Talk:Cracker (term)

Slur?

Should the article say that Cracker is a slur? The CNN source does call it a slur. X-Editor (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe? It is typically a pejorative, although not as universally or intensely as most others. A better lead sentence might be: a racial epithet, often perjorative, directed towards white people. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd be all in favor of mentioning that it is used pejoratively with something like what MasterTriangle12 proposed, since that seems perfectly in line with the RS. Reading the RFC another user mentioned below, I don't believe adding that would contradict the conclusion that RFC came to, since we'd still be using the term "racial epithet" - not that there would be any need to hold to an old RFC if the consensus has changed. That said, I'd agree with the consensus reached by those participating in that RFC, namely that we should use "racial epithet" and not some other term. Joe (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

X-Editor, there was already an RFC to determine how to define the word in the lead.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That RFC was fairly diverse in it's response, but only two of eight responses did not mention either 'insult' or 'slur', but to avoid implication upon it's neutral usage maybe it should not be in the first sentence and should accompany the description of it's neutral usage in the second sentence: MasterTriangle12 (talk) unsigned on 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Although it can be a pejorative it is sometimes used in a neutral context, particularly in reference to a native of Florida or Georgia (see Florida cracker and Georgia cracker).

MasterTriangle12, you neglected to sign your post (you silly-dilly). Also, I like your first suggestion better than the second suggestion, but either one would be fine with me. Joe (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just boldly added MasterTriangle12's first suggestion (it's RS-accurate and it doesn't go against the RCF). If someone wants to change/revert it for some reason, please feel free, I'm not married to it. Joe (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Joe, I think I prefer the second variant as not to impugn neutral usage of the term in the first sentence, but I'm happy for it to stay with the first unless more opinions arise. Also, I find putting a signature around a quote without following text a little awkward, do editors have a preference of whether to place the signature on the quote or on the preceding text? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's go with the second variant then. I don't have any strong preference one way or the other, but it's good to mention it somewhere in the lede. Also, if I were ever to have a quote like this:

"Not a real quote, but you get the idea."

Then I'd either add some text afterward and sign my name on the end of that text, like this. Joe (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

-

Or, if I didn't have anything else to say after the quote, I might just do something like this:

"This quote is not about a boat, it is only a quote. Quoth the Joe, nevermore."

Yours, Joe (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

-

It's always a good idea to leave a signature somehow, otherwise people have to look in the edit log to figure out who wrote what, and it gets terribly confusing. Anyhoo, good suggestions both. Joe (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, cheers, even signature sitting alone reads better than sticking it elsewhere. And yeah I just forgot to sign, not a decision. Oh and I'll swap out the text. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping there was a page for ethnic pejorative/slur to link to in the lead but there is just a list of ethnic slurs which is not really that informative as a link, I'm actually kind of surprised there isn't a specific article for that topic but I guess the specific study of slurs beyond the etymology is kinda rare. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

After seeing and thinking about both edits, I think I changed my mind, I like your second proposal better, on the whole. It fits nicer. Also, yeah, I don't know if it's better to link 'racial epithet' to 'epithet,' which can just mean a name for something, or to link it to the list of ethnic slurs, which isn't, as you say, super informative. Good to add the list to the 'see also' section, which I see you already did. This is kind of a weird page, not that there's anything wrong with weird pages of course. Joe (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

CNN is not the end all be all of what we should consider a slur the word is obviously racial motivated word there are tons of books and articles. This change mainly comes from bad faith wiki editors who want to downplay the word for their own reasons Caspian Delta (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the "debate" here. It's a slur in some cases, this is obvious, and wikipedia editlords are just equivocating, as usual. I see the 'nigger' article defines it as an ethnic slur (which it is) but has dedicated a whole other page to 'nigga', because it's ok when some people use it! (Let's ignore the fact that it isn't actually a separate word, just a phonetical spelling of the AAVN pronunciation.) I see no issue with mentioning the neutral uses of the word (most of which are historical; those who use cracker in these contexts in the 21st century are few and far between), but quit pussyfooting around because of your politics. Ya know damn well it's a racial/ethnic slur. Wikipedia is ridiculous. Maybe we should create "cracka" or "crackuh" and label that the slur? (Though this seems silly for obvious reasons and again, ya know damn well.) Whatever, I know I won't get anywhere with you people, but this is my input. Have a merry Christmas. Mercster (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

