Talk:Golliwog

Etymology

On 8th November 2011 the Golliwog was the subject of BBC Radio 4's "Richard Herring's Objective" [1]. Ir was suggested by guest Sarah Wood, curator of the V&A Museum of Childhood, that the name nay have dervied from the word "polliwog" (meaning tadpole). This seems to be supported by such sources as this. Should this be added? 109.153.206.136 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The origins of the golliwogg predates children’s stories.

Golliwog History

The Origins and History of Golliwogs began during the British occupation of Egypt in the late 1800’s, Egyptian workers wore the letters W.O.G.S signifying that they were Working On Government Service. These labourers were nicknamed Ghuls (the Arabic word for Desert Ghost) by the British Troops.

Children in Egypt played with black stuffed material dolls, nicknamed Ghuliwogs, which were often purchased by the soldiers returning to England. This name would eventually become the Golliwogs we know today. 83.168.60.33 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like you have copied that text from somewhere else. Where? Could it be a useful source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I doubt you will getting a source. This seems to be a piece of fiction being distributed by various far-right groups in the UK over Twitter and Facebook, seemingly in an effort to allow them to continue to offend without being accused of hate crimes. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That's extremely unhelpful, and possibly a more bigoted view than those that belong to the people you are attacking. I have seen a very similar story long in the past here in Australia, from people who are definitely NOT far-right, just lovers of golliwogs, with no racist overtones at all. Leaping straight into attack mode as you just did, is not an effective way to defeat racism. This story of the name is not a new one. I am genuinely interested in where it came from. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Move? 2011

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Would not a move to 'golliwog' be in order? It's the more common spelling both in the article and here on the talk page. I'm old enough to have had one as a child (no, I didn't associate it with black people either) and I'd never seen the -gg version before. Rothorpe (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll move it soon, and begin to standardise the spelling. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Move option is unavailable (but not here on the talk page). Anyone know why? Rothorpe (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I Object! or at least, I would suggest leaving the article name as it is - and "Gollywog" as a redirect. "Gollywogg" was the original spelling, after all, with the final "g" only dropped later. It seems a fair bit of work to move it, for no great benefit. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, an objection at last. Don't worry, it's impossible to move it. There is a redirect. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Looked to move it again, but then a hunch led me here. Still seems the wrong spelling. Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Golliwogg → Golliwog – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Google returns 416,000 results for golliwog but only 112,000 for golliwogg. As well, the article text uses the single g spelling. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely the common spelling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tendentious and / or erroneous statements

1. The eyes of the golliwog are not rimmed in white. They are simply white eye-balls with an iris in the middle of it, and infrequently the iris is at the rim of the eye-balls.

2. The golliwog has red lips. Did Upton ever say that they were clown's lips? If so, please present a reference for that assertion.

3. None of the assertions that the golliwog is a rag doll in the minstrel tradition is supported by references. I very much doubt that it is. Upton herself stated that it was a gnome. As far as I know, gnomes do not have anything to do with the minstrel tradition. Dirk Bontes (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

regarding 2, I changed clown lips to red lips, that is indeed more accurate. --Hannolans (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I've added the POV template to the article because it doesn't appear to be neutral on modern controversies about the golliwog; rather, it seems to be advancing an editorial argument that criticisms of the character are a modern overreaction.

I think The Story of Little Black Sambo is a good example of a similar subject that's handled more neutrally in its article. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Have removed some statements that were too POV and requested citations, seems page is vandalised by "edits" a few times. Pineapplepineapple (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Was 'golly' a term of blasphemy?

I have heard from a clergy person leading a bible study in 2000 that 'golly' was an interjection that originated in blasphemous oaths )ie 'God-something-me'), to the surprise of at least one person who thought it arose in conncection with the golliwog. Any published sources support this? This would make the golliwog an even more offensive motif considering many black people (eg West Indians) are devout Christians.Cloptonson (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Giving false balance to minority/fringe view they're not racist

@HiLo48: (re: these diffs). I've read broadsheet newspapers state that golliwogs are "racist dolls" etc. without clarification/attribution. It seems unnecessary to me to say they're considered "by some" to be racist, per WP:GEVAL we should say they are "widely considered/generally considered [to be a racist caricature of black Africans]". I'm not arguing we should call them racist in wikivoice; obviously there's a minority view they are not racist. But I'm pretty confident this is a small minority view -- I think it's clear they're considered unacceptably racist in modern society, as the British Conservative party has suspended politicians for posing with them. Academic literature also has no quibbles: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpcu.12042. Meanwhile, we have a Ghanaian grandmother being added to support the fringe counter-argument, sourced to The Times (how the mighty have fallen, since Murdoch bought the paper its quality/reptuation has dived off a cliff) and a local paper. I believe this addition is WP:UNDUE. Jr8825 • Talk 10:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's poor form to write that unclarified statement in Wikivoice. Seeing them as always racist is simply NOT an absolute thing. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe "considered to be racist" in wikivoice is perfectly acceptable (this was the previous wording, without the undue qualification "by some", which misleadingly implies that the opposing view -- that golliwogs aren't racist -- is equally valid/widespread). "Considered" demonstrates that historians, journalists and other authorities agree that the golliwog is a racialised toy widely seen as a racist symbol. I'm fine with "widely/generally considered" also. It wouldn't be OK calling it racist in wikivoice -- but this article didn't do this, and I'm not suggesting it should. Jr8825 • Talk 12:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I could go along with "widely considered". HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and amend the wording to that then. Please let me know if you have other thoughts/concerns. Jr8825 • Talk 02:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)