Talk:Nerd

not sure if all the media listed under "old media" actually fits that definition maybe split it?

That section links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_media but then a number of the listed media are post-internet. As in actually debuted post-internet not just continued on. Kind of a low level issue but we are all being proudly "obsessive" here on wikipedia right?

list of related articles has barely related or unrelated pages in the list

"Girly girl" page for example. How does that relate? Because it is a stereotype? Given the lack of every stereotype related page not being listed here, I think that is off and should be removed. Listing the page for Stereotype is enough. If there is some kind of page for women's relationship to the label nerd and nerd culture that could be good. There is definetly enough material on the relationship of sex and this cultural phenomena in both media and in studies of real world dynamics.

Either as a linked page or added to this article. Topics could include how female nerds in particular are/were treated and how women and girls are typically treated and perceived by male nerds, whether the women and girls nerds themselves or not. That has changed over time in some ways and remained the same in others so documenting that would be good.

find a different page to link for "obsessive" other than "fixation"

It seems to me that the fixation page is of pretty low quality, and the type of obsession or obsessive personality trait meant here is something else anyway. Is there a better page to link to? Obsessive compulsive disorder? The page for Compulsive Behavior? Or mabye the fixation page could be expanded and improved. I am thinking bringing in psychology and research beyond and unrelated to Freud is particularly important. Cultural portrayals or references to the idea and connections to modern psychological diagnoses and personality theory too.

I would love to just switch it myself but I am currently just an IP user. If I have time I may try and improve the Fixation page too but I thought it would be a good idea to leave a note here.

Nerd in other cultures

Someone told me that there, for example, no way to translate the word into Russian or possibly some other languages, or there isn't any kind of concept like that. Made me wonder if it's mainly american Canadian, etc. I'm wondering if some other countries don't have a social stigma/it's not socially undesirable for someone to pursue "nerdy" pursuits, video games, RPG's, comic books, Japan comes to mind though they have something called an Otaku, but wonder if they are more accepting. The snare (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The closest translation of otaku is obsessive creep. It is more derogatory than calling someone a nerd in English today. Although it is generally spplied more specifically to the fandoms of anime but not the science or computer enthusiasts.

Most notably

many "nerdy" people (most notably Bill Gates)

— An editor, Nerd#Nerd pride

I disagree with this. Bill Gates is a billionaire, not exactly a man who devotes himself to science. Also, a source is needed to verify if he is a "nerd". It seems too much like a personal opinion, so I think it should be removed. Λίνουξ (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not he devotes himself to science is besides the point here (many engineers, for example, don't either), but I agree that it sounds like an opinion rather than fact, especially since it's not specified in the source. I went ahead and removed it. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 13:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Earliest use - prior to Seuss?

Well, here's an interesting thing... I was just doing some hunting for sources on Coan ki when I came across this use of the word - dating from 1694! (scroll down to the text next to the last image, or just Ctrl+F and search for "nerd"...) It seems legitimate (the original text is available online here, if you have access to Adam Matthew), so I'm wondering whether it's worth including in the etmology section. From the context of the passage, it would seem that the word is used to mean "laborer", though that's a guess on my part; I haven't been able to find any etymological source that would indicate what "nerd" meant back in the seventeenth century (or even in 1889, when this source was published). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as an adjunct to the above - Nerdiludium (which was rendered by Culin as "Nerd Game") would appear to be alternative Latin name for either backgammon or ludus duodecim scriptorum (see Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). Gibbon claims it's of Persian origin, which suggests in this case "Nerd" is a variant of Nard. Looks to me as though my thinking above is incorrect - "Nerd" in this usage refers to the game of Nard, not to labourers or any other specific group of people. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the Army

2601:9:B80:B0B:803B:F585:861F:91EA's addition that nerd dates to at least 1943 appears to be correct, Though the word used is nerdy, and from context it wasn't used in the way we mean today. It describes a list of trades, plumber, printer, farmer, plumber as nerdy guys. This would seem to match User:Yunshui's observation above that the word meant labourer.

• http://www.lyricsmania.com/ladies_of_the_chorus_lyrics_irving_berlin.html ladies of the chorus lyrics
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036430/soundtrack soundtrack of This is the Army
• http://free-classic-movies.com/movies-04b/04b-1943-08-14-This-is-the-Army/index.php This is the Army

Again from context but the word would seem to be in use prior to 1943.--KTo288 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost a decade old, but I tracked the film down myself and yes, it is legitimate. They do call themselves 'nerdy', around an hour and seven minutes in. Don't understand why this was removed.--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Date, form "gnurd"

There's an interesting comment on this on my Talk page from someone who used "gnurd" at MIT in the 1960s; I had deleted his unsourced addition. I won't copy what is technically a message for me without the author's permission (I encourage him to copy his information and my response here), but it's worth a look. Useful for the article if a source can be found (and if it gets added without source I personally will leave it in). Pol098 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Njord or Nerthus

I just wonder, if the word Nerd is related to the name of the Norse / Germanic Njörðr. Who is longing for sea, but check it out yourself. --197.228.20.186 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Egghead term

I put "Egghead" as a linked article in the "See also" section and it was removed due to lack of sources. I'm pretty sure sources aren't required for "see also" links.--206.255.42.17 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A source is required for anything that is challenged. Otherwise anyone could add any link to a "See also" section no matter how absurd. Everyone doesn't agree with what you see as a relationship between the terms. So source it or leave it out. Sundayclose (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Source needed

1:

I know this has been used in a few videos on yt, just have little chance of finding an example.

