Wiktionary:Information desk/2023/June

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← May 2023 · June 2023 · July 2023 → · (current)

---

Which template should be used?

Hello. Which template should be used for "no gender differentiation" note in ის? I've read documentation and still not sure. Is it {{gloss}}, {{n-g}} or other? Gradilion (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The lack of response after nine days suggests to me this question isnt so simple as it sounds. Just taking the templates literally, I would lean towards {{n-g}}, since it's not a gloss. But really the difference between the two, for the reader, is that {{n-g}} italicizes and the other does not, and with such a short definition the italicization looks a bit strange. I would say there's no wrong answer. —Soap— 20:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Polish phonological treatment of /æ/ in English loanwords

As Polish phonology lacks /æ/, I've heard Polish speakers pronounce English loanswords that originally have it in two ways:

Either raising it to /ɛ/, as with "camping"/"black" (now /ˈkɛm.piŋk/; /blɛk/).

Or lowering it to /a/, as with "Canada"/"kayak" (now /kaˈna.da/; /ˈka.jak/).

What decides whether they change it to /ɛ/ or /a/? –Vuccala (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It is somewhat unpredictable - it can depend on when the word was borrowed, older words tend to have /a/, newer /ɛ/, but this is by no means regular or 100% predictable. Vininn126 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This is also the case with loans from English into Georgian.

I suspect the competing factors are:

• Spelling-pronunciation (⟨a⟩ = [ä]) vs. direct phonetic adaptation of English /æ/
• British English ([a]) versus American English ([æ~ɛ̃ə̯̃])

Nicodene (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I suspect Vininn's observation about older /a/ vs newer /ɛ/ may connect with Nicodene's observation about British vs American (Britain would have previously been a more frequent source of loans, but now American media is widespread). One other thing I notice about your examples is that the two with /ɛ/ are from stressed /æ/ and the two with /a/ are unstressed; it's conceivable that has some influence.
FWIW, the same thing happens when borrowing from Polish (or other languages) to English: English's lack of true /a/ means words with /a/ shift to either /ɑ/ or /æ/ in inconsistent ways, like UK /ɡəˈdænsk/ vs US /ɡəˈdɑːnsk/~/ɡəˈdænsk/ (from Polish /a/), but UK /bəˈnɑː.nə/ vs US /bəˈnæ.nə/ (from Wolof /a/); UK Thomas /ˈmæn/ vs US /ˈmɑːn/ (German /a/), UK /ˈpæstə/ vs US /ˈpɑːstə/ (Italian /a/), but UK /məˈɹɑːl/ vs US /məˈɹæl/ (French /a/). - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

sesquipedalian - empty RP audio

I don't know where this is to be reported, but the Received Pronunciation audio for sesquipedalian has no voice, just noise. Math MisterY (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear audio. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It works fine for me. Nicodene (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Math MisterY You may be having trouble because the speech is only played through the left earphone, so if maybe your audio setup is broken, you can't hear the left channel. But it's definitely there. Kiril kovachev (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you were right, thanks! Maybe someone will change it to play on both channels… Math MisterY (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Cisgender" engenders controversy

Discussion moved from Talk:cisgender#Vandalism on this page.

Can we get some eyes on cisgender, where the entry has been locked by an admin after a controversial recent change? WanderingWanda (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Several persons are watching it. Is there something in particular that you're concerned about? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason I locked the page was 1) editing warring and 2) @HastinessParrot's claim was based purely one the second cite (which I agree is questionable), but the first cite seems more legit and also I have definitely seen many people take it offensively (even if that's not the general vibe). I think we just need to apply the right adverb and update the usage note explaining that the term, for the most part, is not offensive, but there is definitely a small (but not entirely fringe) group that takes it that way. I find the claims I am pushing anti-LGBTQ propaganda to be absolutely ridiculous. Vininn126 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I get the sense that people who find it offensive are basically offended by the idea, not by the specific word, so describing it as "sometimes offensive" does't seem that informative. It doesn't seem to be the case that we include a "sometimes offensive" label on every term that someone could object to being called or that could cause offense to some people when used in certain contexts. Compare homophobe, anti-Semitic, Zionist, Taiwan. We also don't include a "sometimes offensive" label at Londonderry, although there is a Usage notes section with a Wikipedia link. I think that is the best way to handle this sort of case.--Urszag (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

So are we saying that the only criteria for this is the speaker's intention? This has not always been the standard - I know that at many dictionaries the way a word is received is also taken into account. For example a white person using the N-word non-offensively but we would definitely never remove the label because that's generally how the word works. Vininn126 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of the speaker's intention deciding things. I just think this is not a central case of the concept of an "offensive word".--Urszag (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely viewed that why by a small, but not fringe margain, so hence the "sometimes". I don't see the issue. Vininn126 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I dont' thonk your anectodal evidence coming from personal experience should be considered a valid source 2001:B07:ADD:948D:DBD:D651:E6DA:718D 06:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is why I provided a link to a google search below - and I can provide links for sure.Vininn126 (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how wiktionary does things, but I think it's pretty important to take into account the motivations of the people adding this info to the page.

