Jimbo2020
Joined 1 April 2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Jimbo2020 in topic Ethnic slurs under synonyms
Ethnic slurs under synonyms edit
I can see them for any ethnic group that lists synonyms in the first place - Chinese, German and African-American are good examples. There's no real reason to not have them provided it's clearly marked they are derogatory. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- The example provided only has a few attested sources specifically limited to U.S Military slang in one military engagement. This is not at all like the other examples from other pages which have a much more storied history. Furthermore, other than a few extremely common and well known slurs, almost no other page for an ethnic group includes slurs as a synonym. This page should follow the main established style of other pages for ethnonyms. Jimbo2020 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just told you the established style though. As long as the terms meet the criteria for inclusion, they might as well be there. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Following the style of pages like Italian, Finn, and Oromo, there's no point in including slurs under synonyms. The pages you linked for Chinese, German and African-American all have a long and storied history in English-speaking countries and a specific historic context. Otherwise the current convention is to not include slurs. Jimbo2020 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Two of the first three do not even have synonym sections, which is more of a missing part more than an intentional exclusion of the terms. Italian too should have ethnic slurs if they exist, again provided they are clearly marked as such. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are dozens of pages of ethnonyms that do not have slurs listed under the synonyms and not for a lack of slurs. Rather this is the established style. The precedent is to not have ethnic slurs as synonyms unless they are historically significant. Wiktionary is not Urban Dictionary. Jimbo2020 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is not Urban Dictionary because it's not for entries made up in one day, hence why WT:CFI exists. If you doubt the slurs meet those guidelines, you can use the RFV process. As for the precedent, I'm not aware of any such precedent - since it concerns many entries, it's probably a good idea to start a discussion about it on the Beer Parlour. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Being unaware of a precedent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The precedent as I explained above is the current convention. Bringing this entry into line with the convention is a valid change. Jimbo2020 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is not Urban Dictionary because it's not for entries made up in one day, hence why WT:CFI exists. If you doubt the slurs meet those guidelines, you can use the RFV process. As for the precedent, I'm not aware of any such precedent - since it concerns many entries, it's probably a good idea to start a discussion about it on the Beer Parlour. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are dozens of pages of ethnonyms that do not have slurs listed under the synonyms and not for a lack of slurs. Rather this is the established style. The precedent is to not have ethnic slurs as synonyms unless they are historically significant. Wiktionary is not Urban Dictionary. Jimbo2020 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Two of the first three do not even have synonym sections, which is more of a missing part more than an intentional exclusion of the terms. Italian too should have ethnic slurs if they exist, again provided they are clearly marked as such. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Following the style of pages like Italian, Finn, and Oromo, there's no point in including slurs under synonyms. The pages you linked for Chinese, German and African-American all have a long and storied history in English-speaking countries and a specific historic context. Otherwise the current convention is to not include slurs. Jimbo2020 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just told you the established style though. As long as the terms meet the criteria for inclusion, they might as well be there. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)