Talk:Honky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dangerous and Stupid

Wikipedia is being sourced by dictionaries and reference sources as an authority it should be very wary about dubbing benign terms, especially ones which have been expropriated and used to mock racism, as if they were racist. It is not only stupid, stupid, but also astoundingly dangerous and runs the risk of ruining the careers of normal people who actually know what this word means and use it in the normal context that it is used historically without any racist intent at all. High priority I want to see evidence that this term has any legitimate use as a slur, or it really must be fixed.

I mean really. Talk about harm. Calling things racist that nobody thought was racist or intended to be racist is terrible. Especially when it's serving an anti-racist function designed to deflate and mitigate the seriousness of actual bigotry!

All of the examples where HONKEY is used as a pejorative are highly stylized or humorously flat footed (like the famous Chevy Chase N word sketch where he starts twitching and repeats it as Chase's terms land with emotional effect, and everybody laughs about that). In Bond and Warriors it functions as a stand in for terms that would actually be offensive to audiences and taken seriously. The Black Panthers usage (HONKEYS FOR HUEY) is one of endearment, and wouldn't have been used against political allies if its intention were to attack or humiliate like say CRACKERS FOR HONKEY might. Again there is no evidence that this is generally intended to be taken seriously. Typically the term is used as an anti-slur to mock the existence of real racist slurs.

The only mainstream evidence of this I see is Emminem and he's performing a bizarre burlesque show; a white guy telling other white guys how to behave like a cool black guy. It's not the real world. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is only used in a minority of cases as a pejorative because it's been newly minted as one and nobody over the age of 25 recognizes it as a serious slur, so wouldn't punish anybody for using it.

70.127.17.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

where did it come from

where did it come from? yes, i know, from "hunkie", but what does that mean? - Omegatron 02:30, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Why was the folk etymology section deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.11.22 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a note be made that this is perhaps politically incorrect, rather than argueable "carries little derisive weight"? nobs

Honky versus Honkey

"Honkey" is normally used to refer Whites. The spelling "Honkey" are commonly used in American TV closed captions. "Honky", on the other hand, predominantly refers to people of Hong Kong. In Malaysia and Singapore region, it's common for Hong Kong people to be greeted with "Are you a Honky?" or "Do you mind being called a Honky?" For which Hong Kong people often found puzzling because the term is seldomly used in areas near Hong Kong. comment added by Billfromhk (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Alternative spelling: Hongkie Billfromhk (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

origin of the word comes from poor black communities after the American civil war, whites would come into the neighborhood(for prostitution). Upon entering said community, suspected pimps would say theres a honky! He honky! This was due to the ole toot or honk of his horn, wherein business would ensue Logik561 (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

coal miners

I have noticed that the contributors to the Wikipedia are always primed and anxious to insert the term "African Americans" into as many articles as possible.

In Western Pennsylvania (U.S.A.), the immigrants from Europe use the term Honkey to belittle one-another, casually. Obviously, the immigrants from Europe know the derivation of the mildly pejorative term.

I had heard the term Honkey prior to 1950, which is about 20 years before the creation of the term "African Americans." I don't know who created the term "African Americans," but I do know that it was non-existent prior to 1960. "Hunky" is a far older term which has no connection with "African American."

A large Webster's dictionary copyrighted in 1951 defines Hunky this way: Hunk'y - (noun) - A foreigner; a laborer (Slang). (The first edition of that dictionary had been copyrighted in 1904). The word "African" is defined as "A native of Africa." There is no mention of "African American." "African American" was completely undreampt of in 1951.

Coal miners and similar wielders of shovels and picks are called "hunkies." The word is not an inflammatory word. It never leads to fights between two people. The word carries a message, which is: "you are no better than me."

I live in the land of Hunkies. 68.162.182.113 15:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

G. & C. MERRIAM COMPANY of Springfield, Massachusetts produced the Fifth Edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in 1942, with many entries. The copyright date is 1936. Based on Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, copyright 1934. Previous Editions were copyrighted in 1916, 1925, and 1931. Made in the U.S.A. G. O. Houghton and Company, Electrotypers, Printers, and Binders. The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The word hunky-dory is a colloquialism that means: "Quite to one's content; comfortably nice." I estimate that it has been in use for more than 70 years amongst the coal miners of Western Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

The dictionary produced in 1942 defines hunk'y as being either an adjective or a noun. Both words are Slang. U.S.

The adjective means: "All right; in a good condition; also, even; square."

Pronounced hŭngk'ĭ the NOUN means: "A foreign-born laborer, usually unskilled, especially a Hungarian or Yugoslav."

Self-delusional people tend to believe that there is a connection to "African Americans" (whomever THEY are), but the self-delusional people are ninnies and nincompoops.

