Return to Answer

If it helps, at the time of this post, this particular work has been cited 210 times (per Google scholar) so you have 210 examples of what other academics have done when citing this book. My own view is that it is preferable to state the title without redaction, but redaction might also be acceptable so long as the citing author clearly states that the title has been redacted. Whilst practices may differ from field to field, I know that in the field of linguistics ---where scholars commonly deal directly with racial slurs (e.g., examining their etymology, history, etc.)--- the standard practice is to state the word under use without censorship. (In that particular field they also tend to italicise the word under discussion, but that it not relevant here.)

One issue of possible importance here is that the slur in the title is important in identifying the class of people that the book is about, so a full redaction is going to entail a genuine loss of information about the subject of the book. In some cases a slur word in the title of a work is not important in conveying information about the content of the work, but that is not the case here. If the subject of the book is "white niggers" and you change this to "white [racial slur]s" (as suggested by another answer here) then the scope of the subject matter of the book arguably becomes unclear. One possibility is to use partial redaction of the form "white [n----rs]" or "white [n-word]s" (the latter being your suggested formulation), which blunts the slur but allows the reader to "guess" the original word and so properly understand the scope of the book. That is probably a reasonable redaction if you choose to proceed by that route.

In any case, if you decide to fully or partially redact the original slur word in the title, you should make sure that the reader understands that this is your edit. Using square brackets for your redaction, plus an explicit statement alerting the reader to the redaction (e.g., "[Title partially redacted]") will be sufficient to ensure that you are not misleading your reader about the true title of the work.

If it helps, at the time of this post, this particular work has been cited 210 times (per Google scholar) so you have 210 examples of what other academics have done when citing this book. My own view is that it is preferable to state the title without redaction, but redaction might also be acceptable so long as the citing author clearly states that the title has been redacted. Whilst practices may differ from field to field, I know that in the field of linguistics ---where scholars commonly deal directly with racial slurs (e.g., examining their etymology, history, etc.)--- the standard practice is to state the word under use without censorship. (In that particular field they also tend to italicise the word under discussion, but that it not relevant here.)

One issue of possible importance here is that the slur in the title is important in identifying the class of people that the book is about, so a full redaction is going to entail a genuine loss of information about the subject of the book. In some cases a slur word in the title of a work is not important in conveying information about the content of the work, but that is not the case here. If the subject of the book is "white niggers" and you change this to "white [racial slur]s" (as suggested by another answer here) then the scope of the subject matter of the book arguably becomes unclear. One possibility is to use partial redaction of the form "white [n----rs]" or "white [n-word]s" (the latter being your suggested formulation), which blunts the slur but allows the reader to "guess" the original word and so properly understand the scope of the book. That is probably a reasonable redaction if you choose to proceed by that route.

Personally, I would not do any redaction; my view is that it is useful in academia to create an atmosphere where adults can engage in open discourse about topics, without falling apart if they hear a nasty word. This is encouraged by citing works like this without redaction. In any case, if you decide to fully or partially redact the original slur word in the title, you should make sure that the reader understands that this is your edit. Using square brackets for your redaction, plus an explicit statement alerting the reader to the redaction (e.g., "[Title partially redacted]") will be sufficient to ensure that you are not misleading your reader about the true title of the work.

If it helps, at the time of this post, this particular work has been cited 210 times (per Google scholar) so you have 210 examples of what other academics have done when citing this book. My own view is that it is preferable to state the title without redaction, but redaction might also acceptable so long as the citing author clearly states that the title has been redacted. Whilst practices may differ from field to field, I know that in the field of linguistics ---where scholars commonly deal directly with racial slurs (e.g., examining their etymology, history, etc.)--- the standard practice is to state the word under use without censorship. (In that particular field they also tend to italicise the word under discussion, but that it not relevant here.)

One issue of possible importance here is that the slur in the title is important in identifying the class of people that the book is about, so a full redaction is going to entail a genuine loss of information about the subject of the book. In some cases a slur word in the title of a work is not important in conveying information about the content of the work, but that is not the case here. If the subject of the book is "white niggers" and you change this to "white [racial slur]s" (as suggested by another answer here) then the scope of the subject matter of the book arguably becomes unclear. One possibility is to use partial redaction of the form "white [n----rs]" or "white [n-word]s" (the latter being your suggested formulation), which blunts the slur but allows the reader to "guess" the original word and so properly understand the scope of the book. That is probably a reasonable redaction if you choose to proceed by that route.

