Last modified on 9 November 2014, at 16:27

Talk:7/7

Return to "7/7" page.

Discussion moved from RfDEdit

Where has this been used in the way suggested? Eclecticology 07:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've not heard the term used in the second sense, so I have commented it out. Otherwise the entry is fine. — Paul G 09:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The entry existing in Wiktionary is a filthy disgrace. 7/7 had none of the impact on people's day-to-day lives as 9/11. To imply that it has similar magnitude is an insult to the thousands that died and the rest of humanity that witnessed it. DELETE. --Connel MacKenzie 13:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Umm if we were inventing words we might take such things into account. But we're not, we're documenting words as they are used by people. I have seen this used just after the bombings but I don't know if it is continuing to be used. If it's being used we keep it. If we delete it we have dozens of other filthy and disgraceful words we should also censor. — Hippietrail 16:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. My personal offense aside, this term is clearly being proposed for political reasons; therefore even if a citation is found, the surrounding history is relevant. England has not been a stranger to acts of terrorism; the US by-and-large was. Therefore to assert that the two are somehow synonymous is far-fetched to begin with. The assertion that the event profoundly changed the way a society functions is the fundamental basis of why 9/11 became a common term. The same cannot be said for the England event, which did not seem to have any of the same far-reaching consequences. --Connel MacKenzie 22:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Connel, would you take another look at the article. The etymology says that the term is formed by analogy with 9/11. There is no suggestion in the definition that the two events are in any way comparable. I have heard this term used by newsreaders here in the UK and also in print in newspapers, so it is in use. Whether it is used outside the media is another matter. And by the way, finding an article offensive is a reason to amend it if necessary but not to delete it. — Paul G 16:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Paul. I have looked at the entry again. The entry on en.wikt: 9/11 would normally have been shot on sight for incorrect punctuation; the historical events surrounding it are what made it a linguistic exception to the rule. I know of no world-changing historical consequences of 7/7 that would merit such an exception to its entry here. The very construct of number slash number (month/day) makes it a direct comparison to 9/11. That is still true now, even after the entry has been re-worked and toned down. --Connel MacKenzie 06:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

TrashEdit

Found this in between some <!-- --> in the article it self.

disputed: (this sense is countable, if it exists)
# {{countable}} A [[profound]] or life-changing event.
#: ''It was her '''7/7'''.''

Note: if this sense exists, the inflection line should be "{{en-noun|s|-}}" and the first definition should have an "{{uncountable}}" tag.
an alcholic beverage made from Seagrams Seven whiskey and 7-Up

Should we try and verify this, or is this just pragmatics? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)