Is this info necessary to understanding the word? Does it warrant being included? Is that one news article about Elon Musk saying cis is a slur really more relevant than any of the bilion more serious discussions about the word cisgender you could find online?

Surely people on this website understand that it can be manipulated for political aims, and that we can't just keep pretending that the edit of the person trying to frame cisgender as controversial was neutral and not motivated by anti-trans disinformation goals?

I think when it comes to vague, weakly sourced information that can cause harm if not given proper context, there is a pretty strong to not platform this. Just because a random person felt like making this edit doesn't mean it deserves to be considered sacred.

That's what I think anyway. HastinessParrot (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WT:CFI is how we decide if a term should be included. As for labels, that's another issue. ~~ Vininn126 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

okay but in the meantime, we're just allowing a random person to put disinformation here, in the middle of a big media attention moment about this term, so that anyone that searches on Google will see that cisgender is "offensive" and that people prefer "nontransgender" or whatever it was?

I hope you agree that there is a problem with allowing disinformation to stay up in this way.

Also, as someone who only edited wikis a few times, I don't know the process. I tried googling around how to report the article and it was really obscure and confusing.

I still think the original edit should have been deleted (as it was by someone), and then the article protected. But you chose to keep the nefarious edits in and revert people trying to fix it. HastinessParrot (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What does CFI have to do with this? CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It relates to what we should include and not include? Vininn126 (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Since I've been tagged in this thread, I just want to make it extremely clear that the article was vandalised in a way that was obviously politically motivated and very weakly sourced by someone trying to frame the word cisgender as a slur, following Elon Musk's tweet. The article had no mention of any of this before, and I see no reason why the dictionary definition of cisgender should mention Elon Musk's latest drama.

The problem is that @Vininn126 reverted people's edits that removed the vandalism, and then when I later noticed that disinformation and removed it, also removed my edit. And then locked the page, not in its status before the issue, but in its status after it had already been vandalised to frame cisgender as an offensive word.

What I was advocating for wasn't a change, it was simply removing newly added vandalism. The people who kept reverting edits were actually trying to force that one edit through and are implying that it wasn't already a controversial part of the page. HastinessParrot (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I explained the reason I locked the page - edit warring. This is standard procedure. The next step is to have a discussion in a forum if we agree about the page. You are blowing everything out of proportion. Vininn126 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You were the one doing the edit warring. Look at the history, you kept reverting people's changes HastinessParrot (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point - we were in disagreement and could not decide what should stay. If you noticed, I stopped editing after I locked it, even now. Please assume good faith, you're being rather aggressive, and I've been trying to explain my viewpoint. Vininn126 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

1. HastinessParrot: I don't think the change was "vandalism" per se. 2. Vininn126: I found it odd that the article was locked in a way that preserved a controversial recent change. I'm not very familiar with Wiktionary, but at least on Wikipedia, I think the expected thing would be to revert the article to the state it was in *before* any controversial edits happened, rather than after. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@HastinessParrot @WanderingWanda Please, this is the third time you have been asked to move the conversation. Vininn126 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That is my point yes, all I wanted was for the article to return to its original state, and instead this user was specifically repeatedly (at least 3 times according to the history) stopping people from doing so, and then locked it so that no one could.

So yeah, it should come as no surprise that me and a few other users found this behaviour very suspicious. And @Vininn126 still seems to stand by the idea that the disinformation should have been left in the article, which makes no sense (unless you want that disinformation to be there) HastinessParrot (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@HastinessParrot Please move the discussion, and please stop assuming bad faith. 1) The link to the first article was visible, that's what this discussion is about. 2) you are assuming it's disinformation, we should discuss this - I never said I was against changing the article, I was against removing the source from the page - the second source should probably be removed but that first source is up for debate. You are being belligerent and are completely ignoring everything I am saying. Vininn126 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're literally the person that tagged me in this discussion thread. I didn't know it existed before. What do you mean by "please move the discussion"?