In any case, if you decide to fully or partially redact the original slur word in the title, you should make sure that the reader understands that this is your edit. Using square brackets for your redaction, plus an explicit statement alerting the reader to the redaction (e.g., "[Title partially redacted]") will be sufficient to ensure that you are not misleading your reader about the true title of the work.

If it helps, at the time of this post, this particular work has been cited 210 times (per Google scholar) so you have 210 examples of what other academics have done when citing this book. My own view is that it is preferable to state the title without redaction, but redaction might also be acceptable so long as the citing author clearly states that the title has been redacted. Whilst practices may differ from field to field, I know that in the field of linguistics ---where scholars commonly deal directly with racial slurs (e.g., examining their etymology, history, etc.)--- the standard practice is to state the word under use without censorship. (In that particular field they also tend to italicise the word under discussion, but that it not relevant here.)

One issue of possible importance here is that the slur in the title is important in identifying the class of people that the book is about, so a full redaction is going to entail a genuine loss of information about the subject of the book. In some cases a slur word in the title of a work is not important in conveying information about the content of the work, but that is not the case here. If the subject of the book is "white niggers" and you change this to "white [racial slur]s" (as suggested by another answer here) then the scope of the subject matter of the book arguably becomes unclear. One possibility is to use partial redaction of the form "white [n----rs]" or "white [n-word]s" (the latter being your suggested formulation), which blunts the slur but allows the reader to "guess" the original word and so properly understand the scope of the book. That is probably a reasonable redaction if you choose to proceed by that route.

In any case, if you decide to fully or partially redact the original slur word in the title, you should make sure that the reader understands that this is your edit. Using square brackets for your redaction, plus an explicit statement alerting the reader to the redaction (e.g., "[Title partially redacted]") will be sufficient to ensure that you are not misleading your reader about the true title of the work.

If it helps, at the time of this post, this particular work has been cited 210 times (per Google scholar) so you have 210 examples of what other academics have done when citing this book. My own view is that it is preferable to state the title without redaction, but redaction might also acceptable so long as the citing author clearly states that the title has been redacted.

One issue of possible importance here is that the slur in the title is important in identifying the class of people that the book is about, so a full redaction is going to entail a genuine loss of information about the subject of the book. In some cases a slur word in the title of a work is not important in conveying information about the content of the work, but that is not the case here. If the subject of the book is "white niggers" and you change this to "white [racial slur]s" (as suggested by another answer here) then the scope of the subject matter of the book arguably becomes unclear. One possibility is to use partial redaction of the form "white [n----rs]" or "white [n-word]s" (the latter being your suggested formulation), which blunts the slur but allows the reader to "guess" the original word and so properly understand the scope of the book. That is probably a reasonable redaction if you choose to proceed by that route.

In any case, if you decide to fully or partially redact the original slur word in the title, you should make sure that the reader understands that this is your edit. Using square brackets for your redaction, plus an explicit statement alerting the reader to the redaction (e.g., "[Title partially redacted]") will be sufficient to ensure that you are not misleading your reader about the true title of the work.

If it helps, at the time of this post, this particular work has been cited 210 times (per Google scholar) so you have 210 examples of what other academics have done when citing this book. My own view is that it is preferable to state the title without redaction, but redaction might also acceptable so long as the citing author clearly states that the title has been redacted. Whilst practices may differ from field to field, I know that in the field of linguistics ---where scholars commonly deal directly with racial slurs (e.g., examining their etymology, history, etc.)--- the standard practice is to state the word under use without censorship. (In that particular field they also tend to italicise the word under discussion, but that it not relevant here.)

One issue of possible importance here is that the slur in the title is important in identifying the class of people that the book is about, so a full redaction is going to entail a genuine loss of information about the subject of the book. In some cases a slur word in the title of a work is not important in conveying information about the content of the work, but that is not the case here. If the subject of the book is "white niggers" and you change this to "white [racial slur]s" (as suggested by another answer here) then the scope of the subject matter of the book arguably becomes unclear. One possibility is to use partial redaction of the form "white [n----rs]" or "white [n-word]s" (the latter being your suggested formulation), which blunts the slur but allows the reader to "guess" the original word and so properly understand the scope of the book. That is probably a reasonable redaction if you choose to proceed by that route.

In any case, if you decide to fully or partially redact the original slur word in the title, you should make sure that the reader understands that this is your edit. Using square brackets for your redaction, plus an explicit statement alerting the reader to the redaction (e.g., "[Title partially redacted]") will be sufficient to ensure that you are not misleading your reader about the true title of the work.