I live in the land of Hunkies. 68.162.182.113 19:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Growing up in Cleveland, Ohio, I experienced a general distrust of anglos by much older first generation east europeans that would substantiate accounts of distrust between slavic and anglo coal miners as most slavic families in Cleveland have ties to Pennsylvania, and often heard the term "Honky" as a reference to a Hungarian or Bohenian or "Bohonk" as reference to a person clumsy or inexperienced, and jokes or stories about a fictional "Bill Hanski".Rups7877 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

molehill

I suspect that the individuals who transmit the term "African Americans" into this Wikipedia are out to "make a mountain out of a molehill."

Hunky is a word that never generates fighting amongst the Eastern European immigrants whom I have heard speak the word. The term is not employed maliciously. It does not mean "a white man."

About ten years ago, in a convenience store, one older female remarked: "Just wait 'til my hunky comes out in me." She was peeved about something or other.

Forget the "African American" rhetoric, or malarkey. 68.162.182.113 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is an alternate spelling for Navajo: phełilishgai

NPOV Edit.

Removed the blatant opinion contained in the article that the anti-white term "Honkey" is "far less offensive" than the anti-black term "nigger".

In fact, as "honkey" is considered the chief anti-white racial slur in the United States, it is probably more of a counterpart to "nigger" than it is any more/less offensive.

Let's not play PC games here, guys. Whites can be just as offended by racial slurs aimed at their direction as blacks, Asians, or any other ethnic group.

We minorities have had a meeting and we now deem "cracker" to be the chief anti-white slur in the United States. A poll was taken and none of us had used "honky" in at least 25 years. So please make all the necessary changes in your schedule to acommodate this. Thank you. MrBlondNYC 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

These are not appropriate comments to leave here. Admin, please notice above comments. Others have been blocked, banned and suspended for such comments in other articles, and rightly so, these should be deleted too! Where are those who deleted comments such as this in other "racial" article talk pages?? These are inappropriate, unuseful, soapdish, bigot and blog forum-type remarks (includes "whitie" or "redneck" too). While it may be true about the double-standard, until someone addresses that issue fairly in both articles regarding "honky" and "nigger", these should not me considered. It clouds the judgement of others as well as "picks sides". Both uses of the words are wrong, period. "Knock it off!" Thanks... 2legit2quit2 (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

food

Hunky can also refer to food. My mom said that she was having people over for some good hunky food for new years. She was refering to Slovak food in Youngstown, OH

Candians and others: another Group (Ukrainian)?

Honkey: I've only heard this term used as a derogatory term for Ukrainians or those with Ukrainian ancestry. Even though it was always used in a derogatory way, sometimes no harm intended (i.e. a "racist" joke when you know the person is not racist), and no offense was taken. I heard this term in rural Manitoba, Canada where a lot of the population had European roots and Native Indian roots (there were several native reserves in the area). I'd add the Ukrainian definition in the list, but I don't know if this definition was specific to my region. Anyone else heard the term used in this context? Where have you heard it being used? I am wondering if it is a "Canadian" or "Manitoban" thing, basically. --geekyßroad 08:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

When I was in school in a working class Toronto suburb in the 60's, Honky was a slur occasionally heard by my Ukranian friends. As a kid with an Italian last name, I would get WAP. Not wanting to associate slurs with our Canadian Bird, but back in the 60's there was also a christmas song done by famous Toronto Hockey Player for children Honky the Christmas Goose https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut-znCtcH7w that indicates it had various meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.10.161 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Page move: "honkey" -> "honky"

In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions I moved this page from "honkey" to "honky". The new name is what an English speaker would be more likely to look it up under and link to. Google suggests "honky" is you enter "honkey", the new spelling has WAY more hits. Also "honky tonk" is spelled without the "e", both in society and on Wikipedia. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite?

"9. A cross betweeen a horse and a donkey, the first breed of which originates from the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. Following a row over a honkey breeding competition betweeen rival homesteads in 1907 in Troutdale, Grayson County (VA), the male and female honkey frontrunners were released in the wild as a compromise. The honkies bred offspring, the descendants of which can be spotted on the balds of Mt. Rogers Recreational Park today."

This looks like it might be a joke. I didn't see any supporting evidence for this with a very quick Google search. If there's a solid cite for this, please put it back in the main article, along with the cite.

See also Mule. -- 201.51.166.124 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly etymologies vs. folk etymologies

I have found a reliable cite only for the etymology saying that "hunky" was a synonym for Eastern Europeans later applied to all whites. I have moved this into the "origins" sections. The others appear to be uncited folk etymologies. I have moved them into their own section and added the {{fact}} template so that we are not presenting uncited material as fact. The Crow 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hendrickson's Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins is not considered authoritative or reliable. The Library Journal, among others, calls it "a collection of stories, speculative though entertaining" (see the Library Journal's review at Amazon.com). OneMansOpinion 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's a published primary source; the other supposed etymologies in this article have nothing backing them so far. The Crow 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a couple of other citations I found: Historical Dictionary of American Slang (cited in wordorigins.org), Online Etymology Dictionary