We can always have another discussion on what to call it @Mercster:, but I suspect the misc. editors wouldn't come to a different consensus on what word to use in the lede, and it looks like you know that too, so it may not be worth the bother. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone would argue that the word isn't a slur (if someone were to argue this point, well, the RS are quite clear it's a slur) but Wikipedia is built on consensus, and if the assembled editors consensify to call it an epithet, then what more can you do? I'm personally ok calling it an epithet, though it might not be my first noun-choice, I could go either way really. Anyhoo, Merry Christmas to you. You know crackers can be Christmasy too! Joe (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It could be a good idea to alter the lead to state that "it is commonly a pejorative" rather than "it can be a pejorative". I think my edit might have implied that it is not the most common usage. I think it could be reasonable to swap 'pejorative' for 'slur' too; I'm not too fond of it as a technical term in general but I guess it is the common parlance. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeaaah glad we have come to a consensus on the consensus. :-) Thanks Joe and Master. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00 Mercster (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Issues, incomplete data regarding the North Carolina vandalism/"cracker" use

The current North Carolina segment is something like

In 2021, in Johnston County, North Carolina, a family home and cars were vandalized in what was most likely a case of mistaken identity. The house was formerly occupied by a member of the Proud Boys hate group who had been at the center of North Carolina State University protests. In addition to other vandalism, the words "die cracker" were spray painted on a car in front of the house.

And I proposed adding the following since there were recent developments:

The Proud Boys member, Chadwick Seagraves, later died in an apparent self-inflicted house fire after law enforcement arrived at their new house in response to an emergency call over a domestic dispute involving Seagraves brandishing a firearm.

@Reaver55: wants to deliberate on this here talk page. They claim that including these other details is disruptive, has left bias, is irrelevant to the page, or something of the sort. Mewnst (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mewnst: See you finally utilized the talk page, it only took two people giving you a "friendly reminder" about agreed upon consensus. I never said the story was left leaning politcal bias, I said YOU were, based on your self proclaimed "tags" (dont know the name for those) and edit history. Regarding the actual article itself, what does Chadwick Seagraves have to do with the Johnston County NC incident? Other than it was formerly a proud boy members house? Are you trying to say Chadwick owned that house then burned it down? Then how did the people move in after and suffer a vandal attack due to misidentification? If they moved in before then how did they get misidentified? This isn't to even mention your articles, is from 2022, the misidentification incident happened in 2021. By far the biggest self report of a massive left bias I have ever seen. You didn't even take three seconds to look at the post date.

The actual article relating to the misidentification incident from the same source as you, is from 1/26/21 (WRAL.com) The article you posted is from 1/7/22.

Please do not continue to blank or add false narratives to this story, unless you can come up with actual evidence that relates to this specific incident please do not revert any edits and maintain a level of neutrality at all times on Wikipedia. Reaver55 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What agreed-upon consensus are you referring to? Regarding bias, are you talking about my user boxes? Do keep in mind all people are free to constructively edit Wikipedia. Do you have an issue with my edits? Where do you see political bias in my edits? You said that the story I brought up wasn't biased, but then go on to say that the fact these events are nearly exactly a year apart amounts to a left bias on my part (???).

Seagraves was the target of the vandalism, as he had contemporaneously been in the middle of protests at the university he worked for (and he was the Proud Boys member that formerly lived in that house). The vandalism ended up being at his old house, since Seagraves quickly relocated in the aftermath of the protests and the new home buyers lucked into being the target of college nerd scorn. Almost exactly a year later, Seagraves then was involved in a domestic violence incident where he brandished a firearm, and then (presumably) killed himself by burning his house down when law enforcement arrived to respond.

You don't seem to have an issue with the source I made for the newer events, since it's the same source as the original event. The "evidence" is there. Either there is an issue with that outlet, and it should all go, or the outlet is fine and something else can be worked out.

When news broke of the final chapter in the chronicles of Seagraves, I thought keeping him tangentially included in the article would be pointless because this event and the lives involved ended up being steered in a direction that is far away from any relevance to the use of the word "cracker". The family that needlessly got their property destroyed simply cashed out insurance money and moved on. Seagraves, the missed target of the vandalism, indulged in violence and then killed himself when the consequences were about to arrive. Yet, his life is only notable enough to mention here because "die cracker" was painted on someone else's car. It's tragic, it's absurd! And at that point, it stops being a good example of a pejorative usage of the term "cracker" as he evidently was something worse. Dead. Mewnst (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's really nice and all, but all of that was covered in "was formerly occupied by a member of the Proud Boys hate group." theres no need to add any extra about seagraves, hes not relevant to the story, only the group he was apart of is, not to mention he was not a significant figure in the proud boys group nor made any real national new. No Wikipedia page either, even if you wanted to add that he moved around due to the protests/political unrest its already implied by the misidentification because he would of had to of moved for them to be misidentified so its really insignificant to the story, all your doing is immortalizing a no-body member of a hate group and I hope sincerely that's not the case here, unless your one of those people that glorify those kinds of people.. Why should the story remain? Its a modern, real world, Pejorative usage of the word "Cracker" in the pejorative usage section, excluding the Michael Dunn incident because it was a fabricated lie backed up by witness testimony. So it's pointless to try to remove the story and its pointless to add Seagraves biography(only slightly a hyperbole).

