Talk:Darky Cuntinent

RFD discussion: January–June 2022

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Darky Cuntinent

Not material for any self-respecting dictionary. DonnanZ (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The same editor created cuntinent and cuntry. DonnanZ (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the issue exactly? I encountered it while hunting quotes for another article and it wasn't immediately obvious to me what it meant so I don't think it's SOP. Unlike its parts, it is also capitalized. Lastly, we also have Dark Continent, an article I wasn't aware of while creating the article in question. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is your problem with the fact they are derogatory words? If so, that's not something a dictionary should filter out. If a word meets CFI, it meets CFI. If you think it needs verified, or think it doesn't meet one of the criterion, please say so. As of right now, I'm not sure why you think they should be deleted? Vininn126 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Are there any usages outside of Usenet? Upon doing a Google search, there are zero hits outside of Wiktionary and Usenet. And so, this is exactly the problem and discrepancy with Usenet that I mentioned @-sche (Edit: based on your comment at this vote and the possibility of a word like "ashleymarierichardsy"). If we're including extraordinarily derogatory words based on three usages on Usenet (a place that I've seen the most n-word with an -er usage in a long time, truly showing its demographic), then it's frankly irresponsible to exclude online news and Twitter. AG202 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This word seems incredibly rare outside usenet, but it meets our CFI, which is just... weird. I liked your idea about being able to use internet archive. Or perhaps some way of being able to add it to wikisource. Vininn126 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't be including this based on a few uses on Usenet, but the sense of the community is closer to "anything that has been written three times anywhere" than to "something that is either common or would appear in a professionally edited source." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think applying the time frame over being used by over a year by three different people really does limit that. But that's something for over at the BP ;) Vininn126 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I would note that "Darky continent" (or "Continent") is attestable, but even with the play on "Dark Continent" to me seems SOP to "Darky" and "Continent", and I do wonder if this is therefore SOP to its terms since "Cuntinent" is defined as a play on "Continent". bd2412 T 08:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say this is less than the sum of its parts. Still, we're a descriptive dictionary, and it's an undisputable fact that a certain percentage of English speakers are morons... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Proper noun that meets CFI (albeit barely). As a dictionary, we shouldn't shy away from documenting vulgar and hateful terms, but I do feel that the citations would be better kept out of the main entry and limited to the citations page. There's a point at which examples of use are so inflammatory that whatever illustrative benefit they may hold is greatly outweighed by their potential to cause offence to many readers. The critical mass of racial slurs in the three cites crosses that line, I think. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Inflammatory quotes can be easily suppressed (so they are still there but not visible) without moving them to the citations page. And no editor should be penalised for doing that. We have to discourage this type of entry somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps another discussion for the beer parlor, in line with the discussion at minstrel - would it be better to have a content warning on some quotations? Vininn126 (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy @Vininn126 I agree with either having a content warning and hiding the quotes, because if I'm being 100% honest, coming across these recently-created articles (cw: racial slurs, including Niggeria & Niggerian) made me physically pause and have to take a breather with how physically uncomfortable I got. This is exactly why in a previous RFD discussion I said that Usenet definitely appeals to a certain demographic, and it's really really disheartening to see these terms be included and Usenet be given a pedestal while we're excluding AAVE slang terms because they're not in "durably archived" sources. AG202 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AG202: I'm sorry to hear that. I have hid the quotes to the citations page now. I'm also fine with the approach taken by DonnanZ (diff). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha, no worries, it's not your fault. AG202 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The same user continues to add terms such as Africoonia and Africoonian using Usenet sources only. This gives me the impression that we are dealing with a racist. DonnanZ (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz, I'm asking you once again to stop it with the libelous, off-topic, personal attacks on my character. Article creation is obviously not a token of endorsement towards the term (How do you reconcile the fact that I created both Herman Cain Award as well as masktard? Or even just whiteskin?); it's not even a signal that the creator was previously familiar with the term. The majority of the racist terms I created only in response to me randomly stumbling across them on the Usenet while citing other stuff. The truth is that I just like quote-hunting on Usenet, which should also be apparent from my most recent contributions in WT:RFVE.

