Talk:Hun (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Football

I'm certainly no fan of the sport, so I'll state right here that I have no stake in the rivalry under examination here. I've heard these football rivalries can be rather fierce. The use of Hun as a pejorative is not so interesting as to merit its own article, but it is useful knowledge: a person hearing "Hun" today would have no idea what any person alive today might have to do with 1500-year old nomads. But, the same could be said of the Goths (see Goth subculture) or the Vandals (see Vandalism). So, it's important to note how the word is used today, if indeed that usage is widespread enough to be noteworthy. It was used in World War I and World War II; it's apparently used today in reference to British protestants, and it is most certainly used by one group of fans (a very large and vocal group of fans) in reference to another. No? Korossyl 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If some Rangers fans refer to themselves as "huns" there is no getting away from this. Irrespective of how people view the term and whether they would use it themselves. Also Myspace and Bebo are perfectly good examples of how people today express themselves. Wikipedia is the internet too afterall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedao.glasgow (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to show some wp:rs sources. Repeatedly linking to a load of Bebo pages proves nothing. I would revert this again but the three revert rule prevents me. Regrettably, I have to report it as vandalism. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These are essentially primary sources. I'm linking to a number of pages from different places (not only Bebo) in which clearly identifiable Rangers fans are refering to themselves and their team in a particular way. I think you would have a point if I was saying "The Earth is flat." and then I cite someone from Bebo to back that up. Clearly Bebo is unreliable in this case. But I'm suggesting there are Rangers fans refering to themselves in a particular way and then I'm giving you the evidence of this. It's like wiki suggesting there is a social network cite called Bebo, the Bebo cite is clear evidence of this and an appropriate source in this case. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We need secondary coverage of this if it is to be used in an article. Primary sources, like the ones you used, can be used on talk pages as part of the discussion but they do not belong in the article. The fundamental problem is that there is no way to be sure that a Bebo user is what they claim to be. I could make some fake Bebo users to demonstrate something or other. I am not saying that your users are fake, but I hope you can see that they are nor sufficient for verification. Furthermore, this is a disambiguation page and the references don't belong here anyway.

What you need to do is find a good secondary source (just one will do) discussing Rangers fans self-identification as Huns, and make sure that it is used in the Rangers F.C. article. If you can do that then the entry will be acceptable, although it will need to be reworded to take into account the primarily sectarian and pejorative nature of the term. At the moment the Rangers article only lists the term as pejorative so the entry here is currently not supported by the article it should link to. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unreasonable to believe sixteen websites from various sources (i.e. bebo, myspace et al.) are all fakes. I think sixteen websites make it clear that the word is being used as suggested. There is nothing to believe that the sites are fake. What makes you think sixteen sites are all fakes?

If you want a compromise how about "It is used to refer to Rangers fans, which some Rangers fans don't mind. Some Rangers fans use it to describe themselves, for example online."

This is evidence of Davie Provan being refered to as a "current bun", "an obvious reference to "hun"" ,[1] but he said he did not mind it and that it was "good natured". The source of the book would be "It's Rangers For Me?" Ronnie Esplin and Graham Walker, 2007, Fort Publishing Ltd. So this is an example of someone brought up as a Rangers fan not minding being called a hun. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A much less egregious version of the text has now been inserted. It was somewhat inaccurate in stating that the term was light hearted but at least it had a relevant reference for it not always being offensive. I am still not 100% sure that we should have it here but I have decided to correct it instead of removing it. If anybody is wondering why I indented it, it is because it is clearly a specific instance of the more general usage of "Hun" referring to Protestants. My concern now is that the description is too long for a disambiguation page and should be moved to the Rangers article. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is certainly clear that it's been used in a light hearted way. Seems entirely consistent with sixteen websites which self cite the term by Rangers fans.[2][3][4][5][6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11][12] [13][14][15][16] [17] --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the indentation, is it needed? I have to wonder whether the two points are completely separate since reference [2] clearly states that the person didn't have "the slightest inkling of any undercurrent" i.e. was only refering to Rangers fans not Protestants. I think we should remove the indentation since it refers explicitly to a situation where there would be an undercurrent. -- Nedao.glasgow (talk 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is another reference to a ex-Rangers' player jokingly refering to himself as a hun (i.e. in a light hearted way).[18] Maybe we could include this reference too? --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that the use of the term "hun" to refer to Protestants, including Rangers F.C. fans, was initially pejorative and remains so. The fact that the insult has been co-opted and is sometimes used in a non-insulting manner is a secondary matter. The reference supports only one instance where it was not considered insulting. This tells us nothing about its use under other circumstances. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear that it was "initially pejorative", since you don't have a secondary reference for this. We really should consider removing the indentation if we have no evidence to justify it.

