Talk:kulturberikare
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
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.
Tagged in August by User:Robbie SWE but was not listed here. Equinox ◑ 20:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- This term stirs up a lot of emotions — it is strictly used by right-wing nationalists to describe immigrants. I don't contradict that this word exists; I however oppose referencing a blog belonging to a politician who represents the aforementioned users of this word. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can see hits in Google Books. Why not add those as citations? Equinox ◑ 20:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Robbie SWE: Can you please clarify which of the quotations found in google books:"kulturberikare" are not good enough for WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan Polansky: as I said before, the term exists and I do not contest its existence. In hindsight, marking it for verification might not have been my smartest move. However, I oppose the exclusive use of sources attributed to one of the founders of the word. It would be as if I would make up a word – albeit used by other people – and provide myself as the only reliable source. I just want a more "neutral" reference, that's all. And to address your question Dan, all the citations you provided in your comment are acceptable. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- When the word exist and is not questioned, then it's not a matter of RFV. Instead one could use RFC (request for cleanup), as "cleanup" is a more vague term.
- The reference is used for "Used by immigration-critical Swedes". So I can't see any problem with that. Firstly, primary sources IMHO are better than secondary sources or secondary literature. Secondly, using a "more 'neutral' reference", a politically correct or politically left source, would not necessarily proof the claim as political factions sometimes spread lies about their enemies. As the reference nowadays gives "Kunde inte hittas - Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here." and maybe isn't needed anyway, I guess one could simply remove it. -84.161.48.20 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Robbie SWE: In that case, let me note that the top of this RFV page says: "Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. ..." --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- RFV closed as out of scope: existence is not challenged as per above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)