Regarding the pointing out of sources: I only pointed that out to prevent any accusations of a biased source.

The final chapter? See you are closely following a dead insignificant member which shows you aren't maintaining a level of neutrality and are more than likely using one of those "Fasc Databases" which I don't have to say is a clear indication of bias, who follows the no-bodies of a hate group? Not even journalists do that. Almost like its pointless and useless information about a random person.

and as a personal note ive looked into him, he sent some hateful and threatening messages and did some "leftist doxing" ironic when talking about those "fasc databases" even more ironic with this line "“no harm should come to the subjects of this research.” However, it is hard to imagine that this information was presented for any other reason. " But this is hardly a person you should write a whole paragraph about. Reaver55 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

At that point, it's only a local news report with no national significance with no other details to gain from it. Why include it at all? The only context for the pejorative use is "college kids directed the term towards a hate group member, but ended up destroying a random suburban family's stuff in the process." Seems like a WP:FART coupled with scaremongering about heathen kids that skip out on their homework. Mewnst (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Frankly its obvious your acting out in anger due to your biased edits about a specific no-body proud boy member whos not even involved in this story other than being a proud boy member which was already established and now you made a report because you didn't get what you wanted. Literally just shows more bias. There is no reason for a entire paragraph about a proud boy when the topic is about the pejorative usage of the word cracker. "Why include it at all" we could go on and on with that until all of Wikipedia is erased. Whats the whole point of the pejorative usage category? To show examples of a pejorative usage. What's the whole point of a paragraph about a random proud boy AFTER the incident? Hes a proud boy that moved due to political unrest that conflicted with his beliefs/ideology. If you so much desire I wouldn't see much of a problem with adding a line or two along those lines, but a whole paragaph about what he does afterward? How does that relate to the word cracker it just adds tons of clutter and irrelevant information.

For the WP:FART you could say that for the whole category of pejorative usage, but the bottom line is the story is about a real world incident(Remember Dunn lied) involving the pejorative usage of the word "Cracker" due to misidentification of a proud boy member. Why should there be anymore added? It's quite simple.

PS: How'd you know they were kids? The sources does not mention ages. No idea where you got kids from. So unless you have a source thats more of an opinion and not a fact. Reaver55 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• These vague and confused insinuation about another editor's motives are completely inappropriate, and are likely to lead to a block, especially if they are continued.

I have a very hard time seeing how the content in this edit is an improvement. Not everything which is verifiable belongs in every possible article. We need to use sources to explain to readers why something is encyclopedically significant. We use sources, not editors, to decide what is important and what is not. The source doesn't explain why this is important to this particular topic. The cited source itself is routine local coverage of a single incident. That source barely mentions "cracker" at all, and doesn't explain why this pejorative is important in any way.

The other sources here don't mention "cracker" and so their use here to imply significance would be WP:SYNTH. If there is any lasting significance to the term "cracker", provide newer or better sources so we can explain that to readers. Otherwise this incident doesn't belong. If this series of incidents is notable as an event, you've got your work cut out for you to write an article about it, but that seems very unlikely. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that "edit" is an undid, so unless your arguing about the ADDITION of the information Mewnst is arguing for, which to put it in your terms would not be "encyclopedically significant", that is what's being argued for, I'm not advocating for or against its deletion, thats not my call to decide and its not Mewnsts to decide alone either, all I am doing is keeping the page as it was before the massive editing then sudden blanking of the entire story due to the undid without using the talk page until the third time. which is extremely disruptive, I am 100% definitely arguing against for putting all that massive information about Seagraves in it like this edit, this is definitely not "encyclopedically significant" to the word cracker, I suggested to put that kind of information on the proud boys page, I never said it wasn't insignificant, only that it was irrelevant to the racial epithet "Cracker" as a pejorative usage. Please view the previous history and discuss with the person who wrote the story on why its "encyclopedically significant", otherwise known as, "significant/relevancy" to the pejorative usage of the racial epithet "Cracker", and I'm sure there will be a question of why did you undid it then? Simple, they weren't originally advocating for its deletion, They wanted to add more, it wasn't until I undid their revision did they act in spite and blank the whole thing, which I gave a reminder to use the talk page which they did and here we are. Reaver55 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want to talk about putting it somewhere else, I would suggest doing so on that other article's talk page.

