Category talk:English transgender slang

the great internet grapevine
—Fish bowl (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/4trancirclejerk/comments/z1148c/which_one_of_you_is_adding_this_shit_to_wiktionary/
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/ttttrans/comments/zv789d/whos_adding_these_entries_please_speak_up/
 * https://archived.moe/lgbt/thread/28796797/
 * Holy shit we’re famous. Nervelita (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

okay fun's over
I think for purposes of cultural preservation we don't need to be spreading lingo from the bad place on Wiktionary. I am not entirely sure of the rules here but I would assume there are issues with notability since the board is effectively one big inside joke. 128.220.159.215 04:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2022–March 2023
Many recently created entries in the "English transgender slang" category are highly specific, 4chan /lgbt/ board-derived terms with very little usage outside of these groups. Some are lacking any citations at all. Considering most of these are derogatory in nature, I would advise caution with adding terms like "rapehon" or "manmoder", especially if they have as little or niche usage as these do, per WT:DEROGATORY. Should these remain added? HoldOnMagnolia (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Something I like to do occasionally is to check Twitter to see what people are saying about Wiktionary. Today I found this post. Hundreds of people have seen these entries, for better or worse. 70.172.194.25 06:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See previous discussions on racist terms. One conclusion was that CFI-compliant terms can be documented, but especially niche derogatory terms shouldn't get promoted or given undue high visibility (cross-linking etc, was at some point listed as a synonym for ). – Jberkel 09:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If more people have seen the entry than used the word we can start being concerned. Equinox ◑ 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure these are perfectly "CFI-compliant" terms; they fall under a clause that leaves it up to community consensus whether to keep them or not.
 * Despite the impression the existence of these entries gives, a recent poll to allow Twitter and Reddit as sources on par with books and Usenet failed. We can still fall back on the wording added to WT:ATTEST in February:
 * "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks."
 * I highly doubt that we'll find terms like being used in durably archived sources. Maybe someday, but not now. By the way, we've failed other terms like Talk:dorcassing, Talk:sniddy (and other examples I can't recall offhand) that had long-term usage on Twitter and were much less offensive, so if these pass I'm just really confused about what standards people are applying. Making these rulings on a case-by-case basis will lead to inconsistency, but maybe it's a necessary evil., listed above, is a very similar case, both in terms of the derogatory nature of the term and the online venues in which it could be attested. 70.172.194.25 09:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case I put in my vote to allow online-only sources for the sake of citing these terms. In my view, a high page view count is proof that the terms in question are in widespread use, as there are clearly many people trying to find out their meaning. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Or angry people on Twitter retweeting links to them :) – Jberkel 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The pageviews have been consistently high prior to the popular tweet linked above. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure if these are CFI compliant, that's why I've brought them here. I agree with 70's thoughts on confusing standards (although I'm not as well-versed in Wiktionary policy). HoldOnMagnolia (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some people want Wiktionary to be academically rigorous and to only cite books and periodicals, in order to maintain our supposed image of respectability and not become Urban Dictionary. Others think Wiktionary should include practically anything that's been used on social media, in order to keep up with the latest slang and avoid becoming irrelevant. It seems impossible to please both camps. The current compromise solution, enshrined in policy, requires a separate discussion for every term whose attestation relies on online sources, which is just impractical. So whether these terms are kept or not is really uncertain, and mostly depends on who happens to show up. 70.172.194.25 03:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this tweet: https://twitter.com/kelthecelt/status/1218249784244477958, there is a medical journal that mentions various terms for HRT pills.
 * The quoted paper reads as follows: "Hormone replacement therapy has many nicknames among transfeminine people, including titty pills. titty skittles, smartitties, chicklets, anticistamines, mammary mints, life savers, tit tats, breast mints, femme&m's, antiboyotics, trans-mission fluid, and the Notorious H.R.T." Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In the interest of possibly moving this discussion forward, I have made up a table of uncited/insufficiently cited transgender slang entries along with the number of quotations furnished for each. Someone should probably tag all of these with rfv or rfv-sense as appropriate. (And with hot word or hot sense, if citations don't span a year.) Currently none of the entries are tagged.

We can't really pass any entries with 0 citations. The community can choose to accept entries with citations from online sources, but that requires an explicit two-week discussion. The entries are not even tagged yet, and the discussion above is pretty disorganized, so I think the two-week clock should not be considered to have started. I'm not sure how such a discussion should even be structured though. Should we have separate subsections for each term, considering their citations individually? 70.172.194.25 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I specifically wrote that I supported accepting online sources, and no one objected in over two weeks. I can't force people to have a discussion, so I think we can put this RFV to rest. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I can see:
 * There are procedural issues that might make it a bad idea to close this request immediately. The entries were never tagged, limiting visibility of this discussion to people who might have stumbled upon them. There was also never an explicit listing of the affected entries so it isn't clear which entries within the category were under discussion. The nominator referred to "recently created" entries, but that's vague, as e.g. crack someone's egg was created in May, egg was added in August, rotten egg was added in late September, rapehon in November. Which are meant to be included? Furthermore, the discussion was not tagged with an "Input needed" box or a specific subheading to the same effect that would indicate to RfV readers that this is a discussion on whether to accept online sources. I think that if that had been done, more people would have commented.
 * If this were to be closed immediately, the result would probably be "no consensus" to count online-only sources. It looks like HoldOnMagnolia objected to the inclusion of these entries, or at least the 4chan-slang/uncited/derogatory ones. You supported their inclusion. Nobody else really expressed an opinion either way. So that would be 1-1.
 * The wording of WT:ATTEST (second bullet point) implies that we need a positive consensus to count online-only sources; "no consensus" isn't good enough.