You're also the one that chose to revert multiple people's edit to keep this very weakly sourced and obviously biased claim that was clearly politically biased and aimed to give validity to anti-trans talking points.

My point of view is that those edits were controversial and unwarranted, and you not only reverting people's changes but doing it 3 times and locking the article, while keeping the controversial change, is not a neutral action but one that allowed a rogue vandalism edit to become locked-in. That's a problem HastinessParrot (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're talking in the thread for Vandalism - this is not an issue. It's an issue of content. Everything in that thread should be here. Vininn126 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't look like stopp[ing] editing after [you] locked it. I am bemused by the fact that the concept of administrator involvement (i.e., locking a page you were edit warring on) hasn't yet reached Wiktionary. TheresNoTime (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright I'm confused - people were complaining about the second link or the first link, or both? I added the first link because I understood only the second one was problematic, why remove a link otherwise? Second of all, you could ASK me why I did something instead of jumping to accusations. WT:Assume good faith. I didn't even change the usage note or add the label even though I was still trying to discuss it. I can only assume bad faith that @HastinessParrot stopped conversation once they got their way and was not open to any other discussion, and once any change was made they immediately jumped at my throat. I have been trying to be friendly and talkative but I can see this I am dealing with a power editor who must have their way and is in no way, shape, or form willing to cooperate, and as such, will no longer be responding. Let some other admin deal with this mess if they even feel like it. Vininn126 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I see people complaining about the first source, but only because it's considered unreliable on Wikipedia. But that's Wikipedia policy, not Wiktionary policy, unless I'm missing something? Adam9007 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean sure, if you don't have a policy on unreliable sources I guess you can keep unreliable sources in.

If it's a bad source, and it provides no value to the article, and it's vague and only causes harm to a group of people, why insist on wanting to keep it if a known unreputable source like Wikipedia lists it as unreliable?

Surely Wiktionary places some value on that. I mean, the edit that has been settled on links to a Wikipedia article for a reason. HastinessParrot (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, no-one has told you that Wikipedia's policies and standards do not apply here, so I'm telling you that now. While some of Wiktionary's policies and standards mirror their Wikipedia counterparts, Wiktionary's policies and standards are entirely discrete from Wikipedia's. Whatever standards they have over on Wikipedia have no relevance here. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether that's true or not doesn't change the fact that it being listed on Wikipedia bad sources is proof that it's known to be a bad source.

If your standard for what should be included in a dictionary is "if a tabloid article says it, it's in"... I can think of a lot of problems with this approach HastinessParrot (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A source may be bad for some purposes but not for others. As Wiktionary is a rather different project to Wikipedia, we cannot simply take their word for it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

How else can we be a descriptive dictionary? Do you understand the difference between a prescriptive dictionary and a descriptive one? Vininn126 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see WT:WINW. Vininn126 (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, such criteria are also used by dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and OED, and I don't think anyone would say those are not reliable dictionaries. Vininn126 (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I stopped conversation because you kept shutting me down and telling me to "move the discussion" (which you've said in multiple places in this thread), and I'm still not sure where because I was actively replying here and on the discuss page of the article until I was told to stop.

Also, the discussion on the talk page of the article seemed to have reached a decent consensus as people seemed happy with the edit the other admin made (forgot their account name) HastinessParrot (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I was actively discussing here, isn't that clear enough where the conversation should be? And I would still like to discuss the article - you never addressed the links I mentioned. I am happy to remove the link, it was never made clear to me. Why must you jump to the conclusion I am conniving against you? Vininn126 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, why did you choose to come back to add that link after the fact, when the article was protected, and an admin had made an edit that people were happy with?

You're free to do so, but I think it's a petty change, and it adds nothing of value. On the contrary, linking to a tabloid when there was a perfectly suitable link to wikipedia covering the topic in much more neutral manner and linking to other sources.

I also think it's weird that you're doing edits on an article, and also locking it, and also still making edits after. HastinessParrot (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I told you that I was under the impression that only the first link was problematic. How many times do I have to say that? Vininn126 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Even worse than that, after the discussion had mostly settled and another admin made a reasonable edit people liked, this admin who was originally edit warring came back to edit it again re-adding the link that many people agreed was a bad source, even though the article was supposedly protected. HastinessParrot (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I stated clearly that I was under the impression that the second link was the one in question. I do not recall much discussion about the first - in fact it seemed to be mostly ignored. I tried discussing it, but you never answered. How am I supposed to know what you demand if you don't read my messages and respond to them? Vininn126 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That article you added back in had many people on the talk page say it come from an unreliable source for being a tabloid. The other admin added a link to a Wikipedia page about the issue which is a good compromise that people seemed happy with.

