Talk:educocide
RFD[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Term seems to be used by a single person (the author of this entry). SemperBlotto 11:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The term has been definitely used by at least one other independent author (see second quotation, by Antun Mijatović) and referred to by an independent international agency, the ILO (see third quotation).
- The after-effects of this 'educocide', caused by the 1951 and 1953 South African Apartheid legislation still inhibit the skills development and employment creation and the type of employment that can be created in the current South Africa. The increased use of the term educocide might establish the recognition of the depth of the damage done to the South African society and the need for attention and action to basic reading, writing and arythmethic.
- The term has been definitely used by at least one other independent author (see second quotation, by Antun Mijatović) and referred to by an independent international agency, the ILO (see third quotation).
- The after-effects of this 'educocide', caused by the 1951 and 1953 South African Apartheid legislation still inhibit the skills development and employment creation and the type of employment that can be created in the current South Africa. The increased use of the term educocide might establish the recognition of the depth of the damage done to the South African society and the need for attention and action to basic reading, writing and arythmethic. — This comment was unsigned.
- Move to RFV (where it should have been from the start). We currently have two independent citations, so it needs a third, and masses of cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk)
- Actually, so far we only have one citation: the one from Mijatović. We also have two mentions and one pointer to a keynote address that may or may not have used the term. (And even the Mijatović one is questionable: it's not obvious to me that that English paragraph is durably archived.) —RuakhTALK 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Move to RFV (where it should have been from the start). We currently have two independent citations, so it needs a third, and masses of cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk)
- This seems to be an attempt by the inventor of a word to get it into a dictionary. I think that it should be deleted. BedfordLibrary 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
sent to RFV -- Prince Kassad 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
From RfD. Most cites listed are mere mentions. -- Prince Kassad 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Existing cites entered by a user apparently with same name as cited author. I can't find any durably archived cites at our usual sources. There is a Scholar cite by the same author, but it doesn't seem durably archived. "Educacide", though not necessarily with the same meaning, gets some hits. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 13:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)