Talk:Afro engineering

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Where should the content of afro engineering be merged to?[edit]

There is a consensus to merge to both pages and redirect to jury rigging
The main issue being discussed was where to merge the content to, and the two prominent answers were Jury rigging and List of ethnic slurs. Two editors voiced their opinions that the article remain here, but based on the AfD close and participation here, consensus seems to be against that. A number of editors brought up inclusion on both pages, and only one participant explicitly opposed inclusion on one of the pages. That oppose is based on similarity to jury rigging, and is, in my view, adequately rebutted by the number of participants who think that it is at least comparable. Given that, I think there is a consensus to merge to both pages.
This then raises the questions of where to redirect the page to. I interpreted rationals for a merge to one page as also rationals for why a redirect to that page would be better than another. The discussion seemed to center around whether "Afro engineering" is actually an ethnic slur. The consensus on that article is that "an ethnic slur is a term designed to insult others on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality". The participants here tried to distinguish between a term with racist connotations like this one and slurs, essentially, whether its racist connotation was enough to qualify as "insult[ing] others". While participants clearly think that there is enough of an overlap between this and an ethnic slur for inclusion there, proponents of "jury" rigging make a compelling argument that the topic is more similar to jury rigging than to a prototypical ethnic slur. NinjaRobotPirate articulates the distinction best, though I come to the opposite conclusion. NRP's argument rests on why "someone would choose this term over a less pejorative one" while most of the proponents of jury-rigging, like WannaBeEditor's rationale, note that the term "refers [not] to a specific group but rather to an action" which all of NRP's examples fall under. As such, the consensus is that while this is enough of a slur for inclusion at the list of them, it is more similar to and should redirect to Jury-rigging (or a subsection).
As for how to carry out the merge, those in favor of merging to both largely cited Sandstein who suggested we "briefly mention the term on both pages". Bryan Henderson sugggested the term "be mentioned in 'ethnic slurs' with a reference to the jury rigging article". There is a consensus that this only be given a minimal mention at list of ethnic slurs but no consensus on how extensive the coverage should be at jury rigging so that is left up to the merger and local consensus at that article. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 11:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been some disagreement about where to merge the content of this article after the deletion discussion. Targets that have been suggested so far are jury rig (#similar phrases) and list of ethnic slurs (a new entry there). It has also been suggested to include varying degrees of this content at both of those pages. Converting this to an RfC to attract more input as a consensus has yet to emerge.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal, Anmccaff, Patar knight, Metropolitan90, Springee, Sandstein, K.e.coffman, DGG, Rhododendrites, Smmurphy, CoffeeWithMarkets, WannaBeEditor, MBisanz, and RoySmith: I made an inquiry with the closer regarding where the content or part of the content currently residing here should be merged to, and they suggested that "perhaps the best thing would be if you pinged the other AfD participants here and see what other people think". Personally I think jury rigging#similar phrases is better place for this content than list of ethnic slurs, though I'm open to other suggestions as well. All the terms at list of ethnic slurs are derogatory nouns referring to members of certain groups. In the case of the terms in question here, they aren't used in that manner (i.e. as nouns; e.g. to refer to subjects as an "afro engineer" or "nigger rig[ger]" is incorrect or at least obscure), they are used as adjectives (e.g. a "nigger rigged car"; to describe the way something was done) and verbs (e.g. to "afro engineer the air conditioner"; to describe the act of doing something). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wiki'd be better off without it still, but it's closer to jury rig than a simple ethnic slur. Anmccaff (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Jury rigging is better. If we make an entry in ethnic slurs, it should link to the description there. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jury rigging - In addition to agreeing that it is not a term that refers to a specific group but rather to an action, and agreeing that it is closer to jury rigging, I also think that including it in the jury rigging article can provide a better background on which to understand the term and ultimately a better representation of the subject. Godsy, once we are at it, I would like to apologize for nominating your article for deletion. I did not nominate it to take revenge, and in hindsight perhaps I should have left it to someone else so as not to alienate you. WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer paring down this material a bit before shifting things over to the list article. Additionally having something like a sentence or so referring to this at the jury rig page is, I suppose, alright with me. I don't know how to word it offhand, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not briefly mention the term on both pages?  Sandstein  12:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of ethnic slurs as I stated at the Afd remains my strong preference. The argument that it is "not a term that refers to a specific group" is ludicrous. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: I did not say that. I said they are not used as nouns to refer to a specific group, as all the other terms at list of ethnic slurs are, they are used as adjectives and verbs to do so.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support having it on both per Sandstein, with a more thorough mention in the jury-rigging article, since that is more closely connected. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles, per Sandstein and Patar knight.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles, per above (Sandstein, Pater Knight & Curious Mind) for same reasons, which make sense and would make sure the most users would gain an easy answer to a quick query on the term as it relates to both issues. However, if one must be the choice over the other I would go for Jury-Rigging. LiPollis (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • jury rigging - it doesn't refer to persons, so isn't an ethnic slur. The information should not be duplicated in two articles because it's harder to maintain that way. But there's no reason it can't be mentioned in "ethnic slurs" with a reference to the jury rigging article and an explanation that it's only derived from an ethnic slur. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural-sensitivity comment :-) -- is there such as thing as "Black Wikipedia" (akin to "Black Twitter") that could be consulted on this point? I believe that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are white European males (heard it somewhere), so is it up to us to decided whether this is best in "jury rigging" or "racial slurs" (since we are not the subjects of said slurs)? Partially a joke question, but partially serious. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman the absence of such input (not just here but on so many topics) is an on-going concern of mine; it's clear how quality of the encyclopedia suffers from a lop-sided editoriat. I think the issue really needs broader attention. But for now, I'll request comment in the African Diaspora WikiProject and see if anyone there wishes to weigh in. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am definitely not the above, but I believe, as a white foreigner who has lived for extended periods in black neighborhoods in the American South, that what is offensive is the word "nigger" with its connotation that a person is wilfully ignorant; when it comes from a white person the meaning becomes "wilfully ignorant because black". At least, that is my understanding. Afro-engineering to my mind is simply a euphemism for the above concept. I'll also add however that the concept of "being able to perform jury-rigging" is somewhat admirable in French (débrouillardise) and possibly, I am not sure, in African American communities as well. The French carries a meaning of being able to make things work. Wasn't there a show called McGyver in the US? I think the overtone of calling it nigger-rigging is that the work (on a car say) was done wrong, because the mechanic doesn't know better, because of his race. But, and this is important, the thing *does* work. I feel a need to say that I am attempting to channel beliefs other than my own here, as I do not use the work nigger, ever, for a start. But if it helps, that is how I understand this. If any entry is made for either "nigger-rig" or "afro-engineer" it should warn that the term may be taken as an insult. Elinruby (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI, this is pretty far from the positive connotations of "débrouillardise", which I'd translate as something more like resourcefulness. This equates shoddy work with being black--and originally, used a slur to designate "black". It's more like if there were an idiom in French that shared some elements of the meaning of débrouillardise but originally used the noun nègre, and then got changed to noir--it'd really be no less troubling. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The essential problem is that the term carries a wide range of meanings; on the positive side, in can denote ingenuity, on the negative side, slip shod work. It also overlaps with "rig" as a description of "clothing, costume, get up" and with "rig" as "sail arrangement" and with "rig" as "type of cart or carriage." These will probably only be found in older usage, but that's the sort of thing people consult encyclopedias and dictionaries for. Anmccaff (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To me this is unambiguously a slur. I find it a little arbitrary to insist the ethnic slurs list only be nouns, and to K.e.coffman's point, that argument reads a bit like the point of view of people who've never encountered slurs in vivo--when I'm, say, walking alone at night and hear someone shout a slur at me, what part of speech the person used is really not the issue. So I'd be in favor of intentionally expanding that list beyond nouns, unless we want to rename that list "Ethnic slurs (nouns)" and start new lists "Ethnic slurs (adjectives)", "Ethnic slurs (verbs and verbal phrases)", etc. But I'm not against additionally listing it other places--in addition to jury-rigging, the page for the n-word also seems like a reasonable place to add it. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really about the part of speech - it's about the object of the reference. A phrase that uses "nigger" as a noun is one that refers to a person; one that uses it as an adjective may not; in this case, it does not - the phrase refers to a procedure. For that reason, no one is going to shout "afro-engineering" at someone. A term isn't an ethnic slur just because it implies a poor quality of an ethnic group, even unfairly. An ethnic slur is a way of referring to persons. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates pretty precisely the point I'm making. Invoking adjectives and objects is a grammar-focused argument that fails to grasp how slurs actually function, as does the assumption about what kinds of things get shouted. I'm really not inclined to recount them here, but people who shout slurs have an often-impressive capacity for rendering terms into whatever part of speech the shouter requires. If you want to have a list that separates out the nouns, that's fine, but then we should open separate lists for adjectives, verbs, adverbs, prepositional phrases, etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to separate out nouns; as I said, parts of speech aren't actually the issue. And I don't think Godsy, who brought up nouns an adjectives, really thinks they are either. That still leaves the question as to whether Afro Engineering is an ethnic slur, and if it's in the same class as all the other dozens of entries in our list of ethnic slurs or ought to be distinguished. And of course, whether the exposition of the subject fits better in the list of ethnic slurs article or the jury rigging article. Or duplicated in both. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that it fits better in list of ethnic slurs. I don't think it is likely that someone reading the article on jury rig will be interested in this particular idiom. At the article on jury rig, a mention of afro-engineering would seem like trivia, and I strongly disagree that it is a good fit for that page. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, if I were reading about jury rigging, I'd like to know about this term (I'd never heard of it before now, by the way). There's already a section in that article entitled "similar terms", and it is interesting. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about Chris Troutman's suggestion below, I think that between second choices (my first choice was 'weak delete'), my second choice would probably be 'weak keep' rather than merge because merging reduces the context that can be used in explaining the different shades of usage. The subject of the article is a slur in that the first sentence describes the terms as pejorative, but every usage of them in the references is not as a slur. The term as used in Droney (2014) (currently citation [6]) is not pejorative, it is not written from a US perspective, and it much more closely follows the meaning of jury-rigged. In fact, the way the term is used in the Droney article is a synonym for jury rig more so than the sense it might be used in the US.