Per the Historical Dictionary of American Slang, the first use of the spelling honky was in a 1949 book, Really The Blues, which was an autobiograhical account of Mezz Mezzrow's life. Mezzrow was a self-described white Jewish jazzman. It's unclear from the cited usage ("Man, I'm down with it, stickin' like a honky.") exactly what he meant, but it doesn't sound pejoritive—although it may be used self-depreciatingly. Do you know what he meant? Also, do you have a source for when honky was first unequivocally used as a pejoritive term by blacks to mean generically white? OneMansOpinion 15:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After a quick search, the first time I found honky used as a pejoritive term for whites in print was in a John Chamberlain editorial from June 1, 1967—"Carmichael specializes in hate. He objects, quite rightly, to those who use the term 'nigger.' Then he turns around and calls policemen 'honkies,' making a play on the derisive term that outraged Hungarian immigrants generations ago." Chamberlain, a well known writer of the era, seems to think this use originated with Stokley Carmchael and the SNCC. I found it again a few months later spelled honkey. It may have been used previously but I don't have the resources to find it. OneMansOpinion 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After some reflection, my thoughts are that John Chamberlain's (short bio from newsbios.com) stature and respect as a writer and journalist is such that the referenced editorial for his syndicated column with King Features could be used as a citation dating the use from 1967 until or unless a better source surfaces. OneMansOpinion 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal Etymologies

In the 1972 made-for-TV movie "If You Give a Dance, You Gotta Pay the Band", one of the "street-wise" characters explains the origin of the word to another more naive character by saving that white men looking for prostitutes drive up and down the streets at night hoking their horns. The character cites no source so, considering the accuracy of TV, this etymology is very suspect.

Sounds much more plausible than the other attempts at much deeper meaning of the word! That Wolof attmept is insane and I see no connection at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.61.172 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Racial epithet!?

It's okay, we can call it a racial slur here without being accused to being a racist ourselves. I've worded the article intro the same as on nigger.82.163.182.119 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kongers are Jews?

I removed this from the article. It seemed utterly random. Completely unrelated to the article, as far as I can see...

""Honky" is akin to the term "Jew" in America. Coincidentally Hongkongers are urbanites, as opposed to the other Chinese who are more rural, kind of like Jews in America who concentrates in big cities too. Some misguided scholars have even called Chinese "Jews of the East", which is true only in the minds of the said scholars because they only hang out in Hong Kong, and assumed that all Chinese are like Hongkongers."

Furius 05:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Honky as descriptive of white speech and/or smell

Jimmy Walker in an episode of Good Times and Chris Rock in concert mentioned that the term derives from the nasal quality of the speech of typical white people. I'll have to do a source search. Alatari (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least someone's mentioned noses at last. Speaking as a white Briton, almost every black friend I've spoken to about this has mentioned the smell of white people's sweat. After a humid summer in the UK, I can sympathise. But seriously, that's the standard British usage: an adjective to describe the smell of sweaty white people. I think there's an oblique reference to it in The Grass Is Singing. -MaherCoen (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Honky article/discussion

FYI/Huggle: If someone is using Huggle to remove a disputed item, notify the person who left the comment first to resolve the issue. It could be something minor or a misunderstanding, but Huggle tends to remove all edits and is not effective when someone spends time making constructive changes to articles to improve/enhance them (although I save all my work). Make sure you are not removing everything and only the matter in dispute, and even then, follow the proper guidelines for doing such. Why does info keep getting reverted without an explanation? Are you taking the material personal or jealous you didn't research it yourself? The info is valid and sourced. You are not following protocol, please advise or you will be reported. This is inappropriate behavior! I am adding to my already made comments. Do not let other factors cloud your judgement, please be mature and logical about this and practice good faith in matters such as this. Thank you! 68.252.29.46 (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:V and WP:RS. We should only make edits that verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

honky edits:

Are you using Huggle? This happens all too often and is unproductive. If you don't like the source, remove it only. You have removed other verifiable information as I contributed more to enhance the article. What I find interesting, is that when left alone, no one challenged it but when I added a source for the heck of it, it's getting removed. Very bias and you have to remember that it's a work in progress. You can't discredit everything, so please revert the rest back or I will. This matter was already discussed and there are many other sources that claim this. Perhaps it is a matter you don't agree with but that doesn't warrant what you did. We must be diplomatic and thorough and give the benefit of the doubt. The fact a documentary was done about it and it's proven to be a fact, was not noted. I added one, whether it's a credible resource you like or not. People have to stop doing these kinds of removals.... You're not the only one, but all this cat-and-mouse chasing is very bothersome. 68.252.29.46 (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are conflicting views from Wikipedia admin, where consistancy is not followed and ignorance is rampid. Check this, somebody wrote on my page once that they don't care about truth here or the facts, but that the statement is sourced. Doing so, I am the one that preaches "neutrality" and "legitimacy". But editors aren't consistant, and they tend to remove all work, not the fact (or lack of) they are disputing. According to policy, the item should be left and discussed. You could add a better source, but the fact remains it is true and accurate. It bothers me that people aren't doing what they preach but like to throw out other nonsense words to defend their argument or ability to revert items. It's very juvenile, so I hope you make the necessary adjustment. While you may not agree, others have and therefore, not everyone is going to expect it to be deleted. I think you are letting other factors cloud your judgment but that's just me. Thank you for listening... 68.252.29.46 (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, disregard, I took care of it. Please be more careful in the future, bye! 68.252.29.46 (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference regarding citation request: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/%20honky%20tonk (cheap entertainment) / http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger (disadvantaged person) 2legit2quit2 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE, before moving or deleting anything in the article, discuss what portions you are challening. All though saved, in all fairness, it's unwarranted to remove all the edits typed up, instead of a section or uncited portion. Also, please do not let your opinions or emotions cloud your judgment or think it's not true just because you do not agree with it. Thank you! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

