Talk:glownigger

RFV discussion: January–March 2021
DTLHS (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Anti-Defamation League mentioning the form used in the Wiktionary entry; The Daily Stormer mentioning a hyphenated form; The Atlantic mentioning the alternate form "glowies". -- benlisquare T•C 03:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We're looking for uses, not mentions. DTLHS (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, the Daily Stormer example is a use, not a mention: "Is Snowden infected with cat poo bacteria or is he some sort of glow-nigger PR agent for hire? You decide." The same website also uses a non-hyphenated variant: "The glownigger problem is now officially out of control. The list of people NOT on an FBI watchlist grows shorter and shorter every single day." -- benlisquare T•C 04:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * IP was definitely not lying, this is living language. This, and “CIA nigger” (which I deem SOP), I have consistently encountered on the internet since Terry Davis’s statement in 2017, and it has engendered some clippings or other combinations like or, although short of  and  most are in my opinion protologistic, as occasionalisms that have not caught on. But that clip of Terry Davis, that schizophrenic meme, did catch on as a whole, ideal to express the idea of a persecution complex. Then one can say that someone “glows in the dark”, “so much glowing” and similar to mean that your chat partner on Telegram appears to be a sinister agent or jokingly express that he should watch his legality. I also think the productivity of  as second part of compounds increased after that incident, so that it could even be viewed as a suffix . So ’twould be sad if we had to lose this, as this is a monument in the development of the English language, and it is really often encountered and not just used by a certain author and his friends. Fay Freak (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We still need 3 durably archived citations of uses. DCDuring (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question here: I'm not too thoroughly familiar with what Wiktionary accepts as "durably archived", I spend most of my time on English Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia. Would a 4chan archiver based on the FoolFuuka open-source archiver be accepted as an archived citation of 4chan usage? Since, by design, 4chan automatically purges and erases old posts, various archivers based on FoolFuuka scrape thread content from 4chan using the asagi dumper and display them in searchable archives; examples of such websites include archived.moe, Desuarchive, Fireden, Warosu, among others. Also, would a Wayback Machine archive or archive.is capture of a 4chan thread also count as durably archived? -- benlisquare T•C 04:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've heard glowie (only) among 4chan types. Good luck with the CFI! Equinox ◑ 20:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also a verb,, as in "Not discord because that shit glows in the dark", "that version of events is so untrue it glows in the dark", "OP glows in the dark". If you or someone else will point me at an archive that's considered durable, citing this should be trivial.__Gamren (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I added citations when I restored this page. Please pay better attention in the future.__Gamren (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

wagecuck
Both failed RFV and were restored by Gamren with quotations from 4chan; do they pass? See also. J3133 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Gamren, and DTLHS who deleted glownigger twice after Gamren restored it. J3133 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, quotations from 4chan have never been acceptable to pass RFV. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We have no such policy, and don't archive active discussions. WT:ATTEST explicitly states that Usenet, an online social media platform, is allowed. I see no reason why 4chan should be any different.__Gamren (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It says "Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google". 4chan isn't. Equinox ◑ 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple 4chan archives exist. How far back do records have to exist before an archive is considered "durable"?__Gamren (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Maybe Google is seen as a reliable archiver, while whoever archives 4chan might disappear overnight? Equinox ◑ 15:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty weak. All it takes is some Google CEO to decide that 20-year-old discussions about tomato gardening doesn't make them any money.__Gamren (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works. There is consensus, specifically mentioned in WT:ATTEST, that Usenet is an exception to the blanket judgement that the internet isn't durably archived. To add something like 4chan to the list of exceptions requires consensus (probably an actual vote) to specifically do so. There have been discussions along those lines, but I don't see a solid consensus (yet).