As I said, the goal should be to explain why something is significant. Using other, tangentially related sources imply the act itself was significant is a form of WP:SYNTH, but it's still a good faith attempt to fix a specific problem. Restoring the status quo doesn't solve the problem. We want context, and the stuff about Seagraves is definitely context, it's just not the correct context for this article. The removal of the paragraph therefore seems appropriate. Your reversion doesn't fix the underlying problem. Since you restored that content, I am asking you to explain why it belongs, on its own merits. In order to do that, you will have to drop the personal attacks. I also strongly suggest providing a better source. I briefly looked for new sources, but did not find anything that's relevant to this article. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put it there originally, since I have a hawk watching over me ready to report/undo my actions in a split second, I won't mention a specific editor, but due to a an editor blanking the entire story out, without utilizing the talk page, after adding a ton of information thats "just not the correct context for this article."(Which yes I already agreed and told them to put it on the proud boys page, talk page or article page either way through the edit summary), which you agreed on my actions of undo-ing of that specific editor was justified. Why did I restore it to that? Because it's the original agreed upon consensus, I cannot stress this enough, I did not add that story I did not make that story, I did not write that story, I have no affiliation with that story, PLEASE TAKE IT UP WITH THE ORIGINAL EDITOR buried in a stack of edits because of rampant vandalism, that's what the page was before a certain editor wrongly put information that's "just not the correct context for this article." and I undid that those actions, the same editor without utilizing the talk page, and had previous notices of similar actions to other pages, blanked the entire story, which I then undid, the editor finally utilized the talk page and here we are and a massive page later.

-edit- I have found the editor @Ketil: and the edit page, their reasoning was one I suspected earlier, considering the Dunn Case was a fabricated lie, it is a and this is their edit summary "(Recent example of pejorative usage)" Reaver55 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please leave me out of you edit wars. I can no longer remember, but I think I just added it as something I thought was a relevant example, RS and all. I certainly don't claim to have any opinion about whether something something is fabricated lies or not. For all I care, you can delete my edits, and this whole page. Ketil (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You are responsible for your edits, and this talk page is for discussing edits to this page. I am asking you to explain why you think this content belongs in this article. Someone added it in good faith, and then someone else removed it in good faith. That's just background, and it doesn't really matter. The edit I am discussing, here and now, is your first edit to this article, where you restored that content. How does this content improve the article? Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple, it was the agreed upon consensus, almost a full year of zero questioning its removal or addition, (We are still in agreement the Seagraves information was not for this page), many editors have came through and no one (other than some vandals here and there) has changed it or even started a discussion on its removal. I've already made my arguments earlier for it on it being a modern real-world pejorative usage, the same argument as the original editor, if you remove the NC incident, you must remove the Michael Dunn case for the same reasons. . The story made significant news but not due to the specific word "cracker" nor a real pejorative usage (Witness testimony disagreed with Dunn) but generally due to racism, murder and partially about when is self defense applicable on Dunn's part, not the false story he told in court about Racism from the victims.

There was no good faith about those edits, the specific editor who shall not be named, was not advocating for its deletion but more addition that's not "encyclopedically significant", when I undid that revision (Which you and I agreed should not have been on this page about the racial epithet cracker) the editor then decided to blank the entire story. Which to me seems to be a bad faith edit particularly a disruptive one, because the editor did not make a talk about taking said action, so I undid that as well. The reason for it staying on my part is because its the agreed upon consensus and no one disputed it till after their edits that shouldn't of belonged there was removed, the user blanked it and I undid it and encouraged them discuss it on the talk page. The original editors reasoning was because it was a modern pejorative usage of the word "Cracker" due to the Dunn case being a lie, if you are to delete it because its not "encyclopedically significant", then the Michael Dunn case should be the same its only "encyclopedically significance" is from Racism and Murder on Dunns part, to maintain a level of neutrality. Reaver55 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please indent your comments consistently and keep track of signatures. Either sign every comment or give consecutive comments the same indentation so it's obvious to others which comments are yours.

Accusing another editor of acting in bad faith is a personal attack. You have not provided any real indication that this isn't good faith. Playing the "who shall not be named" game is not compelling. If you cannot control your own words, expect to be blocked.

This edit, with the edit summary: "this segment has led nowhere, there has been a recent development that has arguably made it off-topic and difficult to adequately explain without being WP:UNDUE, so boldly removing" sure appears to be appropriate and good faith. You are mistaken if you think every edit needs to be discussed at this level of detail on every single talk page. Mewnst gave an explanation, and that explanation makes sense. I assume the "bold" refers to WP:BOLD, which is standard Wikipedia practice. Articles will change over time. People notice things that they didn't before, or standards will change over time. Consensus can change, and this often starts with bold changes. It doesn't make sense to oppose a change merely because it's a change. You still have to explain why you oppose this change specifically.