78.145.159.45

What is your reason for removing a paragraph of the Honky article? You don't have a talk page nor a reason. You also are not logged in. Is this possible vandalism? Please explain yourself. (I will reapply it, without a response and/or clarity.) Thank you... 2legit2quit2 (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (Is this your reason? "See also: removed link to deleted page". There is no deleted page to referenced link, you may have a problem with your browser loading it perhaps?) 2legit2quit2 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Which of the links did you remove that was "deleted"? It may have gone to a variation of that word or to a page that gave different options of the word, but everything in that paragraph was substantiated. If one link or word wasn't correct, the whole statement didn't have to be deleted. Must be using "Huggle" or something? I'll add it back after about 48 hours of no reply. Thanks! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

removed links to pages that had been deleted by wikkiadmins plus removed uncited unreffed info 62.24.251.240 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What info according to you was "unreffed" and/or "uncited"? Make sure this isn't a personal preference. The process is to discuss it, not remove it as if you know for sure it's not true and/or unsourced. Please explain more. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I notice you have allot of vandalism warnings. That leads me to believe you are removing things based on your opinion. Nothing was repeated, you may just not have liked what it says. These topics are always sensative, but you can't let feelings cloud your judgement. I will be passing this on to someone else to review as I'm considering the fact that you have committed vandalism again. There is no reason for the removal of that paragraph. Cease doing so, or discuss the portion that needs to be omitted but not half the article. Over 300 characters were deleted. Admin, please draw attention to this matter. Sincerely, thank you. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

section removed with exception of the first sentence: The word honky may also refer to a particular type of country music, called honky-tonk. Men were called this in the late 1800's Old West saloons, but not as a racial slur (much like nigger wasn't originally considered a racial slur but rather a definition of an uneducated, disadvantaged or ignorant person such as most slaves previously were according to Webster's Dictionary), yet rather as a cheap or disparaging person. Likewise, the term honky-tonk was a deprecative term for Western saloon patrons. Today these terms are most associated with the race of a person, not a type of personality, mentality or status/stature in life. It was also mentioned in a documentary that a honky was originally named for men who would honk their car horns (as a "code") to alert a prostitute they had arrived (in an urban area) and were waiting outside, in the early 1900's. Most notably the men were white and considered higher-paying customers by blacks. Elton John also made mention of the term in his song "Honky Cat" (or "white man").

Reference regarding citation request: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/%20honky%20tonk (cheap entertainment) / http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger (disadvantaged person) 2legit2quit2 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Honky/White trash/Redneck (see above messages/topic)

PLEASE, before moving or deleting anything in the article, discuss what portions you are challening. All though saved, in all fairness, it's unwarranted to remove all the edits typed up, instead of a section or uncited portion. Also, please do not let your opinions or emotions cloud your judgment or think it's not true just because you do not agree with it. Thank you! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC) *please don't "bandwagon" or "cherry pick"

RepublicanJacobite: Did you not read this talk message? In many articles, topics such as that are used to enhance the article. All of it is referenced, and if you only had a problem with one section, not all of it should be removed. Not sure if you're Admin, but your removals are being challenged and/or reported if you do not clarify your reasons for removing it. This is not racist and/or political, this is all credible information, that whether you agree with or not, is valid. You have to do some homework and take all of it in context, not just the edit itself. I too do not agree with any of it or approve of it, but you have to be biased, neutral and give the benefit of the doubt. Proper removal guidelines must be followed, and you did not even discuss it first. I trust you will reconsider, replace, and/or explain what you "disagree" with. Even if you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Failure to do so will result in involving others to resolve this matter fairly. I save everything I type, so it's no problem for me to defend/prove myself. Thank you and I trust you have a good day... (you may reply here as i'm watching the page and will return for your response, if not reply under your talk page section.) 2legit2quit2 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC) (p.s. If the sources aren't accurate, remove them but leave the rest. "Cited needed" could be replaced for a better source to replace it. All too often people delete things in ignorance or clouded-judgment about the subject. Please research for yourself, thanks.)

