Talk:Kaffir (racial term)

message: dont merge Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I split the original Kaffir page into (1) explanation of the historical uses of the word, as synonym of "south African native", and (2) discussion of its current usage in South Africa as an ethnic slur.  Part (1) went to a new article South Africa Kaffir people.  Part (2) was merged into this page. My excuse is that it is the same word, used in the two coutries with basically the same disparaging and offensive purposes, only with relatively small differences of usage. Jorge Stolfi 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kaffir was no "racial slur". In fact it's used mostly neutral in the literature, which one can check with some effort. However some influential circles tried to get it declared or perceived as an ethnic slur. Obviously for the purpose of sowing discord. --105.12.3.178 (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: I removed the following material from the page. Since this page is about the ethnic slur term, keeping the following information here would inevitably look like a highly subjective attempt to justify or apologize for the use of the word.  Perhaps this can be moved to some other article, say on the History of Jamaica tree. Jorge Stolfi 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed history of Jamaican Indian-African ethnic conflict

message: I deleted the reference to the film because the word used was 'sammy' not kaffir.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.148.48 (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gandhi used the word kaffir quite frequently. http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2009/03/05/gandhi/ --41.17.4.46 (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gandhi

message: I'll be editing the following line in the current form of the article: "Although used often inoffensively between the 16th and 19th centuries, including being used by Mahatma Gandhi[3], as racial tensions increased in 20th century South Africa, its use became more racially slanderous than just a general word to describe a race of people."
Issues:
#. It makes a claim that Gandhi used the word "Kaffir" inoffensively. This claims seems Original Research
#. then hints attribution to the current citation [3] . This news article does not claim anything like that.
--Roadahead (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: False attribution

message: ==Concerns about the recent additions to the page==
I have some concerns about the massive recent additions to the page. I've already reverted it once  and it has been added back, so I'm here on the talk page to stave off an edit war.  
*Some of the changes read as highly POV.  Examples (note that these particular statements aren't sourced): 
:*"For many years, the term kaffir was used as a general derogatory reference to a dump[sic] and idiotic black person not believing in a god" 
:*"The word is still used but as a general reference to black people, that lead to discrimination against whites after 1994 when apartheid was demolished in South Africa" 
:*"When the word is used by a white person it may refer to a dump[sic] idiotic black person that discriminate against the white individual.  In this context the word is not racist at all but a reference to a type of individual's behaviour." 
:*"There is no reference to hate speech in this context, but may be seen as hate speech depending on the uninformed English speaking person"
*The changes are poorly sourced.  Many whole paragraphs are unsourced, and the sources that are there don't necessarily back up the statements that they are supposed to support, which makes it look like much of the new text is original research and published material that advances a position.  For example:
:*The statement "Today it may be considered a form of hate speech but is not necessarily considered a form of hate speech as it depends on the context and race of the individual using the word" is sourced by an essay that takes issue with the fact that the word "kaffer" was left out of a recent dictionary, but doesn't say anything about whether or not it is considered hate speech.  The essay doesn't mention hate speech at all.
:*The statement "This is also referred to as reverse discrimination or affirmative action and the term "kaffer" is mainly use today in this context" is sourced by a reference to the National Organization for Women's Origins of Affirmative Action page, which doesn't mention the word "kaffer" or refer to South Africa at all, and also explains why NOW doesn't think that the term "reverse discrimination" is entirely legitimate.
:*The entire Modern use section is sourced by a single reference to urbandictionary.com, which is hardly a reliable source.  This section is an entirely new addition.  The source listed for the statement "use of the word among colored people sometimes referred to as hotnot" is also urbandictionary.com.
*Aside from the problems above, the additions have some real grammar and style problems.
I suspect from the comments on my talk page by the user who made these changes that it will turn into an edit war if I make any drastic changes myself to the article, but is there a consensus here to remove most or all of the new additions? It's possible that the user who wrote this has some good points that could be integrated into the article (if reliably sourced, of course), but I really don't think the article should be allowed to stand as it is.  --Dawn Bard (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dawn Bard, I agree. The material recently added is mostly nonsenese - as well as being unsourced POV, it is barely English. I am cleaning up the article now. --hippo43 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree - I never really understood why they were separate.  As you say, it's easy enough to cover historical and modern usage in the same article.  Dawn Bard (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if there are no objections over the next few days I will do it. --hippo43 (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009

