Remote Lookup Window   Dictionaries and Educational Resources   WordLink Contest   Words of the Week   Question of the Month   Sitemap   Tell Us What you Think!   Reviews & Accolades

Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus   Question for January, 1999: • Should Wordsmyth include "offensive" and "derogatory" terms in the thesaurus portion? • Should "offensive" and "derogatory" terms be included in the dictionary portion as headwords? (Responses from Wordsmyth Users)   On January 20, The New York Times reported that AOL (America Online) has removed the Merriam-Webster thesaurus from their site because it contained a word list for "homosexual" that contained references to "faggot", "fruit" and other offensive terms. (See excerpts from this article below) However, John McMullen, the reporter and talk-show host for the GAYBC Radio Network, who first raised the issue, didn't actually want Merriam-Webster to remove all of the offensive terms:   "I'm not entirely happy that they want to withdraw the word altogether. When I started this, we didn't do this because we wanted to censor any words. We just wanted them to be accurate in the words they used."   The question that is raised for discussion is whether The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus should include offensive and derogatory terms in its dictionary and thesaurus.   Submit your views and comments: 1. Email Address: Thank you!     January 20, 1999   Thesaurus Takes Action to Remove Gay Slurs   By DOREEN CARVAJAL   Merriam-Webster Inc., the nation's oldest and largest dictionary publisher, took steps Tuesday to remove references to homosexuals in its classic collegiate thesaurus amid complaints about a word list of offensive slurs and synonyms.   That action came after the 150-year-old Merriam-Webster company and American Online Inc. temporarily removed an on-line thesaurus on Friday that contained a word list for "homosexual" that included references to "faggot," "fruit" and "pederast."   "We very clearly had made a mistake and we wanted to get that mistake out of the hands of the public and in a position where we could start working on it very quickly," said Deborah W. Burns, marketing director for Merriam-Webster, which she said was a privately held company. "We knew that while a dictionary needs to be comprehensive, a thesaurus doesn't. We had a lot of unfair words, unfair terms."   ..........   The words finally drew new scrutiny from gay rights groups last week after a radio show host in Seattle used the on-line version of the thesaurus and E-mailed the results to a reporter at the GAYBC Radio Network, an Internet audio news service. The reporter, in turn, shared the list with a friend in Washington, who started raising alarms through the Internet, entreating others to send their complaints to Merriam-Webster.   "I was shocked on a number of fronts," said John Aravosis, who runs his own political Internet consulting company, Wired Strategies, out of Washington. "First of all, you're never happy to read 20 different ways that you're less than human. Secondly, I was shocked that they would use completely inaccurate words like 'pederast,' which essentially means pedophile. The only thing that wasn't defamatory was 'lesbian.' Everything else was words like 'nancy' or 'uranist.'"   ..............   On Monday, the company made the decision to excise references to homosexuals to be consistent with a longstanding policy of not offering entries for ethnic or racial minorities like Jews, blacks, or people of Hispanic descent because many of the synonyms were negative. And with that decision, it issued a written public apology that promised revisions.   ....................   "I'm happy that there won't necessarily be inaccurate descriptions," said John McMullen, a reporter and talk-show host for the GAYBC Radio Network, who first raised the issue. "I'm not entirely happy that they want to withdraw the word altogether. When I started this, we didn't do this because we wanted to censor any words. We just wanted them to be accurate in the words they used."   The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation praised Merriam-Webster's actions, noting that the group was starting to check reference guides circulated by other publishers.   "Now that we're starting to do more research, it's actually more prevalent than we thought," said Cathy Renna, a spokeswoman for the alliance. "It's really not just an issue of Merriam-Webster. We really have to look at how the definitions have evolved."        