Regarding your message. You feel free to report my edits anywhere, and to anyone, you choose. I am going to continue making the edits I believe are appropriate. Have a nice day. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you intentionally being difficult? Please keep messages in one place. Again, you have not explained yourself, just to say you will delete things as you see fit, isn't enough. I read the "history" and it's not sufficient. What part(s) are you disputing? If you have an argument, you should be able to tell me. If not, I will take your advice and discuss and report it to others and/or replace it. Is it the actual text or sources or what? Be more specific and professional, thank you! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(just to clarify in case it's argued or mentioned, CAPS DO NOT SIGNIFY YELLING, PLEASE DO NOT READ EMOTIONS WHEN USING INTERNET, IT IS TO DRAW ATTENTION AND/OR IMPORTANCE TO THIS MATTER/SECTION, but in this case my shift/cap keys aren't working right:)

ADMIN: PLEASE INVOLVE YOURSELF WITH THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. IF I DON'T SEE A REPLY HERE WITHIN A FEW DAYS, I WILL CONTACT SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY/PERSONALLY. I CAN AGREE TO REMOVING PORTIONS, FINDING BETTER SOURCES AND/OR EDITING IT, BUT TO REMOVE IT ALL WITHOUT MUCH JUSTIFICATION IS INAPPROPRIATE AND CONSIDERED EVASIVE, INTENTIONAL AND UNFAIR VANDALISM. ACCORDING TO PROTOCOL, HE HAS NOT PROPERLY RESOLVED THIS. THANK YOU, HAVE A GOOD DAY! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC) p.s. he apparently used Huggle or something that deleted all my edits, not just the ones in question. this is not efficient nor effective under the circumstance. i have kept all i have written, but one arguable comment does not validate all being removed! according to guidelines, the info should be left until dispute is resolved. ALSO, S/HE HAS REMOVED INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR AWHILE, UNCHALLENGED. IT IS BELIEVED HE IS REMOVE THINGS BASED ON HIS PERSONAL FEELINGS OR LACK OF PROOF WHICH DOESN'T DISCREDIT IT. SOME OF THE ARTICLE WAS VERIFIABLE BUT HE CHOSE TO DELETE IT ANYWAYS, AND I'M NOT JUST MEANING THE STUFF I WROTE, BUT WHAT OTHERS WROTE LONG BEFORE. OUT OF NOWHERE HE TOOK A SWEEP OF THE ARTICLE AND JUST STARTED DELETING WHAT HE DIDN'T LIKE THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN. thank you...2legit2quit2 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message."

Several edits were made at once, all of which were deleted and most if not some or all are valid. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite

PLEASE CHECK HISTORY, IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS PERSON IS COMMITTING ONGOING VANDALISM AND/OR NOT FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURES FOR REMOVAL, JUST SIMPLY DELETING MAJOR PORTIONS OF ARTICLES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RepublicanJacobite 2legit2quit2 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello 2legit2quit2. There is no need to reproduce edit histories here if full, we can view the history by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page. Its also impolite to "shout" using caps. Please use lower case when writing on Wikipedia. Regarding your request for administrative opinion: When editing contentious articles such as honky or nigger, its very important the content is reliably sourced and academic in nature. Pop culture references are less informative, and leads to cruft. Its also important that the material is neutral and does not offer analysis or opinion. If you wish to add material to these articles, please demonstrate it is verifiable by providing references. Thanks. Rockpocket 19:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, if you read the entire talk page article (above this section), you would see my explanation of the caps. You are reading it that way, without hearing me talk. I explained the reason I did so. That is not a valid argument. Second, I meant to save the history on my page, and must have here in error by mistake. Also not a valid point. Third, all of what I wrote had references. Not sure if you have read everything, but you must not have paid enough attention to it. In many articles there are "tid bits" that can be removed, but to just go through an entire article that had relevance and remove it by preference, is not appropriate. Take a look at other articles, there is not consistency with that (your) view. I understand the process, but paying attention to trivial issues such as caps or history and not resolving the dispute at hand, is a waste of time. I will pursue this further with someone else. The points were constructive to the article, were valid and enhanced it. In theory, if that is the case, you could argue almost anything in an article. It is not my opinion that Elton John wrote a song called Honky Cat. It is not my opinion that the word honky is used in episodes of t.v. shows. It is not my opinion what honky-tonk means. That and other info were all deleted. Are you going by what was done per the comments for removing them, or did you actually read what was originally there? Please give more relevant arguments when resolving dispute. Additionally, the process was not followed correctly. I think you both could use a refresher course on the protocol for resolving dispute, deleting content and vandalism. Thank you, I'll be in touch. p.s. You have to read up a few sections to get the full context. (I'm done for the day, I'll follow-up another time.) 2legit2quit2 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. There are lots of useless, unencyclopedic, unverified information in other articles, but that does not justify keeping similar material here. If it is not your opinion what honky-tonk means, then you should be able to provide a reliable source that verifies it. Until you do that, it is unverified, and liable to be removed. If you do add that reliable source, then the discussion becomes one of whether or not it is sufficiently relevant. Pop culture references are usually not, though the meaning of honky-tonk probably is. See how it works?

