Talk:Algospeak

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: There's a case for a merge to Leet#Algospeak, given that this page is short, but perhaps there is space to expand the topic here. The topic is worth covering somewhere!

Klbrain (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Quintopia who said "... its lexicon is so distinct from leet, and the demographic creating it is so disconnected from the demographic that created leet. Given how alive and dynamic algospeak is, it no longer makes sense to have the two share a page". But yeah, this page is rather short. I think the topic will inspire a more expansive article in time Wesadius (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Kronenn (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree as creator. I have listed sources in the lead paragraph that could be incorporated. I might get into expanding this article once I have enough time on my hands, but help from outside is always welcome. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

(invisible comment referral) not a duplicate sentence

It might read similar, but it is not a duplicate, since there is no connective sentence that actually states "algospeak can be used to avoid such and such". This connective sentence is not original research as it is obviously supported by the citation, but it's easy to miss that obvious things might need to be said.  AltoStev (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Slang?

Some of the examples given seem to me to be slang rather than attempts at evading censorship (for example, "bird app"- I've heard that spoken).

Also, I thought the claimed use of "cheese pizza" for "child pornography" was part of the conspiracy theory PizzaGate. Has that now actually become part of algospeak? 69.115.233.217 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"cheese pizza" as a term for CSAM predates pizzagate afaik, because the initials for both are c.p. I think the causation is the opposite; the link between cheese pizza and CSAM contributed to the pizzagate conspiracy.

Athanelar (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

"Seggs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Seggs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 27 § Seggs until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Scope of the article

@Bstadt While the book is popular and have been reviewed by mainstream news media, it is only one source out of dozens which discuss algospeak. As the book itself acknowledges, Aleksic's own definition is not the mainstream one–he is advocating for its change. None of the couple dozen sources cited in the article defines algospeak with Aleksic's expanded definition. Perhaps other reliable sources would come to define algospeak as Aleksic does, but Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for change or predict the future. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

hey @Ca! thanks for your interest in this topic! im glad wiki has other language nerds on it :)

understood that the algospeak page has dozens of historical sources that situate it narrowly, but the contemporary usage of the term (for better or for worse) is overwhelmingly in reference to the book, meaning that the book has in fact shifted the discourse, and must be considered in terms of the progression of the meaning of algospeak iteslf.

with regards to the sources cited in the article, consider this excerpt from the wapo source i recently added

"As editors and other gatekeepers lose their grip on the spoken and written word, language is increasingly influenced by, well, influencers. That, in any case, is the central argument of “Algospeak: How Social Media Is Transforming the Future of Language” "

while this is not an endorsement of the definition, it is certainly a reproduction of the scope of the definition as outlined in the book.

on a meta note, it seems that the crux of the scope question relies on the following premises:

1) whether or not the abundance of reliable, secondary sources that make reference to the book itself constitutes adoption of the definition

2) whether the dominance of the book in contemporary algospeak discourse is sufficient for acceptance of the expanded definition

i believe both 1) and 2), and as far as i can tell, you do not believe 1) or 2). i believe that either is sufficient for expanding the scope of this page.

moreover, since the definition proposed in algospeak is merely an expansion, it seems there is little harm done in situating the scope of the page as a progressive expansion of the sense of the word (as i try to do with the early algospeak section).

let me know what you think! Bstadt (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

(n.b., there is a beautiful irony in the fact that the constraints of the wikipedia platform itself are currently influencing the meaning of the word algospeak...) Bstadt (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy response. How about a compromise? As one of the major works (and the only book) on algospeak, I recognize it is a significant minority viewpoint per WP:NPOV, and we should give it appropriate weight. I would support addition of Aleksic's views as a attributed statement of opinion. Maybe something like "Adam Aleksic in his book Algospeak argues for expanding definition to encompass any social-media-driven linguistic change". Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

excellent, that seems like a great place for this to land. ill go ahead and add the statement. thanks! Bstadt (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

cc @Thegoofhere as they also seem to be interested in how the expanded definition fits into the article Bstadt (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with placing the book in the first paragraph. It is confusing to present one definition followed by a differing explanation, and since the book has been recently released and is in-print, it comes across as promotional. The second most important sentence of an article should not be used to introduce a different topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bstadt pinging Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

ah i see. my mental model of wiki articles is that the definition(s) go in the first paragraph. is there a style guide we could reference here? Bstadt (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bstadt That is usually true since definitions are often of top importance, but I do not believe Aleksic's own views a mainstream enough to be mentioned in the second sentence, much less attached with a lengthy description. Info about the book is not info about algospeak. Would you agree to getting a third opinion WP:3O? Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

i see. i think another crux of our disagreement is that i do take info in the book to be info about algospeak (this is what i mean when i reference the book as the first monograph on the subject).