It feels pretty creepy knowing that you're stalking my recent contributions rather frequently, especially as you're not concerned with improving my articles but just on the hunt for ammunition to libel, bully, and harass me. Just leave me alone already. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Recently added quotations, which are recorded, can be investigated. I wouldn't call that stalking. DonnanZ (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz: With all due respect, sir, but if you falsely accuse someone of being racist, then you will surely end up being at Wiki-Hell after your retirement. I thought that I had salvaged you from your sins by forcing you to abandon your etyl-mess-ups, but I was mistaken. Sigh. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You ought to read my comment again. DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say that if a term as tenuous as this meets the CFI, the CFI is probably overly inclusive. Once upon a time Usenet may have been an OK barometer of what new terms were emerging on the internet, but this one clearly never escaped that realm to gain any currency in any other media (thankfully). In this case the term is a very transparent pun (or two layered together) which makes it even less important to record, as puns are by their nature constructible. Delete unless there is evidence of this being a term that was actually used, and not a nonce that happened to be created independently three times by three morons on Usenet. - TheDaveRoss 14:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors may want to participate in the related discussion at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/January#Updating CFI for the Internet and Offensive Material". — SGconlaw (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Not even close to being a word. DTLHS (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep - this term means our inclusion criteria and we shouldn’t be engaging in censorship. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. On Usenet there are just a few hits, it's mostly the same few messages cross-posted to many different groups (flamebait?). It looks like someone's private "joke", perhaps imitated by other posters, and as such doesn't merit an entry. Neither should it be listed on other pages as a synonym for "Africa". This is deeply misleading. And if there's consensus to follow CFI "by the book" and keep it, there should be something explaining that it's a rare phrase made up for flaming/trolling. – Jberkel 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait they're listed as synonyms on Africa? :-//// Come on, y'all. Would we list the n-word as a synonym on black man? AG202 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

As long as it’s clearly labelled as offensive then I don’t see why not. I would also have no objection to honky or cracker being listed as synonyms of white man. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I would not make that space available for derogatory terms. Let alone the fact that the main word in question is literally only used on Usenet. And for the record, I would not list those words as synonyms of white man either. AG202 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's better to list Africa as a synonym of this, but not vice-versa. The reader will be able to find it using the search bar if they come across this term, which I doubt they will. Vininn126 (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is my view. Otherwise, WT is likely promoting the use of the term. Theknightwho (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It is annoying me that such a stupid piece of crap is getting so much discussion, but this annoys me even more so that I'll reply. Having a stupid word does not promote it. Let's not fall into that black hole where merely mentioning a thing makes you bad. You know what I mean. Equinox ◑ 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean "promote" in the sense of support. I meant it idiomatically, in the sense of prominence. Theknightwho (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It was used across eight years (2000-2008) on three different newsgroups. That suggests that the three citations do not originate from the same author. And even if it's only three Usenet trolls independently coining the same racist pun, well, we don't impose a similar standard on non-Usenet citations. There's no requirement for editors to determine whether some rare technical or scientific term was independently coined by three authors or drawn from an existing body of technical/scientific jargon before creating an entry for said term. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that it would be inappropriate to include this as a synonym in the entry for Africa. I think that in-entry synonyms should generally be limited to those that are non-derogatory or at least non-offensive. The "Thesaurus" space can always be used for complete lists of synonyms. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Being a derogatory term, I think, makes it not a synonym, as that implies interchangeability of words without changing meaning. If the meaning has changed, including to indicate derision, it's not much of a synonym any more. bd2412 T 07:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If decisions are made about not including the term as a synonym in other entries, moving the quotations to the citations page, and so on, please remember to document these by putting hidden comments on the relevant pages with links to the talk page of the term where this discussion will eventually be archived. Otherwise, it’s highly possible that some time later an editor unaware of this discussion will make edits that are contrary to the decisions. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a synonym if it has the same referent. You can do something like {{syn|en|darky|q1=offensive}}. (I think we'd look very stupid including this particular rarity under the synonyms for Africa, mind.) Equinox ◑ 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412, TheDaveRoss: I have no issues with removing the exceedingly rare Darky Cuntinent as a synonym of Africa but I see absolutely no reason for the removal of e.g. the very common (dated, informal) Dark Continent. As Equinox points out, a synonym is that which merely shares the referent; it need not have the same level of formality / vulgarity / offensiveness / datedness / ... Notice how we have (slang, derogatory) Kraut on German, a thing I'm very glad about. If you want to remove such links then Wiktionary would offer no way to answer the question "what (derogatory) terms are there for Germans?", a question every thesaurus on the planet should be able to answer. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Dark Continent" is not derogatory; it references the mysterious nature of the continent (to Europeans, who had not explored it well when the term came into vogue), and is more akin to referring to Australia as the land down under. As for "Kraut on German", I have no thought on that except to say that it is common enough that I didn't realize that it was still considered derogatory. bd2412 T 17:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Any derogatory or informal sense of Dark Continent may be a misunderstanding of "dark" when the entry was created, it doesn't mean a continent full of black people. If it is used now, it may well be literary. So whoever dreamt up the subject of this RFD could have been under the same illusion. DonnanZ (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It means a continent that's unexplored, unknown which means it dismisses the humanity of all those who lived there. It's part of a imperialist, racist worldview. It's not like the land down under, which is simply its location on a map; it's pretty inherently derogatory.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You are right, I misread Dark Continent as the subject term after someone mentioned that it was listed as a synonym. Dark Continent should be included. - TheDaveRoss 16:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The arguments brought up for deletion are unconvincing. If this is too rare a term to be included, then start a vote to change WT:CFI. As it stands, this one meets our CFI and should therefore obviously not be deleted. In fact, it should not even be allowed to be deleted as we are only here to discuss whether an entry meets WT:CFI, which it does without question. How would we feel about RFD'ing attested entries that just barely survived RFV with the reasoning of being too rare? The other "arguments" like "self-respecting dictionary" or "not a word" don't merit a reply. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Still SOP to darky and cuntinent, arbitrary capitalization notwithstanding. Darky Continent is, in fact, more readily attestible. bd2412 T 05:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to put forward SoP as a reason, as far too many much more worthy SoP terms have been deleted. But it is admittedly SoP. And he is hoisted by his own petard by creating cuntinent. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsure. Currently we have darky as an alternative form of darkey which we define as "a person with dark skin". In which case, Darky Cuntinent which breakdown into "the continent of dark skinned people", which could hypothetically be used for (pre-Columbian) North America, though there is no evidence of this usage. Under this interpretation, the term is idiomatic and should be kept. The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, has a subsense "A dark-skinned person of sub-Saharan African origin or descent" for darkie (where they place the entry). If this sense is used to interpret Darky Cuntinent, the breakdown is into "the continent of sub-Saharan Africans", that is to say, Africa. This interpretation makes the term no more than the sum of its parts. If kept, I support Jberkel's suggestions for labeling the term. Also, I find three four more uses (for a total of six seven) apparently also from Usenet, though not in Google's archive, which appear to be independent [1][2][3][4]. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (edited)