By the way, my aim was to help you refactor your edits in a way that they are suitable for this article. If you want help resolving a dispute, an admin is not the person you should approach. The information you require for that is detailed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But again, until you provide reliable sources, there isn't much of a dispute to resolve. Rockpocket 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously guy, are you looking into everything I've written? You both aren't paying attention here, and this is unproductive. Granted the last edit may not have had the source, but that was because he deleted it. Look up where it's noted. I had a link to the actual dictionary site and two encyclopedia and dictionary definitions. The pop culture references, and actual transcripts and episodes, were also noted with reference. This is ridiculous! I know it's easier to just hit delete than actually consider the validity and research it, but that is not an excuse to dismiss it. You are repeating yourself, that info was provided. And until you can see what it was, or ask me to copy it here AGAIN so it's easier for you to view it, then there is no sense in replying. And if you aren't the person to resolve it, then I'm not sure why you would give any input. I do appreciate the sites for resolution (which I'm aware of), but I have brought this up with those who can fix it already. Thanks and good day! (AGAIN...and I'm not yelling, I'm emphasizing...so please get this, the references were originally given. And I know the dictionary and actual t.v. websites are proof enough sir! This has happened before and finally someone conceded they were wrong and have more than once re-tracked what they said/did and allowed it to be replaced. I will continue to do so until someone realized that if you click the reference link, it brings you right to the source. Not real hard.) 2legit2quit2 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket is trying to help you and I think you don't understand what Wikipedia policies are. Please read thoroughly the verifiability policy and also what reliable sources are. I second to the other editors that the sources you added are not reliable (I look through the history). Dekisugi (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You've read the history. Have you read all this talk page above our talk about this topic though? No one is getting that. There is the reference that was removed. It was before because he would challenge it and I was adding things slowly at a time and he deleted it before I could add it back. You must be saying that when a link to Webster's Dictionary is given as a source for Honky-tonk for instance (as others were given even for the pop culture reference) that is not valid? Come on guys, behave. This is silly and unproductive. You know and I know that is ok and appropriate. It's not worth redoing or proving today, I have to go. He made a mistake, removed more than he should. Plain and simple, but God forbid someone admit fault. Nice, gotta go. p.s. That is your opinion, I know what is says and I did it. The last one was missing as explained but from before, it was there, I even copied them in this talk page. Come on guys, get with it here. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at the sources you provided.

• Interactive Dictionary of Racial Language, which is a "project initiated by students of English 597: Rhetoric of Race at The College of New Jersey and continued by the students in English 307: Topics in Journalism-- Race, Gender and the News." Do you think an undergraduate student project is a reliable source?
• Merriam Webster's entry for "Nigger". Is used as a source for "much like other racist slang such as redneck, white trash and nigger weren't originally considered racial slurs but rather a definition of an uneducated, disadvantaged and/or ignorant person such as most slaves previously were according to Webster's Dictionary." Now I might be missing something, but where in that source does it mention anything to do with "redneck" or "white trash", where does it say nigger is defined as "an uneducated, disadvantaged and/or ignorant person such as most slaves previously" and where does it say "nigger [wasn't] originally considered [a] racial slur"

You have provided sources, but they are not reliable, and they do not support the content you have added. Rockpocket 20:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proof you are not paying attention. The first reference I never used. Your bad. The second was one of others to explain that word. You are not reading the full definition. Your bad again. Very petty, better luck next time. I'm out. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because the edit history shows you added both those references to the article [1] at 08:32, 6 December 2008. My good faith is rapidly disintegrating. So I'll bid you farewell, too. Rockpocket 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, really. That first reference was not mine (not the page I used anyways) and you are using the other references out of context. It's not worth it, some people make this their life. I don't. Very trivial. Someone just wants to power-trip. It's all good, have your day of glory. Peace! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, so you are right and the Wikipedia software is lying. Glad we have that sorted. Rockpocket 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Very unprofessional/unethical. 209.103.209.86 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

racial discussion

It's interesting how even when positive content is added (ie. reference to the word Honky being used in pop culture) is "dumbed down" (rightly so since lack of attention makes it go away if in a negative manner) and other words such as Nigger is highly commented. Compare the articles of info that is kept and deleted. This is for many individuals in admin to pay attention to. It seems it is a "double standard" or "personal preference" that some will highly allow minor points to be made in some articles and not others. We can discuss further until a resolution is made, but to just cherry pick what we don't like or think is valid and keep what we think is appropriate is really not what Wiki approves us. Let's be honest with ourselves and mature about this type of concern. I hope catching people on it doesn't upset you, but it's apparent that truth is being diverted as a way to condone racism. Just my thoughts and suggestions, thanks! Have a good day... 2legit2quit2 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honky