You then came back later and added that unrelated link to a tabloid, with the message "Adding first reference until 1) people agree if it should be 2) people add to the APPROPRIATE thread and actually discuss the topic".

This is despite you being the one that had locked the post in the first place, after having reverted people's edits 3 times. HastinessParrot (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That link I added back was there all along. It's visible in the diff where you removed the references. I was under the impression people had no issue with it. Why is that something you cannot understand? Finally you still aren't addressing the fact I found many articles discussing the offensiveness of the term back even in 2020 and earlier, which is lower in this thread. Why? Are you ignoring that part of the discussion? Vininn126 (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless I misunderstood something. As far as I understand, this is the original change by that @Adam9007 account which vandalised the page with a bunch of anti-trans tropes all at once.

It includes that link. HastinessParrot (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@HastinessParrot If that is the case, then fine. You can ask nicely. Please stop these attacks, it is rather abusive at this point. At each moment I have tried to show you I am open to variations - I have changed the source, what do you think? Vininn126 (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, you're the one that chose to abuse admin powers to keep reverting people's edits, lock the thread, and then finally make another edit even after another admin stepped in.

If you're making decisions, people are allowed to question them. Especially when you choose to lock the article so that other people aren't allowed to make changes HastinessParrot (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I followed protocol - I locked a page once I saw where it was going, as any admin would have done. This is not an abuse of powers. Then, I started a discussion, in which I was attacked without assuming good faith and each time I explained why I performed a certain action, a flood of Wikipedia editors came along to claim I am abusing my powers, when, in reality, I was trying to 1) reapply a cite I was under the impression was accepted 2) find a compromise. These accusations are based little in procedure of how these things are handled, and to be frank come across as a severe reaction that could have been avoided had you asked me my stance or opinion instead of assuming bad faith. Vininn126 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you stop referring to my edit as vandalism? Vandalism is a deliberate, bad-faith attempt to disrupt the project, which this wasn't. Merely disagreeing with an edit, no matter how strongly, doesn't mean it was vandalism. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I believe it's vandalism to redefine a word overnight to give weight to a common talking point of hate groups.

If it wasn't the intent, it doesn't really matter much, but your insistence on the discussion threads to wanting to keep the clearly biased content says a lot.

It's not for me to judge though, and I'm not sure who's even in charge of making decisions, but I think the words and actions of people in the page and related discussion threads speak for themselves. HastinessParrot (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I was not "redefining" the word; I was merely adding notes describing how some people view the word. Whether they're right or wrong is not for us to say; as a dictionary, we describe usage, nothing else. Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It has been claimed that Metro cannot be used as a source here because Wikipedia considers it unreliable. However, that's Wikipedia policy. Does Wiktionary have a similar policy? I tried looking the other day when adding sources for something else, but couldn't find anything that banned certain sources. Am I missing something? Adam9007 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources were very weak and biased. Other than that metro article, the only other article was an article by an LGBT website that was criticising Elon Musk for saying this and absolutely wouldn't agree with their article being used as a source to support his claims.

Regardless, what warrants the inclusion of such a specific "controversy" in a dictionary article? Wikipedia, in its entire article about cisgender which is much more detailed (obviously) has chosen to ignore it.

Why does it need to be mentioned in a dictionary of all things? HastinessParrot (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@HastinessParrot Please move the discussion. Finally, you all should read WT:CFI, which I have linked in the discussion where this should all be happening. Vininn126 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@HastinessParrot, @Categorille, @Pikavangelist etc I would like to continue this discussion anew in good faith and to explain my position so that HastinessParrot stops making accusations.

I reverted the edits because I remember a time quite a while ago where a not-fringe-sized group considered the term offensive and I wanted to DISCUSS the issue, find some uses to support that, and update the usage note. Parrot insisted on undoing every edit without giving a chance and jumped straight to accusations.

Perhaps my memory is wrong, but I would like to at least question the change, not making assumptions either way. It seems like a brigade of Wikipedia editors came and applied a worldview to the entry without understanding how dictionaries work.

We first of all need criteria for offensive - one issue is intention vs reception, it's a balancing act. Because while the speaker might not intend a word to be offensive, it might still be perceived that why by a group - we have to determine how big a group needs to be. Everyone here is assuming that the size is not big enough - I would agree that is the current stance, however, I think some years ago the case was different. If we agree that the size of the receiving group matters, but that that has changed, that we should keep the label but with an adverb, i.e. sometimes and historically, alongside a usage note explaining that the current view has changed.