 * I'm pretty sure that the 4chan attestations were considered at the time the rfvs failed, so restoring those entries without discussion is very bad form. You should never restore an entry without discussion unless it would be obvious to an impartial observer that things have changed since the rfv in such a way that the same rfv would be decided differently today. Otherwise, why have rfv at all? When in doubt, bring it up at rfv. And, in case you're wondering, this isn't an inclusionist/deletionist issue- the same logic could be used to speedy-delete entries that have passed rfv or rfd. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Usenet is an exception, specifically mentioned in WT:ATTEST" -- that's patently untrue. WT:ATTEST mentions Usenet merely as an example of an acceptable source ("... media such as Usenet groups..."). A durably archived source is assumed to be usable, unless a consensus against it exists. I think this "blanket judgement" of yours only exists in your head. "attestations were considered when the rfvs failed" -- also untrue. I added them when I restored the pages -- previously, no cites had been provided and therefore the rfvs failed by default.__Gamren (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Gamren's confusion is not just Gamren's problem. I would like to do something to help make the PRM requirement more explicit and clear for new users if possible. I think I'm at "beginner level" understanding of the requirement myself. I would like to work on some kind of long-term project where the rules and traditions for what constitutes durably archived/permanently recorded media are made very plain to the reader and specific examples of failing and getting through this requirement are given. For instance, I know one thing that would do some good is: a bluelink on the words 'permanently recorded media' --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to second Chuck Entz's description; blogs and fora such as 4chan are considered undurable by default and it has never been the norm to view them as such. These terms that have failed RFV should stay deleted. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if 4chan is non-durable? I sourced my cites from an external archive, which would have been evident to everyone participating in this discussion if overzealous editors hadn't decided to prematurely delete the entries being discussed.__Gamren (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read that you uploaded it to an archive, although I did not catch which one you used. However, it is often possible for site hosts to remove content from archives by means of robots.txt and in some cases third parties can get content removed as well, so the presence in one archive or another is not very relevant. In defence of the deleter(s), the deletion was not premature but directly supported by policy. WDL terms that have failed RFD should only be readded with three valid quotations or else they may be deleted on sight. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't upload anything to any archive. I found them through desuarchive.org, where they had already been archived. Those who have criticized that choice are unable to formulate any reason to distrust that particular archive while blindly trusting others that isn't based on speculation (only "X archive might be more durable than Y archive"). For your convenience, I've restored the pages, as is usual practice during rfv discussions, though they may not stay up for long. We may need to define "durably archived", in BP of course. The deletions absolutely were premature. When I restored the entries, I added three cites that I believed to be valid. The deleters were uninterested in disputing the validity of those cites, and as you may not have noticed, one of them even tried to prevent this rfv talk. Thus, the cites should be assumed to be valid, in the absence of any argument to the contrary. As you can see below, DTLHS openly admits that durability isn't their concern.__Gamren (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't give a shit about "durability" and that word doesn't mean anything to me. It's just some nonsense weasel word people like to throw around here that has never actually been defined. Irregardless, quotations from 4chan have never been an acceptable source for RFV. DTLHS (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You may not care, but seeing how centrally it figures in our policies, you're surely in the minority. It's vague and was never precisely defined, but that doesn't make it a nonsensical metric. I don't give a fuck if you have some kind of vendetta against specific websites; go cry about it to your psychologist and stop vandalizing the dictionary.__Gamren (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the reason he is decided to exclude 4chan is that, of course, this would allow for them to troll us, for fakes to intrude by just being dropped there, you know. The “durability” criterion was supposed to be a kind of threshold to pass to exclude the griefers or basically anything exposing the effortlessness that is natural to the vandal—though what was once fringe is now normality, and being printed does not exclude things from being crackpottery—, commixed with another criterion of “clearly widespread use” because that is pretty bad and one wanted to exclude another way of trolling by requesting verification of most usual items without respect for our limited resources. But when the rules were written there wasn’t that much awareness of internet slang, nor experience with how access to materials persist on the internet, and it always was peculiarly circumstantial to try to demonstrate the existence of internet slang by means of books, mostly those made accessible via the internet of course. We know the system is leaking. Manaman should really adopt my formulation from Beer parlour/2021/February to include terms “consistently appearing on the internet”, actually you can vote to replace the wording “clearly widespread use” which has stayed arcane because it does not conform with legislative art if a rule demands that something is clear—it makes things even less clear or easy to subsume and everything actually intended by “clearly widespread use” is either also consistently appearing on the internet or it would not be recognized to be widespread. French Wiktionary is also content with proof of existence, I’ve heard. The question should just be “exists how?” Which is decided in comparison to the sizes and significances of corpora: If something is internet slang, you look how organically spread and established it is as opposed to a seemingly artificial action, whereas the more back in time one goes for languages one accepts hapax legomena, like obviously any word in the Old Testament or contemporary Hebrew inscriptions should be entered irrespective of “3 cites” incidentally prescribed for this “well-documented language” that has gone extinct for two millennia, which is an absurd approximation of what is actually needed by the dictionary users. There is private language irrespectively of durability, you find it in all philosophy books, and one can make it out, the task changing the remoter a language is in time or location.
