Talk:Madrasi

Against to For

here is a sentence which is like this Madrassi or Madrasi is an ethnic slur used against people of South India...... I think we should change against to for. Use of against gives sense of negativity. Please give your suggestions. --Onef9day (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Racist website being promoted in this article

The violently racist and anti-Semitic website, countercurrents.org, set up by disgruntled left-wing Indian NRI's in the US, is being actively promoted by it's supporters in this article as a Reliable Source. WP Policies clearly forbid the use of partisan, religious or extremist websites as sources for anything other than articles about their own organizations.

• Countercurrents" promotes Conspiracy Theories by American Neo-Nazi activist "Wendy Campbell" that a "secret conspiracy of Jews" were behind 9/11 [1]
• Here, the website promotes the conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Jews and Hindus were behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks[2][3].59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

if you think use of countercurrents.org as Reliable Source is objectionable then you can complaint to admin Abecedare or SpacemanSpiff. currently you can't remove fact tags as such. --Onef9day (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

lol woopiepedia is full of third world Indian leftist garbage if it links to genocidal liars and violent racists such as the third-world shit-mongers of "countercurrents.org". Unlike you woopiepedia losers, I actually have a job and a life and do not have time to waste touting loser leftist propaganda on trashopedia. Keep your countercurrents.org link if you want. It only serves to destroy whatever little credibility woopiepedia had to begin with.59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

madrasi is used against south indians, not people from madras

the word is an ethnic slur and should be treated as such, an ethic slur against south indians. it seems like user Georgethedragonslayer wants to revert all mentions of it as an ethnic slur even though it is a well known slur which is not used to refer to south indians anymore, and certainly not to refer to people from madras SourceIsOpen (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is not a 'slur' nor any of the sources treat it as a slur. A 100s of years old subject like this has not encouraged any reliable sources to say otherwise. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Georgethedragonslayer: That is false. Known RSes, opinion pieces and other sources. For its use in context as a 1) pejorative, see the comment by 'Alok Sharma' in the comments section here, by 'Hindustan ki jai' here, and 2) ignorant stereotype, see here. See here for the Wiktionary entry, which notes that the usage of the term as an exonym for all South Indians is considered offensive, which it frankly is. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 10:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:HISTRS, WP:BLP. No one is going to cite discussions, WP:USERGEN content, or other WP:SISTER project. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I used my sources merely to illustrate how mentioning the pejorative nature of the term is not undue weight, as well as to give an actual demonstration of the term in use. I do not, of course, propose including comments left on news articles on the Internet as reliable sources. However, your argument about BLP is not valid, because in this case the articles on Salil Parekh are not being used to determine if he actually said that - they are being used to prove that the term madrasi is, indeed, a slur. In the NDTV source it is openly clarified as being a slur, and the whistleblower reports in both the Hindu BusinessLine and at News18 show that it is a foregone conclusion that the term is offensive. Think, too - if it wasn't, why would there be a ruckus? If madrasi is just a demonym, why was Parekh being accused of saying it a controversy?

The 'past 100 years of experts' don't affect the present usage of the term.

In the meantime, Georgethedragonslayer, I think WP:SFoD will interest you :) Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

There are many, many sources which treat it as such, e.g. [this](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/infosys-ceo-referred-to-colleagues-as-madrasis-claim-whistleblowers-2120511): "Infosys Chief Executive Officer Salil Parekh allegedly referred to independent directors D Sundaram and DN Prahlad as "Madrasis" -- a slur often used to mock those from southern states" SourceIsOpen (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a really sensitive subject, but George definitely seems in the wrong here. It does appear to be a word used negatively. I do not understand why George reverted a very constructive edit to the page. There are numerous sources there which clearly state that the word is used, pejoratively, to make generalisations about a large group of people. The word is not a demonym anymore, and the revert made the page actively worse. Best to defer to local sources in this particular case, especially ones which highlight a CEO of a pretty big company being in trouble because they used the word. Similarly, the earliest edit on this talk page mentions that it is a slur. It’s definitely a slur. ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It is being blown out of proportion by those who are not reliable sources on this subject. An allegation on a CEO on this 100s years old subject violates both WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. See WP:NOTNEWS - raunchy news reports are unfit for an article where only WP:HISTRS work. Scholarly sources only say that "Madrassi" is a largely outdated demonym. Unless they state it otherwise there is no need to engage in revisionism. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose presenting this word as slur. The NDTV.com article and the few other sources mention do make it clear that some people consider this a slur and several are suitable sources, but other articles make it clear that its use by many does not offend or intend to offend. Citations that do not make it clear when this became a slur and in what way for such a contentious subject are not enough. I am of the impression that who uses it, who it refers to and how it is used is the deciding factor. Until some sort of more scholarly source explain when, where and how it is a slur we should not present it as such on Wikipedia. I am sure those who feel they have been slighted by this word or those who have sympathy for them feel this is some sort of injustice, but we are not to use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also keep it in mind that it is not fair to those who do not use it as a slur to retroactively claim they were/are racists. Get those sociologist off their butts and write something about the prejudice behind this word's use and we can document it on Wikipedia. Keep in mind the citations do not have to be in English. (Pinging @Capitals00: as we had this conversation at Talk:List of ethnic slurs/Archive 10#Madrassi again) Richard-of-Earth (talk in November 2017) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't get it to be honest. It's pretty clear from these articles that it's at least a highly offensive term. Historically it isn't a slur but its usage has been outdated, and offensive enough to warrant articles on someone using it. - SourceIsOpen (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I am in agreement with User:Richard-of-Earth and User:Georgethedragonslayer. The Madras Presidency was the former name of a province in colonial India that covered what are now many southern Indian states including Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka. Just as the word Punjabi is used as a demonym for someone from the Punjab Province (which includes what is now the Pakistani province of Punjab and the Indian states of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh), the word Madrasi has been used to describe a person from the Madras Presidency, i.e. southern India. When most people use the word Madrasi, they do not use it pejoratively, but use it to mean someone from the region of southern India. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That's simply not the case in its modern usage. The word "madrasi" almost always is used pejoratively, and is definitely different from terms such as "punjabi". "Most mainland Indians see it [chinki] as an "endearing" nickname akin to the usage of madrasi for South Indians. People however must realise that neither term is endearing and in fact symbolise "cultural rejection".", "Second, madrasi is a term for cultural rejection used by one dominant cultural player against an equal opponent; it is cultural politics, not racial ideology, and both are equally poisonous.". Saying that the term Madrasi is equal to the term Punjabi is simply misleading and not true. - SourceIsOpen (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

References