In fact, the name their fans have adapted reflects the popularity of this nerdy subculture, "Nerdfighters" or "Nerdfighteria."

Matthias291999 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome section

I think the article should say that there is a correlation between asperger and nerd, the article used to say that.Granito diaz (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently the article says that.

I'm here to disagree. I've translated this text into Russian, and decided to remove this part altogether, firstly adding a disstatement about "nerdiness does not necessarily indicate a medical condition".

Also, the current source of this statement is rather poor. We see an opinion of one psychologist who explicitly claims nerdiness is autism. This is dubious. No "correlation" word mention in the source even.

See also https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/articles/200807/field-guide-the-nerd-its-all-geek-me - here the author says that nerdiness isn't a disorder, and it's important to me, I think. See also parody: https://everythingstudies.com/2017/11/07/the-nerd-as-the-norm/ (not a reliable source). While the Psychology Today article seems to support the idea of a correlation, it's not even a scientific study like correlating the NPAS test and AQ test, it's a journalistic article. Also, none of the source mention the "correlation" word. As for non-support of nerd-Asperger's correlation, I've seen some opinions, but not on RS sources.

There is a correlation between techical specialities, math competitions participation and AQ score, as can be seen in an AQ article. However, it should mentioned in this way only, I think, for neutrality (?), as the autism cutoff on AQ is 26, and 25 is technically "a little not enough for diagnosis". Also the nerd stereotype wasn't used directly in that study...

Maybe my disagreement with the statements has to do something with local differences about the stereotype (in Russia, it's botanik), in local differences about psychiatrical disorders perceptions (it's less of a difference, and more of a problem that in the West).

Regarding harm, the stereotype of an Asperger's geek can be harmful both to people who were diagnosed, and for non-diagnosed nerds. However, it's not related to Wikipedia in any way, because nothing is removed from here in ground of harm.

If I would edit it, I would add that nerdiness does not necessary indicate a psychiatrical medical condition. Unfortunately, it's semi-protected, and I can't edit the article. Also Asperger's was merged into "Autism Spectrum Disorder" and must be removed to reflect ICD-11, at least. Also, E-S theory of ASD on which the Psychology Today article is partly based is controversial or, at least, not the only one. SomeoneIsAnEditor (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nerd. 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/20080131223744/http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v04/0074.html to http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v04/0074.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve Urkel

It says in the article that Steve Urkel from Family Matters was in the Revenge of The Nerds movie. Is that true?2607:FCC8:66CA:1400:7810:BBB7:83B9:31EC (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the article says. "However, after the Revenge of the Nerds movie franchise (with multicultural nerds), and the introduction of the Steve Urkel character on the television series Family Matters..." The statement is noting Urkel's appearance in Family Matters. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nerd. 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/20160101085415/http://www.luminomagazine.com/mw/content/view/341/10/ to http://www.luminomagazine.com/mw/content/view/341/10/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism protection

Too much vandalism lately; I've requested semi-protection. Mathglot (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2020

Essays published in longer works are supposed to have quotation marks, not italics. Please change ''Race, Sex, and Nerds: From Black Geeks to Asian American Hipsters'' to "Race, Sex, and Nerds: From Black Geeks to Asian American Hipsters". 108.39.223.134 (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? Except for a bot edit a month ago, the page hasn't been edited since September, and it's still in italics as of the current revision of the article. I'm referring to the appearance in the "Stereotype" section, not the citation to it that follows. 108.39.223.134 (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, per MOS:MINORWORK. Thanks for pointing this out. Sundayclose (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

May I strongly suggest you include in this article a Nerd Venn Diagram to clarify the significant features of Nerds, Geeks, Dweebs and Dorks. for an example.

As a nerd I feel it brings clarity to what I bring to an issue that a geek, dork, or dweeb may not.

The key features of a nerd personality are the Technical Intelligence, Obsession and Social Ineptitude as is made plane in the published nerd venn diagram.

I feel the later is the result of our not being able to 'see' the body language of other people.

Controversial: I do not expect you to include this material until AFTER I publish Das Nerdal.

In writing my book Das Nerdal, that posits the limiting factor on economic production is now the supply of nerds (as yet Unpublished) I've extended this into 3 dimensions and placed it on a sphere and added antipodal to each of the three main properties in the 2D nerd venn diagram their opposite personality feature. They are: Technical Intelligence antipodal to Instinctive Intelligence, Charisma antipodal to Social Ineptitude, and Aimlessness antipodal to Obsession.

