This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. English Language This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. African diaspora This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

An off-wiki friend who is active in anti-racist work feels that this article fails WP:NPOV, and that its tone is, "OMG, those poor people who just used a cromulent old word, or stumbled across it in Shakespeare." Comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does your friend have any specific recommendations or suggestions? I don't see a lack of neutral representation of the sources, so it would be helpful if they could point out where we fail to do so. Schazjmd (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A person is reported, second hand, to find an article does not have adequately WP:NPOV. That not automatically require a change in the article. A specific response could be considered if a specific point was cited. Wikipedia never has and never will never please everybody on the matter of neutrality. I am offended by the tone of some articles, but find that my opinion is dismissed. On we go... Pete unseth (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article as written belongs to a bygone era when "colorblindness" was actually considered a realistic solution to racism. 2kk9 (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word niggardly has absolutely nothing to do with colour (or color). HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does now, because people have used it as a dogwhistle. Language changes, and this is one of those changes. 2kk9 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's only an issue for ignorant people. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48:, you should know better. This conversation is clearly not intended to provide improvement to the article and you last comment is not helping. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You think that this (1), this (2), and this (3) use have nothing to do with color? It certainly doesn't seem related to the dictionary definition of the word. 2kk9 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you dig around in the swamp, don't complain when you find swamp rats. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

are people FEIGNING confusion here? the word is impossible to mistake for the N-word...BECAUSE OF THE -LY SUFFIX. the real issue should be over confusion and/or offense caused by the NOUN, "niggard".

all of the people who insist upon their right to use niggardly (myself included) might still hesitate on the noun form. i cannot imagine calling a black mayor or a black shopkeeper or a black waitress "a niggard" under any circumstances. w/e incidents there have been to date would be 100-fold in intensity were we talking about the noun here.

article should be moved to "Controversies_about_the_word_niggard", frankly. the "-ly" suffix renders the whole discussion moot. 2601:19C:527F:A680:4DB4:D125:F981:AEAD (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have a citation for anyone using the noun "niggard" this century? [The last example of use of the noun form at Wiktionary is from 1955]. Or anyone being offended by its use? All the references in the article are to objections to use of the adjective – either through mishearing or misunderstanding. Because if you don't, please see wp:Wikipedia is not a forum for your personal opinions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see "dated" or "archaic" or anything similar in the entry u link, and, in fact, it makes the very POINT at core here -- that the NOUN is the very form which could be legitimately confused.

if u wish to quash said issue, don't go quoting evidence to SUPPORT me!! :o

and why is this even a question? a capital B is oft confused for the number 8; is it ever confused for the numbers "18" or "82"?! apples to apples, man! 2601:19C:527F:A680:4DB4:D125:F981:AEAD (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't seek to [s]quash the issue on the grounds that the noun might be archaic but specifically that there is no evidence that any notable person has used it and has been reported by wp:reliable sources as having been called out for doing so.

Perhaps it could happen but there is no evidence that it has and we don't speculate in articles about what might happen. The article reports the fact that people did take offence at the adjective being used and did not back down when their error was pointed out. I might privately speculate that they might well have wondered why the speaker did not choose the more obvious word "miserly", but my speculations don't belong on Wikipedia so I don't put it there. The same goes for your speculations: this is not a forum. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

these people that are claiming to be offended, are they implying the -ly is silent? or do they seriously think the speakers intended "n*ggerly"? u want ARCHAIC!

rather than the laughable claim of "phonetic similarity" between niggardly and the N-word (really a stretch), how about saying "phonetic similarity of the word's root" to the N-word?

i would "be bold" and fix it, but i anticipate flak. so i propose it here. 2601:19C:527F:A680:4DB4:D125:F981:AEAD (talk)

If you can fix it without violating policies WP:no original research and WP: synthesis, go right ahead.

In all honesty, this topic is borderline trivia. I guess it must have been significant in the context of US culture wars and Twitter storms but in the real world it is a total non-event. I for one don't intend to spend any more time on it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Niggard (14th C) is derived from the Middle English word nigon, which is probably derived from Old Norse hnǫggr and Old English hnēaw." Okay, but what did those words mean? Very important, especially since the citation is behind a paywall. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stingy, all of them. See wikt:niggard#Etymology. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact about english, and all languages, every single word has an exact unique meaning. A niggardly person isn't just "stingy" in general, but to be very specific to be niggardly means you give the absolute minimum required and not one iota more. As compared to a stingy person who is hesitant to give anything at all or a miser who gives little because he wants to have a lot. 67.177.112.52 (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Every single word has an exact unique meaning": obvious nonsense. I planted a rose. She rose from her chair. You seem to have invented your definition of "niggardly" too: I see your distinction in no published dictionary. 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:5C4B:B84D:3215:24D9 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that's a very bad example. Two words spelled the same can still be different words. Not saying you're wrong, but I'd have chosen a better example. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way a miser stingy or the absolute minimum i could get away with would be exactly how my effort would look like in a cotton field. The two words in question here probably kind of merged on a southern porch soaked in whiskey 2601:205:457D:6CA0:E413:9BCF:9C79:51A1 (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The highly offensive slur nigger has NO relation to the word niggard. Because of its pronunciation it sounds like nigger, and also its negative connotations such as miser. In the US, the word niggard and niggardly is usually avoided.

The term nigger is attested in 15th century, from Spanish and Portuguese negro ‘black, black person’ and see the word Negro. However, the term niggard is etymologically different from the highly offensive term nigger. The word niggard comes from Middle English, alteration of nigon.

For more information, please go to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary for the usage paragraph of the term niggard. MarcoToa1 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exact change do you want made to the article? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not etymologically related, but it is still related in the sense that it is used as a coded racial epithet. 2kk9 (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2kk9: Do you have evidence of that? Is there a racist group who have been documented as using this word as a "codeword"? Perhaps an article exposing someone who was making racist comments also using this word in a clearly intentionally insulting manner? Perhaps someone who confesses to using it to covertly "mess" with people? I know of no evidence this has become a codeword for anything. In all the incidences in this article the people accused of using the word denied being racist and no evidence was presented that they had any overt racist tendencies. If you desire a change to this article that is backed up by usable citations, please present them, otherwise please stop posting here just to pick a fight or troll. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth It's extremely easy to find such uses, such as here (1), here (2), and here (3). 2kk9 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2kk9: Okay, I apologize if I implied you were a troll. You have good reason to think it is a codeword or dog whistle (politics). Thank you for providing evidence. That is WP:OR, but it does show that the word is used by some this way and so it might be documented somewhere. Next we need some scholar or journalist who has noticed this, found it culturally significant, and documented it. If it is an inside joke among a few racists, then it is not significant enough to be included in the article or change the POV of the article. It may be a while before I have time to look, but I will try to remember to. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, but no luck. Let me know if you see people discussing it on a show or such. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but recall that examples of usage are not citations, so we would still need a WP:RS that quantifies usage and then evaluates that evidence. We can't do that, it would be WP:OR. Meanwhile, I see no reason to attach any significance to the noise of loudmouths on social media. "Haters gonna hate"™ 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked social media examples may also just be hastily accepted autocorrects where the person's phone dictionary didn't include the slur that they wanted to type. If that was the case and you searched for them, you would find them. Belbury (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a version of the slur that ends in "-ly", or that can really be used as an adjective at all in most cases. 2kk9 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]