Responses to the Question of the Month:   • I would have to agree with John McMullen of the GAYBC Radio Network that these "offensive" or "derogatory" terms should be included but they should be accurate. Another term for homosexual is not pedarist, as a pedarist is a male or female, whether straight or gay, that has encounters with children and therefore cannot accurately describe homosexuals. Did they include the word pedarist for heterosexual ???Thankyou (scooter@netspace.net.au) • To sensor language is outrageous! (goconnell@lansystems.com.au) • "Should 'offensive' and 'derogatory' terms be included in the dictionary portion as headwords?" Yes. Of course. Censoring words in a dictionary is definitely one of the most ridiculous notions I've ever heard. Who are we to declare which words are offensive and which aren't? What's offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another. If there was a word in the dictionary that was clearly a derogatory term directed towards my personal characteristics or beliefs, I still would not want it censored. Because then, ultimately, we all lose. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing, and even though it has come under severe attack in recent years with outburts of disgustingly ignorant censorship, *no one* should believe that certain words belong "left out" of the dictionary. You might argue that they're negative words, and negative words have no place in a book so easily obtained by a child. But how is a word negative? For God's sake, it's a word. It's negative if you want to take it negatively. It makes no sense when someone says, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me," and then demands that WORDS be removed from a DICTIONARY. That's all I really have to say. Goodbye, Josh (josh@disinfo.net) • I think "offensive" and "derogatory" terms should be included in a dictionary as headwords, with appropriate usage labels. They are part of the language. Should they be in lists of synonyms and related words in a thesaurus? Perhaps; perhaps not, if the entry being looked up isn't "offensive" or "derogatory".... Perhaps there should be a specific way to search for related words that ADD derogatory connotations that aren't in the main term. (waksman@cis.upenn.edu)   • Removal or smoothing over of words offensive to someone or some group is nothing more than caving to the forces of censorship, pure and simple. If we took out all the words offensive to someone, between the Republicans, Democrats, neo-fascists, men, women, animals, and every other concerned group on and off planet, we wouldn't have a dictionary. If someone calls me a sonofabitch, I'd better be able to look it up somewhere, so I know what I'm being called. George Orwell would puke, were he to read about what has gone on with Merriam-Webster and AOL. Uh oh, is it O.K. to say "puke?" Horrors, is it O.K. to say O.K.? Pretty Ameri-centric of me, wouldn't you say? Merriam-Webster, you are now scratched off my credibility list. (emeraldsun@aol.com)   • Yes, if you can find the words being used by people, include them. (vickiejon@yahoo.com) • Wordsmyth and other dictionaries should serve a documentation function -- representing the language as it is, not the way we wish it would be. I do agree with the initial complaints, however. These words should be represented as derogatory. (danabar3@netscape.net) • I'd vote NO for these reasons: 1) On-line, there already exist plenty of websites dedicated to offensive/derogatory terms. Off-line, everyone is constantly exposed to these terms. 2) Why would we want to help people learn offensive/derogatory words? 3) If WEDT chooses not to censor words, some people may choose to censor WEDT. (parents for their children, people with some kind of "principle"...) It's not worth it. (tingyee@kodak.com) • Too often the most useful aspect of language seems lost in it's own context. Languages, probably English in particular, had been developed and refined up until the beginning of this century, with the goal of becoming an ever more succinct medium of communication. In order to accomplish this, it must be developed along a set of CONSTRUCTIVE guidelines with scholarly oversight, so it does not simply become a deteriorating compilation of slang developed by people who don't have enough respect for; not only the language, but the refinement of communication in general, to want to learn even it's basics.   We could soon loose the beauty of this language, if it is allowed to be polluted, and not consciously developed with purposeful intent.   NO, to all slang! YES, to the development of new words constructed along existing root lines. The base of the English language is more than broad enough, particularily with it's Latin roots, to be infinitely developed, with meaningful construction, as it is in the Sciences. That is why it is the World's language of choice; DEVELOPABILITY! ... should "regardlessly" be a word? THANK YOU, for the opportunity to express this. D.H.Waiter (please forgive the grammar) (SincroMedia@bfm.org) • Words, as with any piece of written literature or information, have basic and special protections against censorship. These protections were included in our constitution and bill of rights. Censorship in any way, shape, or form should not be permitted. Especially in reference books such