Furthermore, as a dictionary, by listing information we are neither condemning nor condining it - this is something I want to impress on this new group of editors. If a word meets our WT:CFI, we include it. You all can vote as much as you want but that won't help - we should be looking for uses and sources. Vininn126 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda @Koavf @Urszag As well Vininn126 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Binarystep, too Vininn126 (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the edit. Once again, I do not think the issue is as much with mentioning in some place (e.g. as a link in the Usage notes) that some people may consider the term offensive, with proper sourcing and also presenting opposing arguments for the sake of neutrality, but more so with having it written at the very beginning of the definition itself. This is because such an indication taints the whole definition of this word, which has a long history of perfectly descriptive and neutral scientific use, just because of developments that have happened in the last few days. Categorille (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That is the point of the adverbs, they clarify exactly what we mean. By saying "historically" we mean "no longer". It's not an all or nothing thing, it's not like we have to have only "offensive", we can put whatever we want before it to inform the reader. Vininn126 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We can look for better sources (and someone did, and made the article better by linking to them. Linking to the Wikipedia article with more details seems good.

But that's not an excuse for leaving disinformation that targets a vulnerable group in the meantime. The definition as it was can be very damaging as it becomes a source of authority.

There's also still the fact that the dictionary isn't an encyclopedia and nothing warranted the additions that were made (other than the fact that the person who made them was clearly trying to manipulate the dictionary to fit their anti-trans views).

As for editing... One person removed the vandal edit, you reverted it with no discussion. I arrived and removed the vandalism (by coincidence, I hadn't seen the previous edits), and you reverted mine. Then another third person removed it, and that also got reverted

There was one person adding disinformation, and at least 3 different people who immediately knew what it was, and removed it.

I understand assuming good faith, but this is not a luxury trans people have in the middle of big media attention on concepts that can be used to harm us.

If someone posts inaccurate information about gardening you can argue about it, but someone posting disinformation about an active and political debate that can harm a group of people, I think it should be removed immediately, and that's what I did.

As I'm not a power user, I didn't know about whatever the correct process would be, and I'd argue that in the meantime this horribly biased definition would have been harmful by giving validity to anti-trans talking points.

I'll also point out that there's a ton of nuance that could have been posted about this word here, because discussing political controversies is out of scope of a definition, and no one did, until someone saw an opportunity to push anti trans rhwetoric when they made the original edit HastinessParrot (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@HastinessParrot I understand that this is a personal issue for you - please understand that when an admin reverts you explaining why that reverting back multiple times is a big no-no. Vininn126 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I was very uncertain about what you were removing - had you removed only the second source things would be entirely different. Vininn126 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I only did it once when I saw the article, and another time when my edit was reverted because my first thought is that it was obvious vandalism to push anti trans propaganda, there were other people that made the same change, who probably thought the same thing HastinessParrot (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's say water under the bridge and start the discussion properly, deal? Vininn126 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I did a google search for "is Cisgender offensive" and set the latest year to 2020, to try and find sources not related to the recent drama. I am finding quite a few articles having to defend either side, especially emphasizing that it's not. This to me is evidence that some people DID in fact find it offensive, but that from the beginning there was push-back against that. Vininn126 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I did almost the exact same search, and found this. Yes, it's only one person, and yes, it also says that the word isn't meant to be offensive, but my point is that some people find it offensive regardless of intent. It also goes to show that the drama with Elon Musk is only the latest symptom of a much wider issue. Adam9007 (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Adam9007 I found many articles, a petition (!) to stop it's use, among others. If there's even this much material having to explain that the term isn't offensive, that's strong evidence that these are reactions to a sizeable group of people saying that it is. Vininn126 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The article has a link to the Wikipedia page discussing the few valid criticisms of the word, now. That should cover it.

I don't see why the dictionary page needs to cover more than that, especially as linking to the bigger Wikipedia article about controversy is apparently an established pattern used in other articles

I also think while some criticisms of it can be valid, the main issue was that it was added to the article in a biased and politically motivated way to frame cisgender as a slur. There is a big difference between "we should acknowledge that it's been criticised", and started the definition with claiming that it's offensive, and essentially using "because Elon Musk said so" as the source.