happy to get as many opinions as there we can on this! until then, i would ask that the definition presented in algospeak remain where it is, after the definition you proposed, but in the first paragraph. Bstadt (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I opened a request at WP:3O. I hope this resolves our dispute! Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Third opinion discussion

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and my initial comments are below. I have made no previous edits on Algospeak and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Xan747 (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Hi all. I note that the current state of the article mentions the book, Algospeak, in the lede, but it appears there is no further mention of it in the body; per WP:LEDE, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I recommend that all mention of the book be moved to an appropriate section of the article body (not its own) until such time as content concerning it has expanded to the point that it warrants mention in the lede. How much expansion is a judgement call, of course. In an article of this size, a good six-sentence paragraph covering the book would warrant a one-sentence mention in the lede along the lines of The 2025 book, Algospeak explores various aspects of the phenomenon, and argues that it is a driver of linguistic change in the modern era. The expanded definition proposal is not lede-worthy; see the essay WP:RECENTISM for my thinking about this. @Bstadt: Since you are quite new to us, I have some procedural and etiquette notes for you. I see your first three edits to this article culminated in this state, which Ca undid, which you reverted, which a different editor undid, which you again restored. This is called edit-warring, which disrupts the collaborative process of seeking consensus between editors for article content. There is a process called Bold-Revert-Discuss (BRD) we (are supposed to) follow whereby if an edit is challenged by reversion, the editor who was reverted should go to the talk page and discuss, not start an edit war by reverting the reversion. When two editors are reverting the additions of one editor, it is very much time for the reverted editor to listen to what the community is saying, and talk it out. That all said, as a show of good-faith to all involved, I highly encourage you to restore the content of the lede to the state it was in prior to your first edit and leave it there until the dispute is resolved. You don't have to—I have no special powers to make you—but you may find other editors more accommodating when you're not making unilateral edits against the concerns of multiple others. I'll stick around for questions, additional arguments or concerns, etc., and can be pinged for any reason. Happy editing. Xan747 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC) thanks for the extra set of eyes @Xan747! a few notes on your review 1) my most recent version of the lede mentions the book only as it pertains to the content of the article. i think there is broad confusion here about including the book itself versus including what the book has to say about algospeak. 2) a note on your timeline - the final edit is not a restored version of the first two, but rather, an attempt at a compromise resulting from previous discussion on the talk page with @Ca (see, e.g., the removal of the section on early algospeak). furthermore, even if it was an exact reversion, i would still be under the 3RR outlined in WP:WAR. as a result of these two facts, i would appreciate if you withdrew your claim that i was edit-warring the article. (i feel i took the appropriate steps to achieve consensus here!) 3) as per your recommendation, i reverted the lede to the state you surfaced. as a conclusion to this, i'd like to suggest that i add a few cited sentences in the impact section around algospeak as a driver of broad lingustic change, and then return a sentence referencing the expanded definition to the lede, but not as the second sentence. @Ca let me know if this is acceptable. thanks! Bstadt (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC) Thanks for restoring to the pre-dispute version of the lede. I've taken the discussion about edit-warring to your talk page as that kind of policy stuff is off-topic in article talk. Xan747 (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC) I have created a history section, and I believe it would be the perfect place to introduce the book and its thesis. Ca talk to me! 05:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC) I like this approach. In the present version might be better to move the final sentence of the lede into the history section and attribute it to the book ... unless other sources support its basic premise (a modern driver of linguistic change), in which case I would drop the specific unalive example, which is already covered in the Examples section. Also, the clause even influencing communication outside the Internet feels redundant. Changing the language of the Internet is an inherent result of the tactic. So maybe something like: Algospeak has been identified as a driver of linguistic change in the modern era, with some terms spreading into everyday offline speech and writing. Xan747 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC) A further possible refinement: "identified as one source of linguistic change". Xan747 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Comparison to Newspeak

@Guninvalid I noticed in the edit history you reverted an anonymous edit which added 'Newspeak' to the see also, and in your revert you described the edit as 'not relevant'

I think there are notable conceptual comparisons that can be drawn (and have been drawn eg here and here and also here) between algospeak and newspeak; I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) your argument is that because algospeak is self-censoring behaviour and not top-down censoring that it's different, but the argument can certainly be made that even algospeak is ultimately top-down since it's rooted in the evasion of censorship algorithms.

So inasmuch as we're talking about 'forms of speech which avoid forbidden controversial language' I think it's absolutely a relevant comparison; what's your reasoning for why that edit shouldn't stand? Athanelar (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding dih, clih, nuh, and other -vowel-h slang to the example list

I believe these are also some notable examples of Algospeak, and should be added to the page.

Dih: Dick

Clih: Clitoris

Nuh: Nut

Puh(?): Pussy MaxalonTerra (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this information. guninvalid (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't trust me on this, but they seem like they arose from African-American English rather than algospeak. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)