 * Even if we were to ignore HoldOnMagnolia's comments (why?) and assume that there is a positive consensus for counting the online-only sources in question, that doesn't obviate the need for having sources at all, which applies to a few of these. It arguably doesn't even obviate the need to have at least three citations total, especially in the case of derogatory terms, which applies to yet more of them.
 * Deleting all of these would probably be wrong at this stage, as e.g. is clearly in real use, maybe even outside of social media, even if not enough citations have technically been added yet.
 * Keeping all of these would probably be wrong at this stage, as e.g. is a completely uncited derogatory term, which clearly goes against the spirit of WT:DEROGATORY.
 * Making a finer-grained distinction (keep some, delete some) would be wrong at this stage because nobody has offered such a proposal.
 * We could really use a better policy on online sourcing.
 * That's why I think this discussion needs some kind of reboot/restructuring.
 * 70.172.194.25 01:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you here. I handled the RfV poorly (I am not entirely well-versed in Wiktionary policy, unfortunately). If I (or someone else) made a separate RfV specifically targeting the derogatory ones (which I take the real issue with) and properly tagged the articles, I think that would work out more favorably for everyone involved rather than deadlocking it at 1-1 here. HoldOnMagnolia (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we need to archive this and start separate RFV (sub)sections for any word which (a) still exists (several have failed RFV in the time since this discussion started), (b) is still being doubted/challenged, and (c) does not already have its own specific RFV section. Some of the words in the category (e.g. stealth, mentioned in the table above) are easily and now amply cited, whereas others are borderline at best.. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–April 2023
(This is a continuation of the above English Transgender Slang category RFV, specifically for terms in Category:English transgender slang) Per WT:CFI & WT:DEROGATORY, these terms should not have gone on for this long without proper cites. As a side note, it's very telling that, knowing the rules that we have here, that these entries keep being created and it's to the point where the project is being noted for promoting these words as seen here, and pageviews be damned, at this rate, as Equinox said: "If more people have seen the entry than used the word we can start being concerned.", we should start being concerned. We're not even applying the basic rules of requiring cites for derogatory terms at creation and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion remains full of entries. We're once again having the issue of editors adding derogatory terms towards specific groups that aren't properly cited, which is why WT:DEROGATORY was created in the first place. People are noticing that their tweets are getting added, leading to increased awareness of the citation process at Wiktionary, which increases the possibility of, especially with our Hot Word template. This also leads to tweets being deleted as with the second cite at. I had to take a break from this project after the last cycle, and there are current and potential editors who are hesitant to participate for this reason, so I'm very disheartened yet not surprised to see that it's still an issue. This is seriously getting out of hand. Terms on this list: boomerhon, cishon, gigahon, gigapassoid, heighthon,, honfidence, midshit, oldshit, passoid, pooner (actually has a print cite), r*pehon, twinkhon, youngshit. The other terms at that category will also need to be verified, but these are currently more pertinent. Pinging @HoldOnMagnolia since they began the other discussion (and sorry to 70 I can't ping you). AG202 (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this.
 * The print citation for pooner is for a different sense. In Neal Stephenson's 1992 sci-fi book , poon is short for harpoon, and a pooner would be a harpooner, i.e. someone who latches onto other vehicles to get around. (Though I wasn't even able to find the word pooner(s) by searching the original book on IA, so maybe this is only used in secondary literature.) No connection to the transgender sense. 70.172.194.25 18:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

CFI Vote (various transgender derogatory terms)

 * 1) Keep and in response to a few points (I'll revise this list if they are addressed):
 * The deleted tweet at is not an issue, since it has been archived. I also haven't seen any evidence that the deletion of this tweet has anything to do with the entry.
 * Having a definition for a word is not equivalent to promoting its use (this is essentially arguing for censorship).
 * I haven't seen any evidence of editors being hesitant due to participate on the whole project as a result of particular entries existing.
 * I haven't seen any evidence of citogenesis ever occurring on Wiktionary.
 * I'm not that concerned about what random people on Twitter think about Wiktionary.
 * I think that these terms are worth keeping, especially the most used ones. Someone found an interesting exchange on 4chan from December:

"How do you feel about the documentation of our culture on normie websites like wiktionary? documenting culture is their passion and i respect it at least they're kinda accurate  actually, that's a good definition."
 * Even putting aside the pageview argument (consistent 300-500/month for anyone wondering), the entries have a high approval from actual readers of this website. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There have been examples of citogenesis mentioned in prior discussions but I’m not going to search for them so you can believe me or not. The other point that I’ll respond to is the editors point. I’ve had multiple editors come to me in confidence that these type of terms being highlighted and documented with such fervor bothers them and makes them not want to participate (especially when we had IPs openly being racist to folks that edited them, ex: towards me myself). Also, like I’ve explicitly said that this makes me uncomfortable, and other editors have even publicly brought it up in prior discussions on this topic. Again, whether you choose to believe that is up to you. AG202 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "There have been examples of citogenesis mentioned in prior discussions but I’m not going to search for them so you can believe me or not."
 * How are you defining "citogenesis" in this context? Are you referring to cases where Wiktionary cited itself, or times where Wiktionary either coined a term or influenced an existing term's usage?
 * "I’ve had multiple editors come to me in confidence that these type of terms being highlighted and documented with such fervor bothers them and makes them not want to participate (especially when we had IPs openly being racist to folks that edited them, ex: towards me myself). Also, like I’ve explicitly said that this makes me uncomfortable, and other editors have even publicly brought it up in prior discussions on this topic."