message: I have some concerns about the massive recent additions to the page. I've already reverted it once  and it has been added back, so I'm here on the talk page to stave off an edit war.  
*Some of the changes read as highly POV.  Examples (note that these particular statements aren't sourced): 
:*"For many years, the term kaffir was used as a general derogatory reference to a dump[sic] and idiotic black person not believing in a god" 
:*"The word is still used but as a general reference to black people, that lead to discrimination against whites after 1994 when apartheid was demolished in South Africa" 
:*"When the word is used by a white person it may refer to a dump[sic] idiotic black person that discriminate against the white individual.  In this context the word is not racist at all but a reference to a type of individual's behaviour." 
:*"There is no reference to hate speech in this context, but may be seen as hate speech depending on the uninformed English speaking person"
*The changes are poorly sourced.  Many whole paragraphs are unsourced, and the sources that are there don't necessarily back up the statements that they are supposed to support, which makes it look like much of the new text is original research and published material that advances a position.  For example:
:*The statement "Today it may be considered a form of hate speech but is not necessarily considered a form of hate speech as it depends on the context and race of the individual using the word" is sourced by an essay that takes issue with the fact that the word "kaffer" was left out of a recent dictionary, but doesn't say anything about whether or not it is considered hate speech.  The essay doesn't mention hate speech at all.
:*The statement "This is also referred to as reverse discrimination or affirmative action and the term "kaffer" is mainly use today in this context" is sourced by a reference to the National Organization for Women's Origins of Affirmative Action page, which doesn't mention the word "kaffer" or refer to South Africa at all, and also explains why NOW doesn't think that the term "reverse discrimination" is entirely legitimate.
:*The entire Modern use section is sourced by a single reference to urbandictionary.com, which is hardly a reliable source.  This section is an entirely new addition.  The source listed for the statement "use of the word among colored people sometimes referred to as hotnot" is also urbandictionary.com.
*Aside from the problems above, the additions have some real grammar and style problems.
I suspect from the comments on my talk page by the user who made these changes that it will turn into an edit war if I make any drastic changes myself to the article, but is there a consensus here to remove most or all of the new additions? It's possible that the user who wrote this has some good points that could be integrated into the article (if reliably sourced, of course), but I really don't think the article should be allowed to stand as it is.  --Dawn Bard (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dawn Bard, I agree. The material recently added is mostly nonsenese - as well as being unsourced POV, it is barely English. I am cleaning up the article now. --hippo43 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns about the recent additions to the page

message: I propose we merge Kaffir (ethnic slur) with Kaffir (historical usage in southern Africa). Both articles are about the same word, and address different periods of its use. For me, we should have one article with sections covering Etymology, Usage in various periods and countries, and the Current meaning. See nigger - one article can easily encompass both the history and current use of a word like this. --hippo43 (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I never really understood why they were separate.  As you say, it's easy enough to cover historical and modern usage in the same article.  Dawn Bard (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if there are no objections over the next few days I will do it. --hippo43 (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Under the "[edit] Apartheid-era South Africa" section, it was only alledged by the accused that the victim called him a kafir. It was not found by the court and there was no other supporting evidence of the fact. It should be noted that the intention of Almond Nofomela was to steal from the farmer that alledgedly called him a kafir. All of it is in the cited documents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.19.76.237 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed Factual Errors

message: "Kaffir is derived from the Arabic word kafir"
"Kaffir is derived from the 'Boer'"
Which is it?  The sentence claiming it to be derived from "Boer" is at best marginally literate.  I'm removing that sentence on the grounds that it seems unlikely and the already-cited marginal literacy.  If whoever believes this to be correct can provide citations (unlikely, as Boer is Dutch for "farmer" and is entirely unrelated to the KFR root), they can put it back in. 174.65.175.154 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I forgot to clarify a change made: if anybody is wondering, all I did was change the opening paragraph's section's ultimate paragraph's phrase from "In any case..." to "In either case...", as it is grammatically, and semantically, more appropriate.41.160.162.144 (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 

message: Re the query in the following, viz.:
The works of Richard Hakluyt[4] contains an early[when?] written use of the term in English. He writes: calling them Cafars and Gawars (Ilitterate), which is, infidels or disbelievers.[5]
The passage referenced dates to July 1568 according to the source it derives from. See "The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation", Volume 4, p. 46 (for the quotation), and p. 44 (for its apparent date). Vancouveriensis (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: When?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kaffir (racial term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828044250/http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf to http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Kaffir (racial term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722234224/http://www.larri.com.na/research/pdf/Labour%20Rights%20Report.PDF to http://www.larri.com.na/research/pdf/Labour%20Rights%20Report.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907225621/http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/NationBuilding/Article.aspx?id=718421 to http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/NationBuilding/Article.aspx?id=718421
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/man-loses-appeal-over-k-word-1.1720142
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The pronunciation that's given is specifically for British English. To anyone who doesn't already know that, the pronunciation looks like it should be [KAF-uh]. Can someone please point this out through an edit, or change the pronunciation so it isn't just specific to British?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.151.63 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "kaffir" 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect K word. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Jalen Folf (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "K word" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In the early 20th century, Kaffirs was a common reference for South African mining shares traded on the LSE. People trading in these shares where called "Kaffir circus" also described in the Dictionary of South African English (here). Although nowdays considered derogative, the term made the headlines of the London Times and other notable newspapers of those days and ought to be mentioned here. Yotwen (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Stock Exchange