Also absent from this article is any discussion of why nerds come into existence, and why they are not being hammered out of existence in western culture (why we are NOT being excluded from good jobs, and the gene pool as we were in China until 2000 ). This however is likely beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article.

Needless to say this item will be cited in the book, and any references in it read, if not used.

My big worry is there is some other factor in there other than those six.

Thank you for your time in reading this. Ironwood.Edward (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is no evidence that the diagram has any notability or that it has any valid relationship to the concept of "nerd". Your private conversations are not a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Semantic drift statement contradicts claims in "Geek" entry

The main entry for "Geek" makes claims of semantic drift/reclamation similar to those made here, but here it is explicitly stated that this transformation has not taken place for "geek". The reference is from 2005. Maybe it would be better not to take a position on this, given that it's clearly controversial and only peripherally relevant to the "Nerd" entry. Thoughts? Osticleman (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Social *status* would be the better word

In the "Bullying" section, it says:

> Individuals who are labeled as "nerds" are often the target of bullying due to a range of reasons that may include physical appearance or social background.[21]

"Social status" would be the most appropriate word here. "Background" would be more appropriate for something like "ethnic background."

98.113.134.196 (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Term geek did not have a positive drift?

Contradicts the "geek"-entry. Don't have a real source for it but people naming their websites boardgamegeek or something similar speaks of a positive meaning. 2A02:908:C31:9400:4132:355C:A420:5FEE (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2022

Hi, there's a nice source to add to the reference to the use of "gnurd" at MIT in the 70's: the MIT Museum has a picture of a Gnurd Crossing sign: https://webmuseum.mit.edu/media.php?module=subjects&type=popular&kv=147&media=76 Keystone77 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sundayclose (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest immediately following reference [16] (ie ...1965.[16]...) add this new reference: (Btw if there's anything I can do to be more helpful in this pls let me know, I'm new to this. Thanks.) Never mind - since I was upgraded to Autoconfirmed user I made the edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone77 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Creating a list of fictional characters

There have been numerous characters in fiction over the years that have used the "Nerd" or "Geek" character trope. I want to compile a list of all of these in a separate article. There is already such a list for the "Tomboy" character trope, so I will model this list after that one. But first I need a red link that I can follow to create the list. But since this page is protected, I need someone with access to create that link for me. Henrik242E (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Is your intention to create, essentially, "List of nerds in popular culture"? If so, then I have grave concerns that such a list would require frequent monitoring to prevent vandalism and unsourced or improperly researched additions. I'd also recommend thinking about what your selection criteria would be for that list, because "someone called them a nerd once", for instance, would be pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Especially given that you're a new editor, I'm not sure that you appreciate the implications of this idea, and suggest that you discuss it with other editors and plan out the form such a list would take rather than charging ahead with it. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the character would have to be referred to as a nerd in an official character description, I.E. no newspapers, reviewers, youtubers etc. I could also request protection against vandalism, as is done with this article, but I will need some guidance on that. As I said, the article will be modeled after List of tomboys in fiction. What more do you think needs to be figured out before I can start? Besides, I really cannot start without the approval of someone with access (whom I assume know more about this than I do). PS: I have to go to bed now (it's 9:30 where I am), so I can't reply until tomorrow afternoon. Henrik242E (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles aren't typically protected until there's a demonstrated need for it, though granted in this case that might happen fairly quickly. If you just want the list to be a list of fictional characters whom the creators have described as nerds (versus reliable sources in general), that narrows the scope significantly...significantly enough that I have some doubts as to whether you're going to find a good number of characters with reliable sources to back up the claims. I think your best option might be to start with a WP:DRAFT of the article, though other editors may feel differently. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the list of tomboys i have been referring to, and found that it uses many unofficial sources, if any at all, and that a few of the claims were a bit far-fetched. I also took a look at official sources for characters that were quite obviously nerds, and it was hard to find evidence with these restrictions unless "He is really smart" or "He has many geeky interests" could count as evidence. I do not think creating this article is feasible, unless we are a little lenient when it comes to claims and sources. Henrik242E (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd taken a look at that list as well, and if I was more invested I'd be going through and trying to clean up the unsourced items and such, because while a lot of it looks alright, there's definitely room for improvement there (might be a good use of your time if you're suitably motivated!). I think if you get lenient with the wording you're going to attract arguments along the lines of "Hey, he was called a geek, not a nerd!"; a more general characterization might work to moot that concern, but I'm not really sure what form that would take.

In any event, I certainly appreciate your interest in contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope this hasn't been too discouraging for you! DonIago (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think i will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but I do not think I want to create this list anymore. Henrik242E (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it would definitely be an uphill battle, especially for a newer editor. DonIago (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I can come back to it when i have more experience, though that may be as far into the future as 2023. Henrik242E (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)