Personally, I don't have an issue with iconic examples of pop culture usage, or if they are sufficiently notable to invite comment from reliable third parties (and thus, are sourced). What is objectionable is when we say "some rapper A uses the word nigger in song X, rapper B uses the word nigger in song y ". It may be true, and it may be verifiable, but so what? Why is it notable enough to mention? Rather than invoke some racial conspiracy, it would be much more helpful to discuss specific examples so we can weed out the trivial from the notable in both articles. Rockpocket 20:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ie. The Elton John song supported the discussion in the article about Honky/Honky Tonk. Again, you both are not reading everything in context only on a sentence per basis. That's how people interpret such books as the Bible, and I'm just giving an example. They may take one scripture to apply to something but it means something totally different in the context of the whole paragraph, chapter, book, etc. In this case, the article. It's annoying, I won't resolve it today but I'll follow up with someone later. Not concerned with proving my point like most are on here, just making a good article better. Later! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would one be expected to read the Honky Tonk article to verify content you have added to this article? Of you want to add material here, then source it here and justify why it is both relevant and notable to this article. Rockpocket 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Last reply to this as you keep repeating yourself, your bad again. I didn't include Honky Tonk originally, someone added that. I exsponded on it. Again, it was sourced, you are using references for nigger not honky and honky tonk that I used. They are appropriate, but you're not looking at the big picture so I won't continue playing games. I will resolve it another way, it's no big deal. There are more important things in life than trying to prove a point without being logical. So long! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

this sentence doesn't belong then ---> The word honky may also refer to a particular type of country music, called honky-tonk. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Another point I'm trying to make is the trend that user is having, scanning specific articles and just deleting stuff all the sudden that has been there for a long time previously. Don't "band wagon" if he's one of you, that is not the mature thing to do either. Be unbiased and follow the rules of editing, deleting and dispute. Wiki contacted, user reported. I am now personally resolving my contributions to the current three involved in this discussion. Take care! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Brown & Carmichael

I have removed the following references from the article because I can find no information relating to either one of them:

Chamberlain, "'Carmichael Specializes in Hate,' A Contrast to George Schuyler": "Carmichael specializes in hate. He objects, quite rightly, to those who use the term 'nigger.' Then he turns around and calls policemen 'honkies,' making a play on the derisive term that outraged Hungarian immigrants generations ago."

Associated Press, "Rap Brown Claims Riots LBJ's Fault": "In the sidewalk session, [Brown] called President Johnson 'a mad wild dog' and a 'white honky cracker.' Honky is a term Brown applies to whites."

With incomplete information as to the source, date, author, etc., of these articles, it is very difficult to confirm them. A Google search under the respective titles has come up with nothing. As such, they are not appropriate references. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're not consistant. Anyone following your edits can see you only remove them on some articles (white-related) and not others where those same statements are made. Very silly, but don't reply. I have no need to talk to you or hear any excuses. Lame! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have really grown quite sick of your attitude and your running commentary on my edits. A couple of the rules around here are assume good faith and comment on the contribution, not the contributor. You might want to keep those in mind. If you have something positive to contribute to the article, do so. But, your commentary here on the talk page has not been helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This was about your contributions, not you. If you took it that way, that is not my fault. You didn't have to involve others, the fact that two others are stalking me and harassing me, does not sit well with me over something so petty. You won the edit war, that I wasn't having, I let it rest. Then you had to start problems again. Saying I will report you is not a threat. I have traced ISP's as a way to protect myself and family from cyber-bullies. I trust there is closure and you and I will move on and do our own thing without personal attacks. I have asked you not to reply on my page and you continued to do so. If anything, I was being the mature one. Hate to catch you on it, but that is a fact. I pray you do the right thing in the future, as I was only expressing my dispute over your actions. That is allowed. Godspeed! 2legit2quit2 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment made by ignorance ^ . --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lame. 69.129.170.102 (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Amen. The truth hurts. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Rude people/editors. 209.103.209.86 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wolof

Some have published that honky is derived from Wolof, and in order to make it fit, gave a little twist to the Wolof meaning and spelling. The Wolof word does not resemble honky that much: xonx (this is how I hear it. Pronounce x as Spanish do; some dictionaries give xonxa, but I never heard that a; some give xonx; only one dictionary gives xonq). Xonx means red (and not pink as some claim in order to have a better fit). Wolof is however very unlikely as explanation of the origin of honky, or as explanation of any American English word (also the Wolof origin of the word hip is a hoax). Wolof as origin would require additional explanation: how would this word have reached the US in the 20th century (the word is only attested since the middle of the 20th). From a sociological or psychological perspective, it is interesting to investigate the motivation of amateur linguists to consider Wolof as source of English words, and to spread these hoaxes - possibly inspired by goropistic use of linguistics in afrocentric publications (Cheikh Anta Diop, Théophile Obenga)? Riyadi (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Honking the horn for prostitutes

I keep seeing rumors of the term coming from white men coming to Harlem in the 1920's honking the car horn looking for black prostitutes. The story also goes it started from Chicago in the 1940's. I can not find an academic source. This is an edit I removed because of lack of sources:

The word HONKIE or HONKEY originated in Chicago in the 1940s when repeatedly White men would drive to predominately black areas honking their vehicle horns looking for prostitutes. The annoyance caused the black community to refer to them as Honkies. Still today this term is still widely used to describe White people. "That honkie has driven pass this corner three times today".