 * How are these terms being highlighted? As for them being "documented with such fervor", I don't think it's fair to imply that everyone who adds offensive terms is a bigot who endorses their usage. We've obviously had trolls in the past (such as the racist IP), but everything in this RFV was added by Ioaxxere, who has a history of high-quality edits. Binarystep (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not approve. The widely-used point does not apply here. These terms don’t have much currency and Twitter was blocked from being universally approved for CFI for a reason. Many of these terms haven’t even escaped usage for the past year. We explicitly said that we’re not wholesale approving terms solely used on Twitter or 4chan, yet we’re moving towards that. Also, again, we need to actually enforce the rules that we have. AG202 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these entries… don’t even have 3 cites for the basis of WT:ATTEST to begin with. Let alone the issue of mentions vs uses. AG202 (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That should be resolved now⁠, it's just a matter of me getting around to it... (i.e the lack of cites reflects only on me, and not the entries) Ioaxxere (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep, though this really should've been handled on a case-by-case basis, since some of these terms are far more common than others. Binarystep (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree in terms of the CFI vote, and at the point of sending the RFV, none of the entries had qualifying cites, plus I'm not aware of any of these terms' commonness. Also, you could easily do a split vote. AG202 (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I've seen, , and before. It's the others I'm unfamiliar with. Binarystep (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep after discussing Tweets, and removing words that did not exist 2 years. I think this is what we do with tweets here. My reasoning for removing words less than 2 years old is that those words would need another cite from this or next year, and it would be impossible to get a tweet from 2024 by the end of Feb.
 * I’m confused by this vote. Is this a conditional keep and are you stating your support for removing the entries that are less than 2 years old, and after discussing tweets? We’ve already voted on Twitter and the consensus was that it should not be wholesale approved for CFI. AG202 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Except for the Twitter thing. I think I may have been following outdated policy.
 * @CitationsFreak Are you aware of WT:CFI, which specifically empowers us to keep words less than 2 years old under the "hot word" rule? This is settled and common practice; see Cat:Hot words newer than a year and Cat:Hot words between one and two years old. Are you suggesting the "hot word" rule should not be applied in this case for some reason? This, that and the other (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that it does not apply because it would get deleted in 2 weeks from WT:DEROGATORY.
 * Why would an admin delete an attested, cited term under WT:DEROGATORY solely on the basis that it was a hot word? Especially if the term in question had been voted on! The "usual attestation requirements" mentioned at WT:DEROGATORY would certainly include the hot word rule. Also, please sign all your posts using four tildes: ~ This, that and the other (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I forgot that it was a thing. I still feel a little weird about keeping them, no questions asked. Having only Twitter cites for slurs feels a little off to me. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling any of these "slurs" is pretty inaccurate given that they're only used within trans communities. The derogatory nature of these terms has been seriously overstated during this discussion—by 4chan standards, they are really mild. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the way these terms are used, they should probably be categorized as self-deprecatory rather than offensive. Binarystep (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If that’s a strong case for you, then you can vote abstain or if it’s more serious, then you can vote to not approve the words. AG202 (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All of these words have existed for more than two years, so I assume you are in favour of keeping everything. Ioaxxere (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't approve of the social media sources for these terms, if those are the only sources available. If we had one or two durably archived quotations of use for these terms, which could come into existence soon enough if these really do have (sub)cultural currency, then I might view the situation differently. Originally I didn't have a strong view one way or the other, but the more I've thought about this the more I've come around to something like AG202's view.Also, I realize this is a "slippery slope argument", but if these are approved I expect it to set a precedent that would embolden the creation of more social media-only terms. Many of those are innocuous or fun, like sea pancake or fandom ships, but others are even more offensive than these, like some of A3A0's creations. The case-by-case judgement system of course would prevent this precedent from being binding, but I think this is still a legitimate concern because editors take past decisions into account when deciding what's worth bringing to RfV and how to vote in such discussions. (Or at least I know I probably do.) 70.172.194.25 05:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Don't approve of the social media sources for these terms, if those are the only sources available. If we had one or two durably archived quotations of use for these terms, which could come into existence soon enough if these really do have (sub)cultural currency, then I might view the situation differently."
 * Then we'll always be stuck in 2005. There are plenty of terms that are used within certain niche groups and subcultures (such as post-Usenet fandom slang), which still haven't appeared in "professional" sources after well over a decade of frequent, consistent use. As long as we're not allowed to cite words directly from the "unwashed masses", we'll never have accurate coverage of the way people currently speak. Whether we want to admit it or not, social media is the most accurate way to track the evolution of language. Legacy media is and always will be decades behind, and so will we if we continue to rely on it. Consider, for instance, that until we finally started allowing internet citations last year, we didn't have any fandom slang newer than Buffy, the X-Files, and Star Trek: TNG. Even the MLP terms we had were from toy collectors in the 1990s rather than fans of FiM. Modern fandom culture is nothing like what it was 20-30 years ago, but our readers had no way of knowing that. We didn't even mention things like Homestuck, My Hero Academia, Steven Universe, or Cuphead, despite all of them having large fanbases with their own unique jargon. For years, the only modern entries we had were random ship names like  that were lucky enough to end up in published essays.
 * "Also, I realize this is a 'slippery slope argument', but if these are approved I expect it to set a precedent that would embolden the creation of more social media-only terms."
 * And? If a word is commonly used and understood, why should we pretend it doesn't exist?
 * "Many of those are innocuous or fun, like sea pancake or fandom ships, but others are even more offensive than these, like some of A3A0's creations. The case-by-case judgement system of course would prevent this precedent from being binding, but I think this is still a legitimate concern because editors take past decisions into account when deciding what's worth bringing to RfV and how to vote in such discussions. (Or at least I know I probably do.)"
