Talk:Beaner

message: While this is technically slang, implying that all "Mexicans" react with glee when this word is directed at them is unfounded. Like "nigger" and "gringo," the context establishes the speaker's intention. I can call myself a beaner, but if a person that is not of Mexican, Mexican-American, or Chicano descendency were to call me that, I'd be offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemunoz33 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment 

message: In New England beaner almost always is a term for someone from Boston ('Beantown')
More rarely it is a term used for a baseball pitch, and even more rarely the slur discussed here
It is still a slur when used, but against the person because he is from Boston  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.56.105 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning in NE US

message: I seriously doubt that acronym is worthy to be in an encyclopedia. ReverendG 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BEANERs

message: As far as I know,  the term is specifically for Mexicans (though it may be erroneously directed toward other hispanics.)  I'm rephrashing the last edit to better reflect this. --Bri 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexicans or Hispanics

message: I'm going to remove the link to Carlos Mencia, because it seems out of place.  Yes, he jokes about beaners, but should we put his name on every page with a subject of his jokes?  There is no reference to beaners on the Carlos Mencia page, so it couldn't be the only thing he jokes about. Jaksmata 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops...I didn't see this on the discussion page when I revised the main page.  I figured it was a worthwhile addition, as he is a notable figure.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add other references?  After all, see the page on nigger.  Admittedly, their list of pop culture references is pretty bloated, but it certainly does indicate its cultural reappropriation.  Toquinha 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind so much how it looks now – before it was just a link in the "see also" section with no explanation on why it was there.  Having a "Usage in Pop culture" section seems appropriate, but aren’t there other references?  I'm fairly certain Carlos Mencia isn't the only person who says it, but I can't think of any other references. Jaksmata 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlos Mencia 

message: I think the image of a can of beans doesn't really add anything to this article.  Contrast with the Cracker (pejorative) article, where there is an image of a product which uses the pejorative itself.  Gobonobo 19:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the image, since it doesn't clearly depict the subject of the article. Gobonobo 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  People in other parts of the world/country have no idea what frijoles are, which is the origin of the term itself. Said image puts the article into context. Replacing it. --Bri 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frijoles are not mentioned anywhere on the image.  I also don't see any mention of frijoles being the origin of the term beaner in the article. This article is about a pejorative term and not about a can of beans.  I notice that you uploaded this image, Yorick.  I wonder if this image has some special significance that I am missing? I am removing the image with the intention of finding a better one. Gobonobo 10:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Did you even bother to read the article or the image description?  From the article: "The term is derived from the use of frijoles" ... and from the image description: "Frijoles, or Refried beans, are commonly used in Mexican cooking." Image replaced. --Bri 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was unable to find a suitable image to replace the can of beans. However, I remain concerned that this image is unencyclopedic, as it does not further the reader's understanding of the subject matter. I am also concerned that use of this image is potentially offensive, as it seems to make light of an ethnic slur. I wonder if you would also find it acceptable to place a comparable image in the Nigger article. You have claimed that the image puts the article into context, as people may not know what frijoles are. But people generally know what beans are and the article would retain it's meaning if the word "beans" replaced each instance of "frijoles". Besides, the image you uploaded does not make use of the word frijoles; nor does the article establish a connection between the words beaner and frijoles.  Gobonobo 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK. I'm trying to figure out why this article should exist at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a WP:DICDEF. Should probably be deleted. Grouse 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I put the  template on the article.  It's granted that this one is deprecated, but I can't think of a better one.  Anyone wanna take a look here? --Dennisthe2 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: However, on or around September 11, 2001, in the case involving “M.U.” vs. Great Earth Companies, the United States Department of Justice ruled that the term “beaner” to be considered a legal racial slur on par with “N” word. In its ruling, the court set a precedent by recognizing the term “beaner” for the first time as a legally recognized and legitimate racial slur, which constitutes harassment in the workplace and citable in deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts or similar legal issues.
(should be re-worded. the 9/11 reference is coincidental to when the case was closed)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.116.94.8 (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed for section.