What do you think about including a comment that sometimes it's used in a lighthearted way by those with Rangers FC connections? "This “Weegie Hun”, [Bobby Williamson] sarcastically referred to himself in a press conference after the Easter Road crowd had chanted his name during a 2-1 victory over Queen of the South in the tournament’s third round, may be about to become an honorary Hibee."[19]. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is already covered in detail in the Rangers article, with references. I am not going to make a mess by duplicating the references here. That is not the role of a disambiguation page. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The point that people with a Rangers connection use it to describe themselves has not been made elsewhere and even if it was that shouldn't stop it being made here for completeness. Obviously this is highly controversial for some people or it wouldn't have been insisted that we remove the issue of self use in the first place. I think we should make it clear that it's sometimes used by people in a clearly non-pejorative way by those with a Rangers connection by including the second reference. We should include the Bobby Williamson reference and remove the indentation. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Go and add it to the Rangers article then. Don't overplay it and use the reference and it should be OK. I will then remove the reference from here as it is not needed in a disambiguation article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We need this evidence of self usage since we have evidence to support it. Bobby Williamson is a respected Scottish football manager so we can't dismiss this evidence. The Times is a respected newspaper. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Both the club and its fans are disparagingly referred to as Huns by some fans of other teams.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51] The Rangers Supporters Trust regard the nickname as "sectarian abuse".[41]

It is my intention to contact the club and raise awareness of the content of this page for their consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.231.233 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You may certainly do as you see fit, but I would point out that, as far as Wikipedia mentioning the term, stating a matter of fact is not the same as endorsing it. Wikipedia is not censored, and it includes articles (and, when applicable, disambiguation page entries) dealing with all manner of offensive and possibly offensives terms, institutions, and ideas. As you can see from the discussions above and below, and as you presumably already know, the "Huns" epithet and its use is a matter of heated debate. But the term is discussed in the Rangers article, and Hun (disambiguation)—as a navigation page to help Wikipedia users find the most relevant article related to a particular topic—ought to maintain an entry for the term "Hun" as it relates to the Rangers, with a link to the article where the issue is discussed. If you would like to re-open discussion about the phrasing of the entry, by all means do so. Perhaps there is a better way to put it. But deleting it entirely is censorship and poor editorial practice.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

All the pages which have links to people being called 'Huns' as all bebo and myspace pages therefore that is not a valid source as to why they call Rangers fans Huns. I would also like to point out that Rangers fans actually called Celtic fans 'Huns' first and that is nowhere to be seen on the celtic page. I would post a link but i'm on a works computer which only allows access to some sites. The word Hun is a sectarian slur which i don't condone and take offense to being called. If u can find a suitable source with good reasons why they call rangers fans 'Huns' i will stop deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.231.233 (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As i have explained above not one person has given a valid source as to why Rangers fans get called 'Huns'. All the sources in which is on here are peoples Bebo pages and myspace. The Rangers supporters club are against this word as it is classed as a sectarian slur. There is no connection between Huns and Rangers F.C. and i urge that it be removed or give me a valid source as too why it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.231.233 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources you are referring to are presumably the ones given above (which, by the way, are references not to abusive uses of the term Hun but to uses by Rangers fans themselves). Because the sources in the Rangers article itself are to reliable third-party print sources. Which leads to the point I and others have made below: This disambiguation page is not the place for this debate. If you have an issue with this use of the term Hun, then take your concern to the article Rangers F.C. and open a discussion of the issue on its Talk page. As long as the topic is discussed in that (or any) article, the entry will remain on this page. And as I've already mentioned, the offensiveness of the term and your personal dislike of it are utterly beside the point: Wikipedia is not censored. --ShelfSkewed Talk 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3