 * A dictionary's job is to document language as it is, not to dictate how it should be. Why should the offensiveness of a word even be a factor here? Wiktionary acknowledging a word's existence isn't the same thing as endorsing it. Our job is to make it so people can look up unfamiliar words and find out what they mean, and deleting these entries would only get in the way of that. If our readers see comments talking about "gigapassoids" or "shoulderhons", should they be expected to simply shrug and say "Oh well, guess I'll never know what that means"? Are they supposed to go to Urban Dictionary instead, where most definitions are intentionally false and designed to screw with the reader? Here's an example of why this type of censorship bothers me. Last year, a recent sense of  (specifically, its use as an N-word substitute) was deleted for being an online-only term. Of course, this didn't change the fact that it's still used constantly by white supremacists on social media sites. Without an entry, though, people unfamiliar with the term won't be able to look it up and understand the racist meanings of seemingly innocuous comments they encounter (how many people would read "I fucking hate joggers" and assume a non-literal meaning?). Just recently, I actually saw someone denying that the term was ever used as a slur in the first place. By refusing to acknowledge dogwhistles, we actually make it easier for them to remain undetected. By the time these words end up in print, they won't even be used anymore.  Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the terms you're concerned about make up an insignificant percentage of total entries being created. Right now, offensive terms are only 0.1% of English lemmas. Why should we ban all modern slang out of fear that 0.1% of it might be offensive? We'd be cutting off our face to spite our nose. Binarystep (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, IPs aren't eligible to vote. These are some really good points though, and I would also love if people stopped relying Urban Dictionary (which is basically our Uncyclopedia). Ioaxxere (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (That's only for official votes at WT:VOTES not for RFD votes in past practice, though whether or not this one is one is arguable) AG202 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the vast majority of Binarystep's points have been addressed in prior discussions, and they've been told to avoid this reply style specifically because it takes up space and makes it very hard to follow or reply. The only point that I'll actually address is the "Why should we ban all modern slang out of fear that 0.1% of it might be offensive?" comment as neither me nor 70 stated that. They've openly been in support of other social media terms, but not these ones. My line is on offensive terms that only have currency online. I do not wish to amplify white supremacist nonce words, as I've stated before. To be quite frank, I'm surprised that editors are even encountering some of these terms in the first place. There's the constant point that people will "encounter" these terms in the wild, but like seriously? As someone who's actually Black and the target of "jogger", for example, I'd never find myself in alt-n-word.groups on usenet or white supremacist threads on Twitter, and I know that the majority of folks would not either. I don't care about what different n-word equivalents they use, there's always going to be new ones, and they all end up meaning the same thing. To be even more frank, some of these words (especially the Usenet ones) have never seen the light of day until they're added on Wiktionary. Like no one outside of those supremacist groups (or those who willingly are in those spaces for some reason) would even encounter them in the first place! I've never seen most of these words as someone who's been active on Twitter and social media for years! If your issue is that we should include derogatory words because they're words, that's fine, but let's stop kidding ourselves that there are actual large groups of people who are not already a part of those racist/homophobic groups that would want to look up these nonce terms. And the overuse of the word "censorship" when we literally have WT:CFI truly undermines the meaningful connotation of the word. AG202 (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating and disappointing that I keep having to put myself out there and explain why these issues are not the case on the ground, only for the same crap to be repeated over and over again, not taking my perspective into account. AG202 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand how the block quote format makes my comments harder to follow. The whole reason I do it is so I can respond to individual statements in a way that makes it more obvious what, specifically, I'm replying to. Regardless, I'll try to keep quotes to a minimum from here on out. It seems I misunderstood 70's argument, and for that I apologize. The slippery slope comment suggested to me that they thought we should be more skeptical of internet slang overall, because allowing it could potentially justify the later inclusion of offensive terms.
 * To be honest, the use of the phrase "slippery slope" doesn't seem to make sense otherwise, since that'd basically be saying that including offensive terms is bad because it could lead to... offensive terms being included. That's less of a slope and more of a single data point.
 * "I do not wish to amplify white supremacist nonce words, as I've stated before."
 * A word invented for the occasion.
 * None of these terms are nonce words. People aren't independently coining or  thousands of times over the span of several years. They're established terms with set definitions, and the fact that they haven't appeared in books doesn't make them nonce words. As for the idea that no one would ever encounter these terms in the wild, that's fairly easy to disprove. Going back to the  example, white supremacists don't like staying in their own spaces, because they get bored when they don't have people to argue with. Look at the comments on news articles, popular tweets, and posts on /r/all. You're practically guaranteed to find a racist remark or two if you read far enough, though a lot of stuff eventually gets removed by mods, which contributes to the perception that these terms are only used in certain places.
 * You're also forgetting that there are non-racist parts of the internet where people make fun of stupid shit posted by racists (such as /r/TopMindsOfReddit or /r/insanepeoplefacebook). Posts in those sorts of groups inevitably end up with comments to the effect of "what does jogger mean" or "why does this person hate joggers", which tells me that there are in fact non-racist people who would benefit from a proper definition.
 * "And the overuse of the word 'censorship' when we literally have WT:CFI truly undermines the meaningful connotation of the word."