Just because you can find people saying something doesn't mean it's necessarily worthy of being platformed HastinessParrot (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@HastinessParrot The issue is not about what we approve or not. I am not trying to prove the word should be used this way or that way - and I am basing this claim entirely without Elon's tweet. What I am saying is that there was a point in history where a non-fringe sized group considered the word offensive, as can be seen in the google search. And because we are not an encyclopedia, nor are we a prescriptavist dictionary, we are here to document words usage and views on it over time. Vininn126 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

'I don't see why the dictionary page needs to cover more than that' - Because Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, covers the thing itself, whereas Wiktionary, as a dictionary, covers the term. They're not the same thing. Adam9007 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not is also important here. Vininn126 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

As a recently made account, and someone looking on the sidelines, I don't think it's a good look for a definition to change a word's connotation overnight. In my personal opinion, I would suggest that the mods consult an actual linguist, or other expert on the subject matter, if there is an impasse the word's meaning, rather than tone policing HastinessParrot and resolving the conflict with a negative peace.

Personally, with the exception of news articles about Twitter, I did not find any search result that indicated "cisgender" was "offensive" when searching without emotionally-charged keywords. I even looked up "cisgender meaning summary" on Brave Search, which includes an AI summary of its results. Not once did "derogatory", "offensive" or similar terms appear in the top results and summary. SignorSaitama (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Just leaving a note here to say that anti trans edit warring is still going on and someone has added again the "sometimes offensive" that people had agreed shouldn't be in.

Something needs to be done about this article HastinessParrot (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The narrow sense of transgender was originally labelled as 'offensive'. And that narrow sense may be ideologically or scientifically inaccurate. But, to me, to be 'offensive' in an objective sense, some large number of persons needs to use the word impolitely in a way that reliably causes a part of society to be seriously shocked and angered. I haven't seen the offensive use of cisgender, nor of the narrow sense of transgender. But it's I guess possible that a large number of people could use these words impolitely such that another major part of society has an intense reaction. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting case. It's not easy for Vininn126 to stand against a bunch of attackers, many of them oblivious about how Wiktionary (or Wikimedia projects in general) work, also making a lot of generalisations and imply a huge lot. I see an anon constroversial edit, which seemed to be handled, then a bunch of aggressive edit summaries and various edits filled with negative energies. The admins usually handle vandals (which was the behaviour of most of the later edits) by locking, discussing, then editing accordingly and removing the lock, but the loudest people here do not seem to be aware how it supposed to work and start chanting evil admins, evil wikipedia, evil everyone not them. I am far from being knowledgeable of the subject, but I can speak of my experience: I met this word first on mastodon where a non-binary person wanted to offend me, using the term as "people being less [anyting and everything]", "stupid people", "intolerant people", "supremacist people". Then I have seen the word in various cases, again, almost always saying bad things about heterosexual people, usually males. I've seen non-offensive use various times, but people (for example the community on Mastodon) usually use it in a derogaroty/pejorative way. That is the majority usage I have seen in the last year or so. I find it curious that the same group of people who use it as a derogatory term keep asserting that it is never a "slur". Also I have seen many times that people actually doing their unbiased homework and tried to look for real world usage, and have found that the term is sometimes used as derogatory get actually attacked and name-called by the members of the aforementioned group. I am sure that having said that I will be called racist, sexist, anti-whatever, while I only prefer recording the facts instead of letting emotions and opinions (aka. bias or non neutral point of view) dictate the content. As for the specifics: I believe it is sometimes used as derogatory by "non-cis people". --grin (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The original edit was this one. The other edits were people removing the obvious sudden anti-trans propaganda trying to give authority to Elon Musk's claims by editing Wiktionary.

Then, that Vinnin126 admin reverted the edits of multiple people and kept protecting this very controversial and obviously modivated bad actor edit, and locked the post. The post was left with disinformation and no one could do anything about it.

Being an admin and taking admin actions like that getting involved in editing an article and then locking it after is inherently going to cause discussions. This isn't "a bunch of attackers".

Or do you believe that admin actions should be unquestioned and people can just abuse admin powers with no right to even question it?

Also, on the theme of "standing against a bunch of attackers", I'd like to point out that it would be nice to consider what it's like for trans people to google the word cisgender and realise that Wiktionary has decided to embrace anti-trans propaganda and further the "cis is a slur" agenda. Trans people are the victim of the harm caused by the disinformation here. The admin has no skin in the game and is choosing to make those edits. HastinessParrot (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I, quite clearly, have no issue with disagreement, as I have even accepted most of the changes. The problems I had was because 1) I undid because I saw removal of a source 2) I saw continued undoing. When an edit is undone, it's best to open a discussion rather than to undo back. This is standard Wikiprotocol. Vininn126 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And in the meantime the random person who posted disinformation gets their disinformation to appear on search results for the word cisgender.

I didn't know the process, I just came in, saw an obviously inaccurate article, so I fixed it. HastinessParrot (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is a standard response to edit warring. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What about when the admin that locks it is the one starting the edit warring?

Look at the post history. There is a clear attempt to force the article to stay in a specific way.

Anyway, I'll leave you all to discussing your protocols. I was here to remove disinformation, I have little interest in doing wiki lawyering. Going to unsubscribe from the thread because cleary you're all lost discussing rules and protocol and forgetting the important part that harmful disinformation against a vulnerable minority was locked in this article, and I was just trying to find a way to report that.

If I didn't do it the right way, sorry, but I don't see how that changes the fact that the original edit was clearly someone lazily pushing an anti-trans agenda HastinessParrot (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have explained numerous times why I undid each edit. If you cannot accept that, I do not know what else to tell you. What you are claiming just simply isn't true, and if you read why I did this, you would understand I am not pushing an agenda. But perhaps there is no way to unconvinced you otherwise, in which case we are wasting our time. Vininn126 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You keep dominating the discussion. Being loud does not mean being right. grin (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll leave cis people to tell trans people how to solve anti-trans disinformation, you're right.

I will also stop "dominating the discussion" by replying to people who are specifically talking to me.

I think trans people can clearly feel very safe on this platform given the tone this thread and the others have taken, I'm very grateful HastinessParrot (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand your opinions. You use these phrases I may find "offensive": "obvious sudden anti-trans propaganda", "trying to give authority to Elon Musk's claims", "obviously modivated bad actor edit", "disinformation", "Or do you believe", "Wiktionary has decided to embrace anti-trans propaganda", "The admin has no skin in the game". You may not realise it but you are providing a very precise example I am talking about: you take your opinions, enrich them with preceived attacks and emotionally charged phrases, convert them no thinly veiled aggressivity and throw it at me. I am non-american, their PC speech doesn't work on me.

In real life, though, there is probably nothing where there isn't at least someone who would feel offended, and saying "a group of people feel offended by reading facts" is not interpretable on an NPOV level. Try to skip emotions and drama and stick to the facts. Are there people using the word in derogatory context? Is it a valid, existing use? Does it happen widely enough to be mentioned? This can be discussed, examined, and the result included. And nobody should care whether the truth offends anyone or not, or would actually make some minority people feeling shame for their own fellas using an otherwise good word in pretty bad context. IMO. grin (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

