I think the following question recently posted by a new user should be reopened:

The meaning the OP is looking for is not present in any available online dictionary. Apart from the Urban Dictionary (an unofficial source for ELU) which gives an unclear and somewhat confused definition, it seems that only Green’s Dictionary of Slang (a source that for some reason is not Googable) provides a more clear definition and origin.

  • 3
    It's reopened! Yay, good ole Sven. – Mari-Lou A Sep 18 '19 at 9:01
  • 4
    Just to explain why I voted to reopen: The question was (I believe) originally closed because it didn't show any evidence of research—a pro forma close reason that doesn't inquire into the value of the question itself but rather rejects the question before getting to the issue of value. In my view, when an answer subsequently shows evidence of research—as the question now does—the pro forma close reason is no longer valid and the question should be reopened until such time as another, substantively better close reason is put forward. ... – Sven Yargs Sep 18 '19 at 18:14
  • 5
    ... I fundamentally disagree with the thesis that only the original poster can legitimately cure a question's "no research" shortcoming. If a majority of EL&U participants believe that adding research to such questions amounts to presumptuous defacement, they should seriously consider taking away the power to edit other people's questions and answers altogether. After all, whenever an editor introduces a change to a post, he or she presumes that the change isn't undermining or misinterpreting the original poster's thinking in not having written the post that way in the first place. – Sven Yargs Sep 18 '19 at 18:14
  • 1
    @SvenYargs This involves broader S.E. standards, but more importantly, there's mediation in all things. Some edits simply amount to fixing typos. I doubt fixing small and obvious typos should be construed as changing the meaning, entirely rewriting a post will almost certainly change the meaning, and there are many different levels of interpretation inbetween. We have rollbacks for when things go too far, and what I think needs to be ensured is that our edits do not defeat the practical purposes for having any research standards in the first place. We'd be better off without them otherwise. – Tonepoet Sep 19 '19 at 18:40
  • 4
    @Tonepoet: Until someone demonstrates otherwise, I will hold to my view that the practical purpose of the "research standard" is to enable people to close questions that they think are cruddy without having to explain why they are cruddy (e.g., you could find the answer in a particular general reference work, or the question is too localized to be of interest to anyone but the poster, or the question has been asked a gajillion times on EL&U but the close-voter doesn't want to bother finding a relevant duplicate). I rarely find that the research shown in the word and phrase origin questions ... – Sven Yargs Sep 19 '19 at 20:06
  • 2
    ... that I'm especially interested in is of any practical use in simplifying, limiting, or directing the research I subsequently do to answer such questions. Instead, it's basically just a hoop that posters have to jump through in order to have their question taken seriously by reviews queue monitors, rather than being peremptorily rejected. I have seen many good questions closed for not showing research, even though the research would have added nothing of value to the question. Hence my hostility to the pro forma nature of the "show research" close reason. – Sven Yargs Sep 19 '19 at 20:06
  • @SvenYargs The intention is that people will do their own research and therefore not need to ask a significant proportion of the bad questions they ask now! – curiousdannii Sep 20 '19 at 6:22
  • 1
    @curiousdannii: And yet the most recent answer you posted on the main EL&U site was to a question—Are there any English words pronounced with sounds/syllables that aren't part of the spelling?—that showed no research and that you also voted to close (evidently on grounds that it was too broad). What was your thinking in posting an answer to that question instead of simply asking the poster to show his or her research? – Sven Yargs Sep 20 '19 at 7:00
  • 1
    @curiousdannii - we’ve been saying that for years, and despite DVs and CVS the portion of “bad” questions appears to have increased. In this specific case the “bad” question could easily turned into a good and interesting one. Even though you and other users dislike it anyway. BTW, you have been around for years but you have never, never asked one single question on ELU. Why don’t you try your hand at it. You might discover difficulties you are not still aware of. – user 66974 Sep 20 '19 at 7:12
  • @SvenYargs Just chasing after those sweet juicy points like everyone else. But that question's no where near as bad as so many others. – curiousdannii Sep 20 '19 at 7:12
  • @user067531 Yes, the subject matter of this question could easily form the foundation of a new good interesting question. Just don't vandalise the OP's question with your fake research. And there have been many times when I've intended to ask a question, but I did my due diligence and found an answer first. Are you going to fault me for not wasting your time with more lazy unresearched questions? – curiousdannii Sep 20 '19 at 7:15
  • 1
    @curiousdannii - why do you think that Merriam Webster provides fake information? – user 66974 Sep 20 '19 at 7:43

This isn't really the best question in the world. A major point against it is that it opens up based on a false premise that wong can be used as a legitimate alternative to wrong. However, it would probably be more appropriate to fix this through a comment recommending the removal of extraneous information, or pontificating upon the point in an answer explaining the discrepancy between the intended meaning and the actual signification.