 * WT:CFI has nothing to do with censorship. There's a difference between deleting an entry for purely lexical reasons (hoax, SOP, encyclopedic content), and doing so simply because we don't like the term, even though we have ample evidence of its existence. Binarystep (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the slippery slope is from mostly "self-deprecatory" offensive terms with 2,000 Google hits (cf. boomerhon), created by a respected user whose edits overall are of superb quality, to offensive terms used in a much more hostile way with perhaps even fewer results, created by trollish single-purpose accounts or IPs. For the latter, one recent example that comes to mind is toll paid, apparently part of a harassment campaign directed at interracial couples; I don't see much reason to document that (and apparently nobody else did either, given that nobody tried to cite it before the RfV time elapsed; but if they had taken three examples from Twitter should that have sufficed?)If people want to strike my comment because I'm not logged in, fair enough, at least I made my voice heard and sparked an interesting discussion. That's mostly what I hoped for. Worth noting that a proposal to prevent unregistered users from voting in RfDs failed, and that's a very similar context. (Edit) Also, if you check the relevant wording of the CFI policy, it only says "a discussion lasting at least two weeks", not a formal vote, and there's no general prohibition against IP participation in "discussions". I'm aware that some past CFI discussions have been structured as subpages of WT:Votes, and in those (example) I did refrain from voting per the policy, but it seems dubious to apply that here.I do think some of Binarystep's points are valid, but I'm not swayed enough to change the sign of my overall view. I'm not against using social media citations in every case. If 200step passes RfV, I think that's fine. I might be against using social media citations alone to cite offensive terms, which doesn't seem like a super-unreasonable line to draw. I think editors of professional dictionaries probably wouldn't include these terms either, but maybe I'm wrong. (If they did include them, that might sway me to the opposite view.) Part of my reasoning is also that I want Wiktionary to remain respectable and defensible to the public. When someone came here and complained that the verb definition of jew was offensive and fake, we were able to dig up lemmings in other dictionaries, and I even created a citation page with a bunch of convincing uses from the 1800s. If someone came here and complained that we had offensive terms that only existed on Twitter, then I guess our only response would be "yep, we do, but our policy explicitly allows it, so there". Which doesn't seem as persuasive. 70.172.194.25 18:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "I think the slippery slope is from mostly 'self-deprecatory' offensive terms with 2,000 Google hits (cf. boomerhon), created by a respected user whose edits overall are of superb quality, to offensive terms used in a much more hostile way with perhaps even fewer results, created by trollish single-purpose accounts or IPs."
 * There's no reason that couldn't still be dealt with. What'd happen if a troll decided to cite a normal term using quotes from a racist book or neo-Nazi newsgroup? Presumably we'd do something about that, even though it's technically allowed under current CFI.
 * "For the latter, one recent example that comes to mind is toll paid, apparently part of a harassment campaign directed at interracial couples; I don't see much reason to document that (and apparently nobody else did either, given that nobody tried to cite it before the RfV time elapsed; but if they had taken three examples from Twitter should that have sufficed?)"
 * I see no reason why that term shouldn't be included. It's vile, yes, but it's also a real idiom used by white supremacists all the time. To be honest, the only reason I didn't try to cite it is because was already deleted, and  doesn't make sense without it.
 * "I'm not against using social media citations in every case. If 200step passes RfV, I think that's fine. I might be against using social media citations alone to cite offensive terms, which doesn't seem like a super-unreasonable line to draw."
 * My question is, why should a dictionary reject words for non-lexical reasons?
 * "I think editors of professional dictionaries probably wouldn't include these terms either, but maybe I'm wrong. (If they did include them, that might sway me to the opposite view.)"
 * On the other hand, professional dictionaries also wouldn't include fandom slang (except ), transgender slang (and I'm not talking about the derogatory terms), terms related to specific Usenet newsgroups, or any of the various terms pertaining to miscellaneous subcultures (such as all the furry slang we have). Wiktionary's stated goal is to include "all words in all languages", which suggests that we're a bit more descriptivist than other dictionaries. We're not the OED, and I hope that doesn't change.
 * "Part of my reasoning is also that I want Wiktionary to remain respectable and defensible to the public."
 * I don't see how including these terms makes Wiktionary less respectable or defensible. These are real words used by a significant number of people online. All we're doing is truthfully documenting the English language as it currently exists. If anyone has a problem with these terms, they should blame the people who use them, not the dictionary that reports on their usage. Don't shoot the messenger and all that.
 * "When someone came here and complained that the verb definition of jew was offensive and fake, we were able to dig up lemmings in other dictionaries, and I even created a citation page with a bunch of convincing uses from the 1800s. If someone came here and complained that we had offensive terms that only existed on Twitter, then I guess our only response would be 'yep, we do, but our policy explicitly allows it, so there'. Which doesn't seem as persuasive."
 * Should we only include terms that have been used since the 1800s? If someone complained about us having fandom slang that only exists online (which has happened before), our response would be the same as in your example. In both scenarios you've described, our defense is ultimately the same: "This word exists, and here's the citations to prove it." Binarystep (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I truthfully do admire your arguments for consistency and inclusionism, but I think I just disagree that we have to, or should, treat all terms on equal footing. The way I view these terms is more along the lines of how Wikipedia views BLPs: we could require a bit more evidence for notability before documenting them, because their potential to cause harm is much greater than for the typical entry. Of course, the same would apply even more strongly to offensive nicknames for (not very well-known) individuals, a closer analogue to BLPs. If you agree such offensive nicknames demand a higher standard of sourcing, or should even be excluded entirely, you're already admitting that we shouldn't just treat all terms on equal footing, because from a purely abstract linguistic point of view there's nothing that distinguishes them from any other proper noun with an individual human referent (which we have plenty of).