 * To avoid, I do not forget that we want, of course and in particular, terms common in speech but not in text, in various patois of languages widely attested on the internet, as comically the more widely attested a language is the more material amounds to be registered by the lexicographer still not published in ways you stumble upon it easily, e.g. everyday terms in the so-called like the above “manaman” or the everyday slang of Abidjan. Like internet slang, these also practically have to be demonstrated otherwise (which do exist but in Ivorian newspapers or court records we cannot access, apart from the few pieces of “dialect” fiction), though I still agree that mainspace links should have a tendency towards durability. But this is another gap I just mention lest one say man has devised exhaustive criteria when rethinking the CFI to catch missed internet usage: through copious experienced examples I am wary about excluding and including too liberally, and the areas where we want to be liberal have to be subject to conceit so we do not tip off the trolls.
 * We need procedures “you have seen this word and hence we include it” rather than “I know it exists but I still cause it to be deleted”, and they might be formulated sufficiently obscure so the results are satisfying even if bandwagoners attempt to exploit them for vanity. So is anyone inclined to rerock the written criteria of inclusion with new formulations? Fay Freak (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a request for a policy change for which there is growing pressure. I keep seeing it pop up in little discussions here and elsewhere. My sympathies are with the inclusionists, but I also understand the concern of those who want to exclude sources that make it too easy to support fake words. One suggestion that I made on my talk page a while back is that we allow websites such a blogs, emagazines, and, yes, 4chan and twitter -- but require that when using such sites that the citation be over a year old (or some other time criterion acceptable to those who fear hoaxes). This would mean that adding support for a fake word would not be easy, but we could use these sources of language that are increasingly becoming the norm. Kiwima (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My original point was that Gamren was acting as if this policy change was already in place and as if anyone who disagreed with it was ignorant and in violation of a well-established consensus. We need to come up with a formulation that deals with real usage that doesn't appear in usenet or dead-tree publication, but that avoids legitimizing the "let's make up a word and pass it off as real" games that some people on 4chan like to play. We need it, but we're not there yet. There's a big difference between what makes sense and what everyone agrees is the established consensus. Yes, DTLHS can be grumpy and undiplomatic at times, but going into battle mode accomplishes nothing but damaging the community and drawing attention away from the original issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that neither going into battle mode, or just ignoring current policy is a helpful approach. I am not condoning Gamren's behaviour, which is essentially conducting a private edit war. What I want to know is how does one get the Wiktionary community moving on a policy change? I have been watching pressure on this issue build, and I think it is high time we tried finding a compromise that satisfies most (if not all) of the community. But I have not been on Wiktionary long enough to know how one goes about making such a change. Kiwima (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * While I remain convinced that my interpretation of CFI is in line with the existing text and does not represent any kind of policy change, and further that deleting entries while they're still actively being discussed amounts to vandalism and should rectified without remorse, I absolutely support initiatives to clarify our CFI on the topic of purely-online terminology. The typical way would be to draft a proposed change, present it to WT:BP for commenting, possibly make changes in response to those comments, and then put it to a vote.  As for the concern about "making up words and pretending they're real", aka protologisms, isn't this what the "spanning one year" clause is supposed to prevent? Is that insufficient?__Gamren (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why do we even speak of “languages well documented on the Internet” if the internet is disallowed, even if it is specifically claimed of a word that its usage is connected with internet usage. I would say citations must be according to what the word is claimed to be: If it’s internet slang, then consistently met on the internet (it catches the eye that it exists, that is what one expects for normal words of languages “well documented on the Internet”: The wording indicates “it looks real, so we treat it like real”); if it’s a term from science then one demands it in its books and journals, unless scientific colloquial; if it’s Egyptian Arabic or North Levantine Arabic the quotes will be different from when it is depicted to be Standard Arabic; if it is a Sondersprache spoken by some sectarians, say by, then it is again as with a low-documented language, independently of whether it is really dialect or high language, for the L2 header should not trump the fact that is said to be something usually obscure like thieves’ cant or nouchi. This answer also somewhat the hitherto contentious issue how far labels should be “attested”. Fay Freak (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the Internet isn't disallowed. Google Books, Usenet, HathiTrust, a lot of stuff on the Internet Archive and many other sources are allowed. Allowing "thieves' cant" is cool when you're thinking of it as something historical, but allowing the cant of every street gang in the world isn't going to be a win. Of course, this is the wrong place for the discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed. *sigh* I think we need a policy change, but until we have one, 4chan does not count. Kiwima (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well. I have exams coming up, so I won't initiate any discussions right now. I may do so later.__Gamren (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2022–February 2023
Previously failed RfV, however it is on User:Binarystep/Second Look and there are online sources that could be used to support its inclusion. I have added a few to the citations page. 98.170.164.88 00:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why this was restored, I deleted it again. - TheDaveRoss  12:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not the one who restored it, I just saw that someone else had done so and then recalled it was on Binarystep's list. There are currently 4 quotations from Twitter and 1 from Usenet. If the Twitter vote passes, should this be undeleted? 98.170.164.88 20:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly the answer is yes - there are over 100 hits for this word on Twitter, so it easily passes. —-Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was restored (not by me) because Citations:glownigger has enough Twitter citations. The entry can be restored if Twitter passes in . This RFV should remain open until that time. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My guess is that there are millions of typos which get over 100 hits on Twitter, so that is an incredibly weak argument. I don't think this is a typo, I think it is a word used by a very small group of people very infrequently, and probably doesn't rise to the level of an actual English language term, but I don't know how much use on Twitter or Reddit it would take to make me believe that it does. There are terms used within my group of friends, call it dozens of individuals, which are not used beyond our group. They should not be included in a dictionary. How big does a group need to be before its argot belongs in Wiktionary? I don't know, but it is larger than a small group of friends, and smaller than all native speakers. - TheDaveRoss  12:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that we have the linked Beer parlour discussion to approve Twitter wholesale, it's for that discussion. This RFV is going to be resolved in accordance with the outcome of that discussion. Interested parties can still vote in the BP discussion. Typos are excluded even if common per CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Kinda, we just label them misspellings (also garbage) and keep them anyway. - TheDaveRoss  13:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Typos such as amgydala get deleted (now in RFD). Common non-typo misspellings get included, e.g. concieve. Data reusers have learned how to use our template labeling to filter out anything they need filtered out, whether misspellings, pronunciation spellings or eye dialect. They probably want to filter out many of our geographic names as well; who needs Washington County in a dictionary? Complaining about Twitter does not change any of that anyway. They can filter out things marked as Internet slang as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV Failed, no consensus to undelete. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)