as yours. Go Ahead and print the words. (Maybe in a special section in the back to keep the book-burners at bay) Even if they are only considered slang. We need a written record of all of the events on our planet. Even if they are profane. Are we perfect peopel ?? Absolutely Knot !! Let us show our imperfections to future generations. Jim Traill (orourke@net-link.net) • Fuck yes! Who should judge what is literature and what is shit. (wfk@ix.netcom.com) • No. I do not believe that Wordsmyth should use offensive and derogatory terms in your dictionary/thesaurus. (cash@tibco.com) • For heaven's sake! Is this a dictionary-thesaurus? If so, all words should be be included. Offensive words will not go away if unlisted. Further, they could be listed as offensive to some people. Faggot also means firewood, for instance. Keep up the good work, and don't let PC cripple what is an excellent resource. Best regards, Dave Miller (DaveMiller@aol.com) • I feel that offensive and derogatory terms should not be used in general use dictionaries. I understand that this makes it difficult to choose which words are offensive to which segments of a society, but I believe the effort and compromises are worthwhile. I feel that such terms need to be listed for research and purposes of understanding the communications of others but I feel they should be relegated to specialty dictionaries. As a service to the cause of uplifting society to ever higher levels of respectful and compassionate discourse and toward the cause of the eventual elimination of insult and derogation as a means of competing with and oppressing others, I hope that the day comes when such terms are eliminated from speech entirely. Descriptions of differences amongst people, and points of disagreement about issues are necessary for honest and meaningful discussion, as well as for the intellectual and moral growth of a society, but differences of opinion or person do not imply, nor do they ever necessitate insult or vulgarity. Let degrading, insulting, and vulgar terms live where they belong, separated from civilized discourse and conversation, in those places reserved for free speech in its most noxious forms, tabloids, drunken brawls and dictionaries of slang. Leave the rest of us in peace. Guard us and our children from stumbling across such abuses. Make us have to search for such affronts. We know how to access specialty dictionaries when necessary. Give us that choice. Thank You. (forness@cstone.net) • I think (as a gay person, homosexual, faggot, fruit, queer etc) that derogatory terms should be included and marked as such. Apart from being anti-censorship in general, I have a selfish interest: the Christian Right are running a very slick and effective conspiracy theory about "the homosexual agenda". There are two problematic ironies in this. The first irony is that they don't need to use any of the "offensive" and "derogatory" words to whip up fear and hatred. Words are merely symptoms of attitudes, and listing or not listing the offensive words won't change attitudes. The second irony is that they're trying to get gay people tagged as the censors (when of course the Christian Right is infinitely more censorious). I'd rather not play up to that or have you do it on my behalf. If, like me, you recognise the right of people to not read what they may find offensive, and to censor what their children read, then there's a right way and a wrong way to do it in this age of the Internet. The right way is to prepare a second, censored version of your site and list the unexpurgated version with SurfWatch and CyberPatrol. If you think that's too much trouble for the small amount of content involved, I would urge you to err on the side of free speech. I note that you have dictionary entries for "faggot" and "fruit" (properly tagged as offensive) but no links to them from "homosexual" or "gay". How about it? (maaku@ibm.net) • I believe we are fooling ourselves if people define words as only what is politically correct for the times. In a sense, the words we use and the context in which we use defines who we are. A dictionary is a testiment to that. It is not a normative collection of definitions because then the meaning is lost by those who would censor it. Therefore I would condemn those who would change meanings of words to suit their own moral stance. Having said that however, I am also not blind as to life span of slang. Slang changes so much sometimes, that depending on which year you use the term, you could say something completely different than what you meant. The so-called language of "ebonics" for example, is an ever changing and evolving language. If you were to write down a meaning for a word, it would have to be changed repeatedly because there is no set standard as of yet. Hence, I would not advocate writing the defintions of slang words until the word's meaning has stood the test of time. (Benjidagod@hotmail.com) • • •