 * To make things more concrete, last year there was an RfD discussion about an offensive nickname for a particular feminist activist mainly known for appearing in one viral video. In that discussion, even the arch-inclusionist WordyAndNerdy wrote that Wiktionary is "not a place to memorialize every bit of 4chan effluvium". I second the principle, though I have no doubt that my interpretation of it is broader than what WAN intended. For example, I would definitely include toll paid in this category. Searching for ["toll paid" "burn the coal"] on Google yields under 800 results, and if you exclude 4chan it drops below 500, the remainder being websites that are much more effluvious than 4chan (!). I had to include "burn the coal" in the query because without that, literally none of the results on Google as far as I bothered to scroll related to the racist trope, except for the cached ghost of our now-deleted entry, which ranks first. That seems to be a clear case of drawing unnecessary attention to effluvium.
 * That said, I think in the end I would agree with you and WAN on the vast majority of terms; as you said, offensive terms make up a tiny minority of entries. While offensive terms for groups of people or individuals can be a source of harm, I don't see a parallel case for excluding fandom slang, LGBT vocabulary, etc. 70.172.194.25 07:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The key difference between these terms and ones referring to specific individuals is that these terms lack the potential to cause unique harm, as there are already tons of equivalent terms from pre-internet sources. Our earlier documentation of the word didn't harm anyone who wouldn't already be harmed by our entries for the N-word and its derivatives (and I'm not convinced that simply including a slur in the dictionary causes harm in the first place, as it only reflects existing attitudes), and deleting it didn't reduce the ability of racists to say horrible things. On the other hand, including an insulting nickname for someone who isn't a public figure exposes them to harassment they would otherwise never face.
 * Additionally, if we don't document bigoted dogwhistles, this allows their users to maintain plausible deniability. Going back to my previous example, if the entry for doesn't mention its use as a slur, it becomes easier for racists to deny their true intent when confronted. This has already happened before with the 👌 emoji, with people claiming that it was a "4chan hoax" with no history of use by actual racists.
 * As for your point about Google results, that isn't an accurate way to measure how frequently a term is used. The majority of tweets and Reddit posts don't show up in search results, and the exact amount seems to depend on the user. I could probably find tons of citations for if I were so inclined. Binarystep (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The block quote format creates issues because they take up so much space. Again, I don't see these words in those spaces, and there's been a strong tendency at least from my perspective to avoid amplifying those words in those spaces as well. I've never seen most of those Usenet words outside of Usenet (and they're hard to find online), and if not for Twitter being searchable, I suspect that "jogger" would be the same. And yes there are racist comments that pop up on news articles and such, but I never think that I need to look them up. They are racist terms and there's no need to know the specific definition when it boils down to "racist term used towards Black people". Any word at that rate can be used like that, that's why I see it as a nonce word. This mirrors the experiences of Black folks that I've talked to as well, we don't need to know these specific terms. Context tells us very very clearly what they mean. We don't need to look them up online. I've seen many racist and overall offensive terms in my lifetime and have very very rarely needed to look any specific one up. Also, we definitely have rules at CFI: we already don't accept any words that have only been used for less than a year, words that fail the independent criteria, Wikimedia-only terms, and more. If you want to change those rules as well, that's fine, but I've never seen such fervor for those qualifications nor have I ever seen them called "censorship". AG202 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the users in this discussion haven't been around for very long, so they might not be aware of the discussions involving Usenet last year. A good example is Darky Cuntinent, which IMO may even be less worthy of inclusion than the terms mentioned here for a variety of reasons, but was kept following an RfD discussion. I also supported deleting that, although I respect those who wished to keep it (the ultimately prevailing outcome) and the creator of the entry, who I'm sure created it in good faith. I don't think there's been any campaign to push for deleting less controversial Usenet-sourced entries like all elbows, a piece of technical jargon that would probably be unattestable except using newsgroups. Overall, if it came down to never accepting Usenet vs. continuing to always accept Usenet, I'd probably be on the latter side since I think we'd be missing out on a lot of slang from past decades, but I see why AG202 has reservations. At least with Twitter we don't have a policy yet established, so there's still room to carve out more nuanced inclusion rules. 70.172.194.25 18:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While I believe that you've never needed to look up slurs, Wiktionary entries are still useful as evidence for their existence. If someone uses the slur, you would be able to "prove" (to some authority who can deal with it) that they were being racist by showing them our well-referenced entry. Unfortunately, that's no longer possible since the definition was deleted.
 * Also, I think we should stay on topic, since whatever points are being made about Usenet and racism don't have any bearing on this discussion.
 * As for the IP's point: Wiktionary has never been "respectable and defensible to the public", for the simple reason that the vast majority of the public have no idea it exists (or assume it's part of Wikipedia). Ioaxxere (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are much better ways to prove that. And that goes in hand with your second point in response to the IP. If we're not respectable and defensible to the public, how would we have good standing with our definitions and even "prove" in the first place? It does not add up and there's some circular reasoning there. The two points cannot coexist well. If we're not respectable and we're not relevant to the general public, then why is the point about people needing to look up these hyperspecific entries brought up so much? Like it's either one or the other. This also affects the part that we're losing editors and languages are losing support, though I'll concede that it's not as relevant to this discussion. AG202 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "There are much better ways to prove that."
 * Such as?
 * "This also affects the part that we're losing editors and languages are losing support, though I'll concede that it's not as relevant to this discussion."
