Can I (should I) change the name of this distribution?

Question

I am nearly finished with a paper, as well as some accompanying open-source software. We are planning on submitting this to a prominent statistics journal. One of the more promising methods that we discuss in the paper deals with the normal-inverse Gaussian distribution, commonly referred to as the NIG distribution. This is usually pronounced “en-eye-gee”, but it’s understandable that some people say it phonetically (it’s a relatively obscure distribution).

In case it is not yet clear, my concern is that NIG is somewhat reminiscent of the “N word”. I had some reservations about writing NIG so many times in the paper and in the software (by convention, there would be many functions with NIG pre-fixes, e.g. nig_foo()). I thought maybe I was overthinking things, but I’ve had a few people (including a co-author) comment about the potentially inappropriate nature of this name.

Thus I feel like it might be worthwhile to refer to this distribution by a different name. It is not uncommon for distributions in statistics to have multiple names (e.g., normal vs. Gaussian), and we would make it clear that it is the same distribution. The problem is, I feel very unqualified to just change the name of distribution that has been around for 40 years.

If we do change the name, here’s a short list of some of the things I’ve considered.

1. The Normal-Wald Distribution (Wald is another name for inverse-Gaussian)
2. The Gauss-Wald Distribution (Same idea)
3. The Barndorff-Nielsen distribution (Ole Barndorff-Nielsen was one of the first researchers looking into this distribution)
4. The Barndorff distribution (Less wordy, but I don’t want to remove a surname without asking him)

Questions

Is it a bad idea to change the name? I’m slightly uncomfortable with it, but I might be overthinking it.

If I do change the name, what’s the most reasonable choice? (I realize this is very subjective, but feedback is welcome)

I don't think that the name of the distribution is intentionally or overtly "racist". The main point is that (i) this distribution is relatively obscure and (ii) many distributions have multiple names so it might make sense to have an alternative that has no chance of being problematic.

Answer 1

If you are at all unsure about causing offense, you could always use the full name in your paper "Normal-Inverse-Gaussian distribution". It won't be any less readable for that.

In your code pick a different prefix that still clearly identifies the distribution, e.g. ninvg_foo().

Answer 2

Actually changing the name because someone might be offended by a sound that comes from a completely different domain and is completely separate from the history of racism would be condescending, in my view.

And, as you say, the term is in common use. Changing it would also confuse some people.

Leave it be.

There was no intention to do harm and the acronym is natural. The language police are unlikely to chase you down. It would be different of course if the acronym were chosen for racist purpose, but that is clearly not the case here.

Answer 3

Change the name if you like. Point it out prominently in your paper and code, possibly more than once (e.g. first mention in the main text and in the methods / supplement, of course also in the function documentation, etc.). The names of even common objects are changed for a variety of reasons. It happens, and people should be aware that names are usually pretty arbitrary.

Example: I once read a book where the discrete-time Fourier transform (DTFT) (by all means the standard name) was called DSFT (Fourier transform in discrete spaces), because, technically, it can be computed over other domains than time. It was weird for a moment, and then I got used to it, and know I'm kind of glad that the authors stressed this point because it made me think about something important.

Conventions exist until someone begins to challenge them. I'm scared of the language police (see another answer here) doesn't even need to be part of the justification. It can just be that another name sounds better to you. Of course, standard names shouldn't be changed on a whim, but they can be (and are).

Answer 4

This is a really interesting question, especially since some other terminology (e.g., master/slave replication) has somewhat recently come under heavy criticism despite not being seen as controversial for quite some time.

Ultimately, it's your choice to make as an author (or as a group of authors). Using alternative terminology is not generally seen as a reason to reject a manuscript as long as you make sufficiently clear what you mean with your terms (even if the reviewer does not agree with your reasoning for not using a more standard term). On the other hand, there is neither a practical nor (at least in my opinion) moral obligation to preemptively stop using a term despite there currently not being any substantial debate about this specific piece of terminology. That said, if one person in the author group feels strongly about this I would be tempted to go with their wishes on this one.

---

Unlike some other answers, I do not want to prescribe how you should decide on this matter. Personally I do not see the term as problematic, but I'm neither an English native speaker nor of African descend. However, I do want to point that (a) a term not being "meant" racist and (b) a term having being used so far are both not sufficient arguments that further usage is appropriate (as the master/slave example above nicely demonstrates). Times change, and ultimately it's the affected group (people of African descend, in that case) that need to decide whether the term is appropriate or not.