As for Dunn, we evaluate all sources in context. If you want to argue that it should also be removed, you would have to do so on its own merits. Further. murdering someone is different from spray painting a car, and naturally sources will reflect this difference. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The Dunn murder was not a focal point of racism against whites such as a pejorative usage of the word cracker and has the same amount of "encyclopedically significant" as the NC incident. He did not murder them (The one that was killed and attempts his on his friends) because they called him a "cracker" (Because they never did.), he murdered them because he was disrespected by a black teenager and used a guise of self defense to excuse it. So it has no "encyclopedically significance" and should be removed along with NC incident. If anything the NC incident has more merit because it, unlike the Dunn situation, actually happened.

Dunn wasn't never convicted of any hate crime, the racial epithet "Cracker" was never used against him, and he in his own words along with defense stated it was about the "Disrespect" and "Thug 'culture'" So we should remove it since it's not "encyclopedically significant", because it never happened nor was he convicted of any hate crimes.

Regarding the "who shall not be named" stuff yeah I got people watching my contributions like a hawk and they will take any and every chance to hand out a "warning" or make a report, such is the life in maintaining neutrality, and they get really upset when I mention names so I won't but in some cases I have to use a substitute to explain previous messages/actions. Ex: "Accusing another editor of acting in bad faith is a personal attack." So What editor? This is why I used a substitute because of "events" like that given example.

Finally the Vandal attack and the murder that's not about racism (Rather xenophobia) nor had a pejorative usage of the word "Cracker" are both "encyclopedically significant", both hold as much weight as the other when using as an example of a pejorative usage of the racial epithet "Cracker". Reaver55 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your commitment to neutrality would be better demonstrated by refraining from personal attacks and discussing changes based on policy, as supported by reliable sources.

It's obvious who you're talking about, and it's silly to pretend it's not obvious. You came out swinging with a lot of inappropriate accusations. It's far too late to play coy. Insinuations and aspersions are also personal attacks. "So What editor?" won't fool anyone, and more importantly, it's not an excuse for casting aspersions in the first place.

Also, it doesn't actually matter that much for this specific change. You still haven't really discussed why this section about the spray paint vandalism incident needs to be preserved here. Even if both incidents hold as much weight, which is not supported by sources or context, that wouldn't justify reverting to preserve the spray-paint content. If the only reason you're reverting is to prove a point about Dunn, that's a form of disruptive editing.

As for Dunn, as I said, if you want to argue that it should also be removed, you would have to do so on its own merits. None of the sources you have added for that case are reliable. The PDFs are primary documents, and any interpretation of a primary document must come from a reliable source, per WP:OR. The Huffington Post article makes it very clear that it was about race, but it's not usable for this article. It is from their (now defunct) WP:SPS "contributor" platform. It may, possibly, be cited somewhere, with attribution to David Palumbo-Liu, with an explanation of why the personal opinion of a Comparative Literature professor is significant. I'm not sure why bother, but all that would have to be discussed first. It has absolutely nothing to do with the spray-paint vandalism. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So whos the person then. Mention their name. I will not for previously stated reasons. The Huffington post very clearly and repeatedly makes the point about "Culture" and "disrespect". Here's a direct quote from the prosecuting attorney of that county mentioned in that article "This defendant was disrespected by a 17-year-old teenager and he lost it. He wasn't happy with Jordan Davis' 'attitude.' What was his response? 'You're not going to talk to me like that,'" At no point is race ever mentioned as a motivating factor, It's going to be very hard to dispute the prosecuting attorney. If the NC case is to be removed I will remove the Dunn Case as well for holding the same "encyclopedically significant".

Regarding specific users, please refrain from personal attacks on Wikipedia editors, it's disruptive and unconstructive editing. That matter is up to the administrators of this site to deal with, not you, I will be ignoring any further mentions and repeated attempts to bring the topic back relating to pending administrative action unrelated to Cracker (Term) to discussion only further adds to walls of text.

Regarding my points on why the NC article should stay, I've already made my arguments clear twice now, this is already considered a wall of texts and I'm not going to further worsen said problem by adding repeated arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaver55 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since Reaver55 has now been blocked as WP:NOTHERE, and I still haven't seen any compelling reason to preserve this non-notable incident, I am again removing the paragraph. Any discussion of other content in the article should like be made in a new section, and that discussion should focus on existing reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

References