Alatari (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Honky

The word "Honky" is a slang term from the 1930s. African American women in Harlem would gather on the street corner waiting to be picked up by white women for day work. This work included cleaning homes and doing laundry. By 10am, the women who had not been chosen had little chance of getting work for the day. Aware of this, white males would drive through the area and offer the remaining women pay for sexual favors. The men would honk the horns of their cars in order to get the attention of women, thus the term "Honky" became popular.

A. Nasr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasredd (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted in addition to this that black men were calling the white men honkies/honkeys for honking their horns for black women prostitutes (women of their own race which bothered them). Being in a rough area, the men didn't want to get out and fetch for the women, so honked their horns to have them come to their car instead. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Honky tonk?

Really? People actually are making a connection between the term "honky tonk" and the racial epithet? I've been on this planet 42 years. This is the only place I have ever encountered any connection between the form of music/entertainment venue and racism. Not saying there might not be a linguistic connection, but listing examples of the word "honky tonk" being used in song titles is taking things a bit too literally, I think. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it sounds like the same logic that got someone in trouble for saying niggardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that this article should be semi-protected, like the Nigger article. 108.38.29.47

I worked on it. We had content conflating honky with honky-tonk in here for a really long time, and badly-written segments can still use some work. Be bold, Wikipedians. DanDG44 (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A neighborhood of Ogdensburg, NJ

I agree that Wikipedia editors place inordinate and inappropriate stress on folk etymologies and "African American topics"

Hunk Town is an informal name for a neighborhood of Ogdensburg, NJ, a mining town to which thousands of East Europeans (particularly Hungarians) migrated primarily prior to about 1910. Hunk Town was built in 1915, and was named for the immigrants, who were generally known as "Hunks" or "Hunkies". Like all racial epithets, it was generally used benignly, but sometimes cruelly. Obviously, since the mining profession is very demanding, at least before mechanization, the East European miners (who had the most labor intensive jobs) were healthy and muscular. In short, they were "hunks". At least in Ogdensburg, the East Europeans assimilated very rapidly, more so than most minorities. By perhaps the 1950s, "Hunky" ceased to be an epithet, and became a compliment.

The meaning "East Europeon" predates most other "folk etymologies", and Honkie is more likely to be derivative of Hunky than the other theories. I suspect that just as Blacks generally resent Jews, Italians, Orientals and all other competing minorities---when they observed a derogatory term being applied to "very White" immigrants, they adopted it for all Whites.

The author of the novel "Beat the Reaper" uses the term "Honkie" maliciously, apparently refering to anyone not belonging to a "politically approved" minority living outside New York City---that is, meaning "a resident of fly-over country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRPstoney (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Very biased post. Aside from Itlaians and orientals (whom you claimed that blacks resent. If they do it is because they get hate from them - especially Italians), the others are not minorites but the majority in this country. How often have you heard about blacks being close to Eastern Europeans? Blacks do not latch onto nicknames for ethnic groups and turn it into a negative. I think honky must come from the whites guys honking their horn for hookers. It took me a white before I realized that the term "pig" came about not because of cops, but because white cops had the skin type of a PIG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.61.172 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Source or remove?

This statement should be sourced or subject to removal:

In Australia, Malaysia, and Singapore and also in Hongkong / Hong Kong itself, the term is used in a casual nature to refer to people originating from Hong Kong.

Additional countries are being added without references. FYI! 209.103.209.86 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - Lived in many places in Australia, never ever heard of anyone ever referring to someone from Hong Kong as a "Honky". I think they are confusing this with the fact that Hong Kong itself is sometimes colloquially referred to as "Honkers". ~MrS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.239.237 (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Used in "Shaft"

Black militant Ben Buford speaks about the "honky government" in the 1971 movie "Shaft", when he negotiates with "Bumpy" Jonas about money.--Ulizinho (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, can you provide a reliable transcript source for it? 209.103.207.26 (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I wonder if people understand the concept of reliable sources. What Tom, Dick and Harry post on social foruns such as "Ask" are not reliable sources. This page is full of such 'sources'. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BeBold and start deleting since you have the motivation and maybe some time? Alatari (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked through the references and don't see anything from Ask.com but do see 3 or 4 broken sources that will have to be gotten from the WayBack archive to check their reliableness. Alatari (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Honky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110622051841/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50107724 to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50107724

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Black exploitation movies

I would have thought that there would be more citations from the 'black exploitation' movies of the seventies - e.g Superfly, etc.