 * Which editors quit because we have entries for offensive internet slang? How are languages losing support because of a handful of words amounting to 0.1% of English lemmas and <0.03% of all entries? Binarystep (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Again you're almost purposefully missing the point that I've said over and over again. It's not some statistical number, it's the editing community's attitude towards these terms. Sure it's 0.1% of the lemmas, but these conversation take up so much space, and when people see admin hyperfocusing on creating entries for the worst slurs known from Usenet and defending them to no end, it creates an environment where our priorities seem to be in the wrong place. I mean even now, WT:DEROGATORY isn't even really being enforced, with derogatory terms with no cites staying up for months. People notice these things and, at least on my end, have talked to me privately about how this climate bothers them and makes them feel uncomfortable. It also goes with the point that the IP brought up that it affects our legitimacy. If you don't care about any of that, then so be it, but then just say that and leave it, rather than nitpicking and devaluing my experiences. AG202 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn’t very genius to try to give less of an impression of this community being focused on rare slurs by creating a policy giving particular attention to them—the first effect of which even was editors hunting entries of them down in order to tag them, and others feeling challenged to cite such entries and ultimately add them with cites. My position was always an as fair as indifferent scientific attitude, and people should be attracted by such qualities rather than us having or not having particular things that could serve annoyance, and in fact I am optimistic enough to believe that not that many people are dumb enough to think the latter way, in spite of pretending indignation, which is a quasi-religious ritual nowadays, in lack of other mainstream values than being overtly liberal. Fay Freak (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You have been warned before for adding links/quotes directly to white supremacist websites; that's all I'll say to your reply. AG202 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s not saying anything., so I am wrong if it has been possible to vaguely relate me to white supremacist sources? But I have not been demonstrated wrong there either, and it’s not what being “warned” means either. I have been consistent in applying philologic and linguistic methods, some people seem to take issue with it. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * we should try to stay on topic. What do you think of the issue being voting on? Ioaxxere (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s on topic: The arguments for keeping are more comprehensive than I expected (reading this wall of text only after this your request as before I thought that a closed mouth gathers no feet, but it looks we haven’t even actually steeped into having opinions about genders, so we succeeded in keeping our decency unlike complainants suggest), and it turns out that indeed the issue boils down to what I have called out, the attitude towards language as it occurs: people being uncomfortable, random people on Twitter being curious of us being so bleeding-edge (I have used Arch btw), us being constructed to “highlight”: but they highlight this coverage, we treat them like any irrelevant words, and we shan’t put offensiveness of a word even be a factor here but complainant continues to do so; no relevant criteria have been brought forward how we should weed out terms that are too private to some internet niches and not sufficiently lexicalized. “Wide or long-standing currency” is exactly not our bar any more. Fay Freak (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're the one hyperfocusing on these terms by constantly trying to get them deleted. Most people wouldn't be talking about them otherwise. No one's "defending" offensive slurs either, people just disagree with you on the idea that documenting a term is the same thing as endorsing it. As I've said before, I don't appreciate the implication that inclusionists are raving bigots looking to promote a hateful ideology through Wiktionary.
 * As for this affecting our legitimacy, I don't see how that's an issue. We're not the OED. It's already been long-established that we're a descriptive dictionary that includes thousands of terms "respectable" dictionaries never would. This exact argument has already been used to justify attempts to ban fandom slang and delete entries for being "too dumb", albeit unsuccessfully in both cases. Binarystep (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * People have defended offensive slurs, as seen by IPs (including the ones that have directed used offensive terms towards me) + the many editors that have been banned for adding solely slurs (as recently as a few days ago with the deleted Bathhouse Barry entry) + a prolific editor having to be publicly warned for linking to white supremacist websites before this whole thing even started. Nor have I tried to delete every offensive entry, notice how this is one of two RFVs related to derogatory terms on this page started by me, and it’s one specifically requested by someone else to start (the other being the one for r-slurred). If I was really on a crusade to delete all derogatory terms, trust me I’d be going much further, meanwhile our current policy isn’t even being enforced to begin with, so there’s already a clear existing bias. I also never said or tried to imply that inclusionists are bigots, including yourself, even when you’ve used unsavory phrasings towards me and discredited my personal experiences, and I don’t appreciate the implication that I did. My emphasis has been on the project’s legitimacy and image not on individual editors. If I thought you were a bigot, I would not have tried to reason with you or even reply to you from the beginning. Do not put words into my mouth. This is a recurring issue pattern that I’ve unfortunately fallen into again, and I regret having this discussion once more, and this will be my final response on this thread to you. AG202 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of your examples are trolls, not users with actual contributions to the wiki. The only exception I'm aware of is the one you mentioned, and that's still just one person. The majority of people here aren't particularly interested in promoting white supremacist content. Additionally, I never said you were trying to delete every offensive entry. I said you were trying to delete every internet-exclusive offensive entry, which is accurate. You've also repeatedly spoken of people "defending" slurs, which makes it sound like you think people are being sympathetic towards bigoted ideologies.
 * How does including these terms harm our legitimacy or image? As I've mentioned before, a dictionary's job is to document the words people are using. It's not our fault if people are saying or . Anyone who has a problem with those terms should take it up with the people responsible. The "respectability" argument will only harm us in the end, and it could easily be applied to any term that isn't in professional dictionaries (fandom slang, subculture slang, things that are "too dumb to include", the list goes on). Binarystep (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that people would automatically recognize as a racial slur to begin with. As I mentioned before, there are still a lot of people who are unfamiliar with that definition, and thus wouldn't realize that a comment complaining about "joggers" is actually referring to black people. People who aren't terminally online (not to mention non-native speakers) would greatly benefit from an accurate definition in this case.
 * "They are racist terms and there's no need to know the specific definition when it boils down to 'racist term used towards Black people'. Any word at that rate can be used like that, that's why I see it as a nonce word."
 * At that point, you might as well say that every racial slur is a nonce word. Overall, the problem is that you're assuming your experiences are universal. Even if you have no need for these entries, that doesn't mean that's the case for everyone.
 * As for your last point, I never claimed that CFI doesn't have any rules. Requiring independent citations is just common sense, because it'd be ridiculous to include entries for words that have only ever been used by a single person. Similarly, requiring that citations span over a year filters out terms that no one really uses, though I actually wouldn't mind having entries for brief fads like Listenbourg, since it's ultimately more beneficial to the reader. In any case, both of these rules clearly exist for lexical reasons (i.e. making sure a word really exists), rather than being an attempt to block entries for words we don't like.