However, a single example of a word's use in a certain way in Ghana might give that definition undue weight, given the main references used are more particular to the US context. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it where it is The closing admin of that deletion discussion was wrong, in my opinion. There was no consensus to merge. There was support to keep, support for deletion, and a couple editors suggesting merge. As the correct answer should have been "no consensus" I support keeping the article right where it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman, forgive me if I'm missing understanding procedure but I believe that would need to be addressed with the closer, and then possibly procede to DRV if necessary? I don't believe it's an option available to us here as long as the close stands as merge. No? Innisfree987 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987: Yes, I have taken this up with the closer. I don't expect they will overturn their close and I'm not taking this to DRV. This is an RfC and I'm providing my two cents. I posit that there is no consensus to merge and I predict there will be no consensus here as to where where the content should be merged. While I understand progress relies on everyone coming to an agreement I don't think editors are forced to choose between a set of bad options in an RfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC (Request for Comment) requests comment on a specific thing (the more specific, the better), not just any comments that are one people's minds. This particular RfC requests comments on where to merge and how much material to retain, assuming a merge. So the "don't merge it" comments are off-topic here. Off-topic comments make discussion, and therefore consensus, more difficult. We do, by the way, give great deference to closers' opinion of consensus, so I think it's best for everyone who opposes any merge to reset and just talk about what is the better merge. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from AfD closer. All that's really important is that people discuss the issue and try to come to a consensus. That seems to be happening here. As I mentioned on my talk page, I have nothing invested in my close. If the outcome of the discussion here is something different from how I closed the AfD, I have no objection to going with whatever you folks decide (although, if you go with deleting it entirely, that really should go back to AfD). If you want to bring this to DVR, I have no problem with that either, but I think it would be a silly way to move forward. People who are interested in this are already discussing it here. Moving it to another forum isn't going to do anything magic. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to Jury rigging, other terms. It isn't an ethnic slur, it's a dismissively critical term with deeply offensive racial/ethnic connotations rooted in "the N word" and given a faux 'PC' veneer. In the same way that 'Paddy wagon' isn't an ethnic slur, even if 'Paddy' is, or at least can be. BTW is the use primarily US or some locale? If so, the article should say so, I've never heard the term in the UK, nor incidemtally 'Jury rigging', which refers to 'tampering' in UK AFAIK. Some of the claims seem weakly sourced, specifically that it is considered 'non-PC', based on a single source, downright racist would be my personal evaluation. Pincrete (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result of the discussion was merge to List of ethnic slurs -- so it's not clear why the RfC is being done. As I mentioned above, I have some cultural sensitivity concerns. Absent input from "Black Wikipedia", list of ethnic slurs seems like a safe bet. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It simply doesn't meet the definition on the 'ethnic slurs' article :For the purposes of this list, an ethnic slur is a term designed to insult others on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality. That the term is deeply racist is not in dispute, but it isn't an ethnic slur. Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read the AfD discussion before now, just assuming from the opening comment of this RfC that the closing was ambiguous on this point. Yes, it does just look like this RfC is about relitigating the AfD. And the closer of the AfD seems to support that. I personally can't see how anyone could conclude from the AfD discussion that there was consensus to merge to List of ethnic slurs - such a merge was barely discussed and if it had been, by people interested in that list, there probably would have been plenty of resistance because of how poorly it fits that list. It appears that the merge proposal was not mentioned on the merge-to article's talk page, which is certainly unconventional if not an outright invalidation of the AfD. If I were closing this AfD, I'd say there was consensus to get rid of the article completely. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge to Jury rigging, Support merge to List of ethnic slurs
    Jury rigging is a well-defined respectable seafaring practice, this is an ethnic pejorative used clumsily and not respectably. The similarity to jury rigging is not much on close examination. As an unfortunate pejorative, it is well located under List of ethnic slurs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Claims above that it is not an ethnic slur are completely astounding. "Nigger" doesn't refer to any specific person, so it is not an ethnic slur? I can't fathom how something could thing that way. It is an indirect slur. Second rate workmanship, associate it with second rate humans. That's an ethnic slur. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer a little bit of explanation be merged to both articles. Once that's done, the question remains where the redirect should point, so saying that it should be merged to both articles doesn't really resolve the ultimate question. Either location is alright, but I suppose I'd prefer list of ethnic slurs. If there isn't a consensus for that, I'd be willing to support jury rigging as a fallback. The term itself seems to be based on an ethnic slur (and, if it's important to you, this could be used in different ways: an afro-engineered job, an afro engineer, or one who afro-engineers), but it can also describe, pejoratively, a form of jury-rigging. Thus, both apply, but I lean toward the slur because it is the only reason someone would choose this term over a less pejorative one. Still, any result that presents readers with a definition would be acceptable, and a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be just as useful as either of these redirects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afro_engineering&oldid=1199788808"