Keep. The offensiveness of a term has no bearing on its inclusion. Deleting this would be a direct violation of WT:CFI. Binarystep (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep unless CFI is changed in a certain way to exclude such terms —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 05:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete.

• Rare spelling variations are explicitly excluded. Wiktionary is not a compilation of puns and wordplay.
• In my opinion, insults and name-calling should only be included if they are common, and not if they are only slang of a small ingroup. Karen as a racial slur is a legitimate entry and may even be in clearly widespread use. Incel slang is common and widespread enough to include. If it were confined to r/incel I wouldn't count it no matter how durable Reddit was. The fact that three separate people or three separate Usenet threads borrowed or invented the same insult is not enough for me.

I am not offended. I think it's stupid name-calling. I discriminate against ephemeral low register words. We keep the n-word and kike which are or have been widely used, we should throw this one in the trash. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

See also Talk:whirling void for an inoffensive term that was deleted because it was a way people described a concept rather than a name for the concept. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Binarystep. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. A disjunction of three reasons:

• Not convinced the uses are actually independent. Some of the texts have been reposted many times over, and there are recurring patterns to the names of the posters (use of l33tified domain names in general, and specific terms like "nog"/"n0g", "true", "word"/"\/\/ord"). In fact, so far every citation given on the Citations page as well as by The Editor's Apprentice above either has such a username, or is reposted between multiple groups. If there were actually obviously distinct authors using the same term, in posts that did not seem like flamebait copypasta, it might be a different story. A large part of why the timespan seems so wide is that the same old texts are reposted over and over.
• Not convinced this is not an SOP of darky (derogatory name for a dark-skinned person) + cuntinent: the continent with dark-skinned people. As The Editor's Apprentice noted, it could refer to pre-Columbian America too technically, but in my experience "darky" is used overwhelmingly for Black people. Plus the pun on Dark Continent is obvious.
• Not a policy-based reason, so feel free to ignore, but IMO it would reflect poorly on Wiktionary to keep this. I can imagine someone pointing to this entry as a reason for thinking Wiktionary is unreliable, for example, and I don't want to give more fuel to critics when it can be avoided. 70.172.194.25 02:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • For an example of point 2: here is a book use of "n****r continent" to refer to Africa, and some Usenet uses exist too. Does this mean it should be an entry? I don't think so; its meaning is readily apparent from the words it is composed of and context. Another example: "Polack country" for Poland. And "Beaner country": [5] [6]. I hope the point is clear. 70.172.194.25 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I am not sure how reliable Usenet is to use as a source for citations, but as a dictionary, I think we should include a note of disclamation that the cites in our entries do not reflect any views of our dictionary / editors, something which Merriam-Webster does. I do not however agree with hiding quotes. This will set a precedence for hiding quotes for tons of other terms any user/reader may find offensive. The world is shitty, and our dictionary records all shits. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. --Astova (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep, as silly as it is, as it passes CFI. That CFI needs reconsidering is definitely true, IMO particularly with reference to Usenet and durability of sources (but let's not get into that here). I think in cases where there are only 3 cites and all are on Usenet we put a mandatory label (only found on Usenet), or something like that, which gives the user a clearer understanding of the source. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

RFD-kept (8 keep - 6 delete). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I will still be archiving this shortly, but after the discussions that've been had, I'll add my own delete vote to the count. AG202 (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I would encourage participants in this discussion to participate in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Attestation_criteria_for_derogatory_terms. AG202 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)