 * I definitely think we should abolish the "no Wikimedia-speak" rule, though, because it seems to be motivated by a -esque policy that we're supposed to strictly observe language without ever contributing to it. The fact that we deleted our entry for is downright bizarre to me, given that the word obviously exists and has widespread usage. Binarystep (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Disallow, for the reasons others have stated above - checking several, the terms don't seem not have any wide or long-standing currency; a few tweets from one (or more? not always clear) people under various usernames from the last year or two are not a basis for entries, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the terms have been in use for several years (~4-6), and the tweets are not necessarily representative of actual usage (but I'm hesitant to quote 4chan). Ioaxxere (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd say to include any and all available citations. Citing 4chan might seem iffy, but it's the most effective way to prove that these terms have longstanding currency within online communities. If you want to study clowns, sometimes you have to visit the circus. Binarystep (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (also ) You are right that these tweets are not a good basis for any entry, and they are not. I don't know what "checking" means in this case, but I've added some old 4chan quotations to better illustrate the age of each term. In particular, dates from at least 2015... did you know that was 8 years ago? How much longer before we get long-standing currency? Ioaxxere (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep. I don't want to have to vote. I'm tired of the endless cycle of re-litigation re: online sources and modern slang. It's a major factor in why I stopped actively contributing. But this needs a tie-breaker. Ioaxxere has done the work of attesting these terms, and Binarystep has made every argument I could make. There are, fundamentally, two types of Wiktionarians: those who believe that languages are living, ever-evolving entities, and those who believe that words are fixed type impressed on dead trees. A digital dictionary that treats language as the latter is a dictionary securing its future irrelevance. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As for your last point, I never claimed that CFI doesn't have any rules. Requiring independent citations is just common sense, because it'd be ridiculous to include entries for words that have only ever been used by a single person. Similarly, requiring that citations span over a year filters out terms that no one really uses, though I actually wouldn't mind having entries for brief fads like Listenbourg, since it's ultimately more beneficial to the reader. In any case, both of these rules clearly exist for lexical reasons (i.e. making sure a word really exists), rather than being an attempt to block entries for words we don't like.
 * I definitely think we should abolish the "no Wikimedia-speak" rule, though, because it seems to be motivated by a -esque policy that we're supposed to strictly observe language without ever contributing to it. The fact that we deleted our entry for is downright bizarre to me, given that the word obviously exists and has widespread usage. Binarystep (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Disallow, for the reasons others have stated above - checking several, the terms don't seem not have any wide or long-standing currency; a few tweets from one (or more? not always clear) people under various usernames from the last year or two are not a basis for entries, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the terms have been in use for several years (~4-6), and the tweets are not necessarily representative of actual usage (but I'm hesitant to quote 4chan). Ioaxxere (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd say to include any and all available citations. Citing 4chan might seem iffy, but it's the most effective way to prove that these terms have longstanding currency within online communities. If you want to study clowns, sometimes you have to visit the circus. Binarystep (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (also ) You are right that these tweets are not a good basis for any entry, and they are not. I don't know what "checking" means in this case, but I've added some old 4chan quotations to better illustrate the age of each term. In particular, dates from at least 2015... did you know that was 8 years ago? How much longer before we get long-standing currency? Ioaxxere (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep. I don't want to have to vote. I'm tired of the endless cycle of re-litigation re: online sources and modern slang. It's a major factor in why I stopped actively contributing. But this needs a tie-breaker. Ioaxxere has done the work of attesting these terms, and Binarystep has made every argument I could make. There are, fundamentally, two types of Wiktionarians: those who believe that languages are living, ever-evolving entities, and those who believe that words are fixed type impressed on dead trees. A digital dictionary that treats language as the latter is a dictionary securing its future irrelevance. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Time to close this ? Or probably an uninvolved user should do it... Ioaxxere (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * An uninvolved user should do it, yes. AG202 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed (4:3). I'm merely tallying, don't shoot the messenger! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * was in favour of keeping, so it's actually 5-3. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * can you undelete the terms? Ioaxxere (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ultimateria (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * For the future, that close should have been RFV-no consensus, with guidance on how to proceed with that up to the folks in the discussion. I’m a bit disappointed but not surprised that this was not pointed out by others before the discussion was archived. This aligns with the pattern seen with Talk:Turkroach as well. AG202 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * RFD dicussions require only a 1/3 share to keep, and I don't see why the rules need to be so much stricter in this case. If anything, it should be the opposite. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ioaxxere Note that I didn't necessarily say that it should have been deleted straight away. This wasn't an issue of RFD procedures. Per your other discussions involving this type of CFI-mandated vote, such as Votes/2022-05/creeper_validation, which I voted for myself, no consensus means that the entries were deleted per our vote policy + what the status quo was. The only thing that's explicitly changed is the location in which these places take place. I could've easily brought this up in every vote that you closed, but honestly I did not have the energy to litigate this more, considering how strong of an issue it ended up being. (CC: @-sche). Nonetheless, even in RFDs (that 1/3 is not a strict policy), anything that's less than 2/3 consensus to keep is at least marked as RFD-no consensus, and the entry is kept. It's important because if it's nominated again, pointing to a prior RFD-kept is much stronger than a prior RFD-no consensus. Either way, it has been two months since this initial comment was made, and as I'm sure has been seen, I don't really like participating in RFVs or RFDs anymore because of issues like this. Better to focus on what is actually worth it in the end for me. AG202 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)