However, I see no reason why it should be closed. It is not a general reference question for reasons user067531 explained in what seems to be a now deleted post regarding politeness. Granted, the question did not originally provide research, but that defect is fixable with an edit which had been appplied.

Normally, I would be against a third party adding research for similar reasons to CuriousDanni, since I would presume it would prejudice the answers by foreclosing upon possible answers, and because of the risk of a problematic answer being accepted. Indeed, I think the problematic answer has been accepted and it is an answer that is readily available in a Google search. However, there are reasons why I find this case to be exceptional:

One is that this is one of those cases where I suspect that even if the appropriate proceedure had been followed, that it would not have changed the result. The few readily accessible and reliable dictionaries which accept wong as a word, which is mostly just restricted to the Merriam-Webster series, refer to a presently unused definition.

As of this writing, The Free Dictionary only cites an older public domain Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is something The Free Dictionary only does when its usual sources like Random House, Collins, or the American Heritage Dictionary are lacking information. Lexico, which I presume to be the most likely dictionary to be used, has no results for the word at all.

The only readily avaiable reference work which attempts to give it an offensive meaning is Urban Dictionary, and it is anybody's guess as to whether the information on Urban Dictionary is actually accurate or not in the first place, so I do not count that as a general reference resource. Indeed, if I had to guess I would suppose that this is one of those Urban Dictionary listings, which is deliberately inaccurate. Even if The Urban Dictionary had been consulted, asking here may have been merely a method of seeking reaffirmation.

Now Green's dictionary is certainly reliable enough to be general reference when it can be readily consulted, but it is not readily found enough, so it fits into Stack Exchange's goal of proliferating obscure information through the use of Google as a search engine. Indeed, when I check google now, this is the last result on the first page is now this question.

The other, and much more important, reason is that because out of the General Reference dictionaries, not one of them actually gives an answer regarding why the word would be offensive. Fields are not inherently offensive, and the word is not marked as derogetory within that meaning, but rather just simply obsolete. Referencing Merriam-Webster should not influence which answer is considered most acceptable to anybody. Although "changing the meaning of a question" is prohibited by editing guidelines, I fail to see how this edit can be construed to do that, and "adding related links and resources" is an otherwise acceptable reason to edit a post.

It also should be noted that although I believe the wrong answer is accepted, that an accepted answer is not necessarily the right answer, and even if the advised proceedures had been followed by the questioner, it is very much possible that the question would be in the same state it is now.

Now personally, I have a slight disagreement with MariLou A. Despite the lack of attestation, I think the reasons wong is considered offensive would generally be considered common knowledge. It is basically one of many euphemisms for penis, and something of a combination of schlong and wang, and despite its euphemistic status, the intended playerbase for roblox is just so young that even euphemistic language and minced oaths may be objectionable to some people. We are talking about "Ha, you said underwear" levels of maturity here. I think this may be the main resistance to reopening the question.

Nevertheless, there is a lack of readily documentation regarding this subject matter, and considering the purposes of the Stack Exchange Network, I believe Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky would have wanted an answer to exist on the Stack Exchange network, because answering this question makes the internet a better place, which is very much the main goal of the network, as mentioned by Joel and Jay Hanlon. At the very best, keeping this question closed seems to be letting one bad apple spoil the whole bunch, and even though I think that is a very bad reason to keep a question closed in and of itself, it even lacks a correctional effect on user behavior, since the questioner's acceptance of an answer suggests personal satisfaction even if things stay as they are.

Now perhaps this is not an expert level question on the level of what linguists and etymologists would find interesting, but even if not, that is very much supposed to be why we have English Language Learners. Everybody has to learn something a first time, and with the provided research, I do believe that this question should at least meet their minimum requirements with the edit in place.

In any case, I already voted to reopen the question when I read user067531's other post. We can sort out which site it's better suited for later, if it's reopened.

