The validation of an entry like this should at least be taken more seriously in that case than deleting it. Can we not dig through Google Books even a little bit before deleting a page? Because that was all it took me to find that citations were readily apparent in a source we universally accept. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the page views for a derogatory term are the best thing to be praising... AG202 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)