Answer 5

As suggested in some other comments and answers, it might be a good thing to spell it out more fully (easy enough to do with modern word-processors).

I think there's no motivation to pretend to determine whether anyone would be "justified" in being offended by the old acronym. The fact is that some might easily be, AND it's easy to avoid this.

(Telling people in traditionally-abused groups that they "shouldn't be offended" by things that sound like references to their traditional abuse is really not supportable...)

Yes, it's kinda too bad that scientific acronyms and terminology seem to have a bit of an obligation to acknowledge ambient social things. :) But, yeah, they do, I think.

Answer 6

You could always abbreviate Distribution as D and call it the NIGD. This is different enough from that other word that I think it should be acceptable.

(Now we need to do something about SMB, that inter-computer connection tool in Linux.)

Answer 7

One possibility that doesn't seem to have been addressed yet is the following:

Ask members of the group most likely to be offended by the term---in this case Black people---what they think.

Obviously you probably don't have the resources to do a full, representative survey of Black people, and obviously there are going to be differences in opinion between members of any group. But if you ask a few people and they say they find it very offensive, it would likely be a good idea to try and use something different. Likewise, if every Black person you ask says that they think it is fine this is an indication (though not a guarantee) that the term does not need to be changed.

Language is complex, and while there is no intention to cause harm by using the acronym, perhaps the potential to cause harm outweighs the benefits of familiarity for your readers. You won't get a definitive answer because there is none, but in my view the people whose opinion should carry the most weight on this are the people who are most likely to be harmed in the first place.

It is also worth noting that Black people are underrepresented in academia, and therefore likely to be underrepresented on academia.stackexchange, which will affect the answers you get here.

Edit: I guess its important to note as well that it may not be well recieved to ask any Black person what they think. The people you ask should be those who have previously indicated that they are happy to discuss such topics, either in person or online.

Answer 8

I want to add one thing that's not been said explicitly in other answers: since, as you've said, it's relatively obscure, you absolutely can change it. People use different names for the same thing all the time. The name of a thing is the name that people use, and in this case, that's you. Changing it will not confuse anyone at all, not even slightly.

The fact that you are uncomfortable with the acronym is a good enough reason by itself, and a desire to make your field more welcoming to minorities is a very good reason for this kind of thing. It's a positive thing to do and you shouldn't feel any hesitation.

Answer 9

my concern is that NIG is too reminiscent of the “N word”.

It is not. This is in no way comparable to the "whitelist/blacklist" terminology that is currently widely criticised.

Answer 10

I am French and I used for sometime a data analysis library that was full of anal_in(), anal_deep() and similar functions.

Someone added in the code

# For fuck's sake, stop using anal as a variable or in a name!!

And that was pretty much it. Some were probably offended but nobody bothered changing the names.

It is your code so if you feel that nig is offensive, just know that eel is offensive to me, and that Mike will find god horrendous as a variable name.

If you called your variables/functions deliberately insulting then it would be bad taste, or douchery, or something like that. I would not bother in your case but if that raised the need to ask the question then for your own good (as in "so that you do not think too much abou that") just change it to NOINGA and be done.

Answer 11

I would like to add a different perspective to your question. Fortunately (or unfortunately, it depends) for the Americans, English become the most widely used language in science and business. That means, that it is used by many people who are not Americans and who are not really troubled by some secondary/offensive meanings of some words or some cultural concepts typical for the US.

NIG is an abbreviation of a name of a distribution; it is understandable. It would be confusing to many people, why you would want to change it, just because it resembles a word which in your cultural context is not appropriate to use. I think your concerns might be valid when writing a novel, in English, for an English-speaking audience, where someone could start looking for hidden meanings. Since we are talking about a scientific paper read by non-American readers as well, I don't think your concerns are relevant. Use what is standard and don't worry.

Answer 12

Niggardly, niggling, and Niger are a few "obviously inoffensive" words that people have found offensive (source). The Mandarin word 那个 has also been found offensive; offensive enough that the teacher using it was removed from the class where it was used (source). I suggest that you use an acronym other than NIG.