  • 2
    Except it’s NOT a euphemism for penis. Not with any currency (I don’t mean recency; I mean popularity). The word which looks like “wong” means “penis” is “wang”. The reason reasonable research didn’t turn up evidence the word is offensive is because it is not offensive. The question is closed bc it turns on a false premise; it is “too localized”, it will never help anyone else again bc no one will ask it because the incidents of someone telling an ELL “wong” is offensive are all but nil. The answers which claim is is offensive are wrong: that invites such is another signal for closure. – Dan Bron Sep 17 '19 at 23:15
  • 3
    @DanBron So we disagree upon just about everything then, except perhaps the point that it isn't commonly used. Well, that's your perrogative, but please keep in mind that common use is just one factor, and even if your assertions are true, that too localized is no longer a valid closure reason in and of itself, questions being based upon false premises never was to my knowledge, and that if you are right about wong being invalid despite evidence to the contrary, that you could try to make your case. It should be expected on a Q. & A. website that the answerers know better than the questioners. – Tonepoet Sep 18 '19 at 4:37

When someone asks a question it's imperative that they provide their own research. Only they know what they've read, what they haven't. Only they know what options they've tried and found inadequate.

You added in research the OP never indicated they read. How does that help anyone? Why didn't you add in the research you posted in your answer? Because then there'd be no point in having your answer. I consider your edit to be fraudulent, and I'm suspicious of your motives, seeing as you have an answer to that question. To be above board you should have edited in all the research you did, not a token link to one dictionary.

  • This comes from a new user..have you ever been a new user? And how did you feel when the slammed the door on your face?? – user 66974 Sep 17 '19 at 5:37
  • 3
    @user067531 The close reason tells them exactly what they should do. Just because someone's new doesn't mean they can't be lazy and rude. Questions here need to show their research. Being new is no excuse. – curiousdannii Sep 17 '19 at 5:38
  • And what about the be nice, be helpful CoC with special regard to new users? On top of that the question is a valid and interesting one. It shouldn’t be wasted just for excessive adherence to rules. – user 66974 Sep 17 '19 at 5:38
  • 3
    @user067531 Closing questions because they do not meet the site standards has never been in violation of the code of conduct. If someone was to insult the OP that would be a problem. – curiousdannii Sep 17 '19 at 5:40
  • 2
    If you think it's okay to edit research into a question, then please edit in all of the research you did. – curiousdannii Sep 17 '19 at 5:41
  • 2
    All the researched I did is explained in my edit. No official online dictionary defines the derogatory meaning of wong. M-W is just an example from a good source. – user 66974 Sep 17 '19 at 5:45
  • 2
    @user067531 Your answer was written before your edit to the question, so no, the question doesn't contain all the research you did! – curiousdannii Sep 17 '19 at 5:51
  • 1
    What are you talking about? Is a new user supposed to familiar with Green’s Dictionary of Slang? My edit refers to easily available online sources, just what you would expect from a someone new to the site. – user 66974 Sep 17 '19 at 5:53
  • 3
    @user067531 If you're going to do research on behalf of the OP, then you should add all the research you did. Otherwise what's the point? If you don't, then you're clearly just adding some meaningless token research in order to reopen the question. This is all so pointless. Your answer's still there. The question's not going to be auto-deleted. Just let it stay closed. – curiousdannii Sep 17 '19 at 6:13
  • 1
    @curiousdannii you're slightly mistaken. A closed question with a negative score and no answers will be deleted automatically by the system. If any of the answers posted are deleted, for whatever reason, the negative scored question will be automatically deleted. If none of the posted answers earn a positive score, the OP will be automatically deleted. So, keeping an on-topic question open is adding a protective layer of shield. – Mari-Lou A Sep 17 '19 at 7:16
  • 3
    @user067531in my opinion, you should have commented 'Please look at a dictionary and tell us what you find'. The OP would have seen the field/meadow definition, and could have extended their question. As it stands, it's like you broke into their house and started moving the furniture, which isn't a lot more helpful than a 'please include your reseach' close reason. – marcellothearcane Sep 17 '19 at 11:33
  • @Mari I was assuming the existing answers wouldn't be deleted, there's no reason for them to be, and that they won't acquire lots of down votes. – curiousdannii Sep 17 '19 at 12:02
  • Well the last time I looked, the accepted answer has a positive score of zero, and we all know that user067531 has a track record of deleting their answers, even answers that have been upvoted. The question is currently -3, so the odds are stacked against it. – Mari-Lou A Sep 17 '19 at 12:05
  • @Mari I didn't actually know they have a track record of doing that. So you're right, it's possible the question could go away in the future, but only if people take actions leading to it. – curiousdannii Sep 17 '19 at 12:10
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA - We all know? Well, I'll add this to the overwhelming list of things everybody else knows, and I ought to know.... – aparente001 Sep 18 '19 at 17:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .