Talk:Whitelist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gladlist & Sadlist?

I really wish Gladlist & Sadlist were used instead of Whitelist & Blacklist.

I manage the SPAM filtering for my company, and lemme tell you: Having to tell the black person that I can add their colleague from another organization's email address to our Whitelist of 'good' emailers that aren't subjected to SPAM filtering is a special moment. Same for telling about the Blacklist we use to block email bad people we don't allow to send mail to us.

I wound up renaming them in-house, but I wish we could steer ourselves away from it in our language.

Wouldn't be justifiable to put mention of these alternatives it in the article page since they're nowhere near significantly used (only 3 hits for gladlist on google), but figured I'd whine about it here on the discussion page in the hopes of getting the notion seen a little.

-Pfwebadmin 19:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well... a totally unscientific straw poll of half a dozen black colleagues at work (Birmingham, England) to whom I mentioned your comment produced the following: one "I don't mind blacklist, but I think 'sadlist' is a great word!"; three in the category of "I'm not really bothered either way", and two along the lines of "it's political correctness gone mad!". None of them were in the least offended by "blacklist", and one of the two I mentioned at the end was actually quite offended by the "tokenism" he saw in the idea of changing it! Loganberry 13:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Another alternative is to use "green light list", and then presumably "yellow light list" and "red light list" or red,green,yellow list; while not as widely used as whitelist/blacklist, google shows some usage, and several antivirus programs incorporate the color or icon scheme of stoplights if not the actual terms. The yellow list also offers some flexibility not present in the black/white schema (graylist?) -dialectric

Imo it is indeed political correctness gone mad Towel401 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also heard the term "Safelist" to be used in place of Whitelist. I too have had issues around diversity with respect to use of whitelist. Pgs1 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Only in America would people be offended by the words "blacklist" or "whitelist"... PC gone mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.131.179 (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 203.206.131.179 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. It seems someone whose mind has been poisoned by the notion of "Political Correctness" wrote this crap-for-an-article. This form of mental illness is perfectly illustrated by the comments of Pfwebadmin and Pgs1, above. I've been involved with computing since the early 1970s, and until I stumbled on this Wikipedia article had never seen such a collection of drivel over the terms "whitelist" and "blacklist". It starts with the lead section, wherein "controversy" is assigned to the word from the outset, where there is none. From an etymological standpoint, none of this garbage can be supported or substantiated by reputable sources. This article violates Wikipedia NPOV principles from beginning to end. The article either needs a re-write or should simply be deleted. Since it's just a word, it can probably be handled better as a simple entry in Wiktionary, anyway.
I beg to differ with your "Only in America" assessment, however. The spelling in the lead section and various places throughout the article is British, not American English. It was most likely primarily the work of Wikipedians from the U.K. — Quicksilver^{T @} 15:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out the other potential implication from a scientific standpoint: If something is purely white, then every wavelength of light is shown (thus, completely unrestricted). Whereas if it is completely black, then no light is allowed whatsoever(complete blocking of all wavelengths). Shouldn't that be enough to remove this insane Neutrality tag? It is not, nor has it ever been about hateful speech, anyway! --KentigernEnnis (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On moving to "Whitelist"

I was going to move this page to "Whitelist" because Google generates 503,000 hits for "white list" and 2,190,000 for whitelist. However, after tweaking the quotations marks I found that white list (no quote marks) gets 267,000,000 hits, so I am going to leave the page here. CrypticBacon 05:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

On moving to "Whitelist"

Searching for white list (no quotes) on Google yields a lot of irrelevant results, such as Mr. White's Listmania on Amazon. The comparison between "white list" and whitelist is a much more accurate comparison of usage. I suggest that this article be moved to Whitelist instead.

Requested move

White list → Whitelist – Whitelist seems to be more common according to Google and it would match blacklist. -- Kjkolb 07:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support km5 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from White list to Whitelist as the result of a move request.

