At 10:01 AM 6/9/2003, you wrote:
I would express a concern about the title. "Ethnic" is certainly more
comprehensive than "racial", so that part is a clear improvement. On the
other hand I find "slurs" to be more POV than "epithets". I see a
need to
maintain a perspective of time. What may be a slur to-day may not always
have been so. When the Doukhobors were given that name it was intended as
a slur by the Tsarists; eventually they assumed the name themselves and
the pejorative nature of the word dropped away. Contrariwise, black
Americans were once called "colored", and that term was generally accepted
in its time. It has since evolved away from acceptability, but it was
certainly an improvement over "nigger".
Eclecticology
Well, the problem here is that there are two terms in common usage, ethnic
slur and racial epithet. While I suppose you are correct that ethnic
epithet would be more NPOV than either of the other two, it would be a
contrived phrase that would not show up if someone was doing a search on
the topic (as they will type in racial epithet or ethnic slur). Aside from
that, I think the way to handle your issue in the article (that not all
slurs have always been so, and vice versa) is simply to add a note to those
words for which it is relevant.
-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321