Talk:Offensive terms for Germans
This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 22. Please see that page for justifications and further discussion.
Interesting addition. Do boche and moffe have any literal meanings? Can anyone add that? --KF 21:43 30 May 2003 (UTC)
- I think they both mean something like a "dirty pig"...
This is not encyclopedia content, unless perhaps as part of a larger directory of racial/national insults ... which would itself be rather questionable. --FOo 19:58 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Okay, ladies and gentlemen, you will have to make up your mind: As long as this newly created article was part of Kraut, no one seemed to mind -- for weeks, if not months. And there was a lot of context there. Now it's a separate article, and suddenly it's no longer encyclopaedic? --KF 20:18 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Right. If I had to decide, I'd restore the Kraut page to its original length and would encourage further discussion concerning this page: whether it should be enlarged, deleted, or whatever. I'm going to do that tomorrow (soon anyway) if there are no objections. Would that be okay with you, FOo? --KF 20:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- The content of this article has nothing to do with "Kraut" (herbs) so why move it back there? It should better be left here.
- Nor do I. Let's leave things as they are.
- I think it at least needs balancing by similar pages for other nationalities. -- sannse 18:26 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
What about "Nemetz", which give or take some spelling issues is as I recall the standard form for "German" in various Slavic langages, and means roughly "dummy" (as in, one who cannot speak properly)? PML.
- Nemetz is not a pejorative term itself though it has developed from one. Boche, Kraut and the others remained pejorative.
This is pure dross and does not belong here. Someone please ad it to VfD -- Tarquin 09:56, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I just don't believe it. We already had that discussion months ago, and keeping the articles about the Germans as they are was the agreement back then, without any objection. Are we going to use up our time and energy again and again and again to discuss the same things whenever a new user discovers a page for the first time? It's easy, isn't it, claiming that an article is "non-encyclopaedic" (what the hell does that mean anyway) and/or "POV", but I want to see you guys give reasons for your claims. If someone wanted to, they could find fault with every single page here on Wikipedia. Please don't forget the use-mention distinction, or think of the Latin relata refero if you prefer. No one here is insulting foreigners, but what kind of free and open society is it if it is not allowed/POV/whatever to talk about insulting terms? Please let's not be hyper- and hypocritical! Leave Pejorative terms for Germans as it is! --KF 12:11, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- If something turns up that one wouldn't regard to be in an encyclopedia, then it can be deemed "non-encyclopedic". This is, of course, a slightly subjective statement to make, as is the point-of-view issue, but in general it is obvious (I am making no comment of the article in question though in saying so). Dysprosia 12:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Well, but that's exactly what anyone who wants to see a particular article deleted should do.Talking in general, vague and elusive terms doesn't help. Also, how many online encyclopaedias are there to draw comparisons with? True, I won't find an article on Pejorative terms for Germans in the 1911 Britannica. But have all of you forgotten how hopeful Wikipedia got started, with the explicit policy of being more than, and different from, a printed encyclopaedia? As I see it, nothing about what you ave written is "obvious". --KF 12:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. If some article is rabbiting on about how wonderful some relatively unknown website is, it is obviously not NPOV since it is going on about the positives and saying nothing about the negatives. It's obviously non-encyclopedic as an encyclopedia (even though Wikip. is different from normal encyclopedias) would not devote an article to an unknown website.
- I mean obvious in the sense that it is sometimes clear to see that an article is not NPOV or is unencyclopedic. Sometimes it is not however. And that is what discussions are for. And I furthermore reiterate that I make no comment on the article in question, I'm merely trying to help you understand what these things mean. Dysprosia
- Help me? Are you joking? You keep on writing about things wholly unrelated to Pejorative terms for Germans and want to help me understand them? KF
- You said "what the hell does that mean anyway". I thought you didn't know what it meant. So I told you. Calm down :) Dysprosia 12:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I was referring to my previous remark at Talk:Interim that none of us should be too sure they know 100 per cent what is right, correct, moral, true (and NPOV and encyclopaedic, if you want) and what isn't. That reminds me, I have to write an answer there. Bye for now, --KF 12:58, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)