Recent Feb 2009 tags

Recently this page has been tagged for several reasons. Some of the reasons for tagging maybe appropriate but tagging this article 'to counter systemic bias' seems a bit strange when considering the articles content. I would like to help improve this article but would like to discuss the reasoning for the tags first. Mike (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How to whitelist my ipaddress

In wikipedia whenever i place an external link, my link is removed. Help me know the exact reason. My link url:www.brooklyntroy.com/blog. Is this url blacklisted, If so how to whitelist my ip address or url? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.197.234 (talk • contribs)

This is the article about whitelists. If you want to view the Wikipedia blacklist and whitelist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist --HamburgerRadio (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove Goodmail=

They went bankrupt in 2011. Also might mention that Returnpath operates the largest whitelist in the world. 208.87.137.231 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2018

The following is a closed 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: moved. See both local support and community consensus (AT policy cited) for this page move. Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Whitelist → Whitelisting – To keep consistent with the polar opposite subject, Blacklisting. Alternatively, Blacklisting could be moved to blacklist. ToThAc (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose But support moving Blacklisting to Blacklist, since all of the child articles are in the noun form._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose But support alternative as per ZXCVBNM. Shadow007 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support We use WP:NOUNs for titles, and this article is not explicitly talking about specific blacklist or whitelist, its talking about the practice of making a blacklist. The current title and alternate proposal would use this as a verb, which is something we can only use (per WP:NOUN) if we use the gerund form (-ing), per articles like swimming or the similar concern raised at the RM recently at tiger parenting. -- Netoholic @ 12:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Netoholic, mostly. "Swim" in the sense of "take a swim" and "whitelist" in the sense of "he's on the whitelist" are both nouns, but "whitelisting" and "swimming" are gerund forms and thus conform to our rules. As Netoholic says, the encyclopedia topic here is the practice of making the list. Dekimasuよ! 01:29, 9 March 2018 (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.

Blacklisted

Extended content
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Old title: I trust my sources of information. Written by scholars, academics and students of history. I'm being silenced and the references that I've used are being blacklisted and forcibly removed. Can someone help me and reverse this? There's a hidden agenda, they're trying to split hair here. Edited MJL 03:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC) The Tigre community and I are trying to tell the general history of the Tigre people, written and told by Tigres themselves. However, astonishing set of claims on the Tigre people page. Set of ideology, a mixture of just cherry-picked quotes facts and figures self serving, selective, a farrago of distortions, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, putting forward these sweeping opinions. I'm following the trail of evidence on the Tigre people's religion, traditions and accustoms, using trusted sources from academics and using reliable citations. They are falsifying the history, using eloquent language to change peoples thoughts, trying to cause confusion on the reality. The Tigre people are defenceless people like many communities in Eritrea. I tried showing the melting pot that has existed in Eritrea over the centuries because of its very strategic location on the Red Sea which made it significant in anciet times using BBC sites and video clips as referencing but got deleted by marauding group supporting the current Eritrean government known internationally for his poor human rights record in Eritrea and across the region, which I don't need to say, everyone knows. Wikipedia should be calling these user accounts for accountability and to use referencing and citation. The Tigre people and other communities have illustrious history unknown to some due to the users inaccurate opinion of things. They need to stop combining everyone into one ideology which is not right anyway. They're saying because we're saying we are Eritrean that this is what we want, which is not true. There are other perspectives not just theirs. They're trying to split hair here. The Tigre, Bilen, Saho, Afar, Beja and Rashida pages are being distorted. We reference our reports, they dont. We trust our sources of information. The reality is the users are supporting a well known and understood regime that don't accept Muslim Eritreans despite making 50% of the population. Isais Awferki's hand picked by the Ethiopians and is not a true representation of the public. Muslims and Christian Eritreans get along its just the government. Please dont give them platform to impose their opinion of things. There is a real solitary amongst all Eritreans and the international community. Both Christian and Muslims know enough to reject this bluff. Christians are also being persecuted. Please stop the users (Awferki's allies) from imposing this dishonest, offensive ideology. They have an amnesiac streak when it comes to acknowledging the immigrant blood in their veins. Due to the strategic position of the country, many ancient civilisations came and mixed with the pre-existing population. Period. With all due respect LegacyVisual LegacyVisual (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Fixed header. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Move?

I'm not sure about the above-described move from Whitelist to Whitelisting. Looking at the content, the opposite subject is Blacklist (computing), not Blacklisting. GregorB (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)