(Like LBD, I too can confirm that temporarily locking a page is a standard response when it's clear there's otherwise going to be a lot of edit-warring.)
Regarding the Boyne op-ed, I would drop it here for much the same reason it was dropped on Wikipedia, a random novelist's personal opinion that he doesn't like the word is not particularly informative (as mentioned, there are individual white people who claim to find white derogatory, and yet...we are capable of recognizing bad-faith or invalid claims...). A more scholarly mention of the campaign to claim it's a slur/offensive can be found in e.g. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies (which connects it with similar campaigns e.g. to claim that describing anti-gay hate as homophobic is a human rights violation). But as I said on talk, my intent is to see what I can do to sensibly improve the article in like a week, rather than right now, for the same reason that on Wikipedia it's easier to just let everyone add their country's ==International reactions== to each breaking news story and then prune it to only what's relevant a week later when the news cycle has died, rather than trying to do so while it's the topic du jour and good- and bad- faith arguments are flying in various directions. - -sche (discuss) 22:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with calling for calm on this and waiting for the immediate media attention to subside. I noticed this discussion was posted to the talk page of WT:VIP of all things, where after I clarified that this wasn't an instance of vandalism, was dealt with an accusation of "fascism". It's clear that emotions are running high, which is not helped by what appears superficially to be some kind of brigading campaign (many new editors that have barely if at all contributed to Wiktionary before, but have contributed to other wikis, mainly en.WP). In my view we have almost given too much leniency to some of the behavior in the course of this discussion already. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The SAGE Encyclopedia would seem to hold the same position as the Metro article in the original controversial edit, in acknowledging some call the term offensive but criticising that as unreasonable. What this comes down to is whether Wikitionary is going to assume good faith on the part of every political group (and it is mostly political groups labelling 'cisgender' offensive), and if so what sort of threshold can be established to justify the use of the "offensive" label. As others have pointed out, if that threshold is low stuff like Picnic or Londonderry would be labelled as offensive. That would be consistent but would probably raise eyebrows. Furbybrain (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at the article's current state, and it seems like a decent enough starting point for when you do that. Not perfect, but if you're going to assume good faith on some people finding it offensive then putting that in usage notes feels less aggressive than sticking the "sometimes offensive" in the definition proper. --Pikavangelist (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@-sche the SAGE Encylopedia seems to be paywalled, could you post the original passage? (and the entry name) Ioaxxere (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking into it more closely, the mention of cisgender itself is relatively short (and, we can now observe, overly optimistic), probably mostly useful for indicating (part of) who objects and to some extent why. In the (sub)section "TERF is a slur" (the quotation marks are part of the title), it says "Following a 2012 right-wing "homophobe is a slur" campaign, TERF activists began organizing "TERF is a slur" and "cis is a slur" campaigns. TERF activists asserted that these terms were offensive and used to disparage (cisgender) women. While the "cis is a slur" campaign largely fell into obscurity after cisgender was added to numerous dictionaries, organizing around the "TERF is a slur" campaign continues." (The rest of the section seems to focus on the terms that reference bias, like homophobe and TERF, rather than terms that simply indicate a characteristic like cisgender; it describes some critiques of TERF and says "these critiques are applied to any descriptive term that carries a level of social repudiation, such as homophobe, racist, or misogynist. For instance, in 2012, Kari Simpson, a right-wing activist, filed a human rights complaint in Canada because some schools used the term homophobic to describe anti-gay hate. Simpson claimed that homophobe was a "made-up" slur and that it was used to "deliberately mock Christians." These terms are rarely accepted by those they describe and yet can be necessary, as they offer a means to name specific types of bias-based beliefs, rhetoric, behavior, and the resulting structural oppression, [...]." However, assuming other sources also connect/compare this to other objections, I do think it could be useful to situate the objections in their context of coming from people who in general object to being describable rather than default.) - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose to marking the term as offensive. As others have said, our labels should not be giving legitimacy to what is still a very fringe viewpoint. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There has been evidence that this is not as fringe as people think and has been happening for many years, as I supplied evidence for earlier in the thread. Vininn126 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126 could you summarize the evidence in cisgender#Usage_notes? There's quite a lot of thread to go through... (the Wikipedia page doesn't mention the current controversy either) Ioaxxere (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere it's probably best I don't, lest I face the wrath of 50 wikipedians for touching a comma. Vininn126 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean add it into our own page. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I know. Vininn126 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Being dismissive about adding evidence because someone might be mean to you and critique your grammar seems like an obvious deflection from the real issue at hand.

I don't know the requirements for references within Usage Notes, but the quotation for example from John Boyne was removed from the related Wikipedia article on cisgender because John Boyne is not a subject matter expert. Who are these people being used as reference? Why not scholars or people writing papers rather than any old quotes from the newspapers from people without any expertise? Does the entry for "globe" contain a note that some people, a group that's "not as fringe as people think", object to the characterization that the Earth is round and not flat? 68.97.125.123 05:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not what is happening and is changing the situation to something else entire. Finally, we are here to document general use as well - if a general population considers a usage to be so, then it is. Vininn126 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please take a moment to consider the quality of sources you're using to prove these statements. They aren't good enough for Wikipedia, so why should they be enough here? Are the standards for a dictionary much less than one for encyclopedia? I'm sure I can find a source for any viewpoint out there if I tried. Shall we make entries on every word that someone, somewhere might view as controversial? An item published in a newspaper gives you no insight onto how small or large that contingent is. There was a post earlier from someone saying that being "loud" doesn't make you "right". Being "loud" in a newspaper doesn't mean that there's a vast group of folks who believe cis is a slur. There are many academic articles which use the word. It's only because of Elon that this is even coming up now.

To be more constructive: why not simply point to the wikipedia article instead of adding usage notes with dubious sources who lack any expertise? Shendaras (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians for comments on what sources we accept, using the claim that "it's not good enough for Wikipedia so it shouldn't be here" doesn't actually hold any ground. Vininn126 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The point is we include different types of sources in order to document how a word is viewed/seen. Vininn126 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ehh... I would say we use different kinds of sources than Wikipedia when we're using them for different purposes than Wikipedia. We accept a novelist's op-ed or (to give intentionally more extreme examples, to illustrate) even an op-ed by David Irving or a piece by an outlet like ANNA News (both known for fabricating things) as a citation showing that some word it uses, like "wilful", is attested and used, even as Wikipedia wouldn't consider these as reliable sources of information for claims of fact about whether a word is offensive or whether an event happened. But when we're doing the same thing as Wikipedia, using something as a source for whether a word is offensive or any other claim of fact, I'd like to think we'd make a similar effort to evaluate whether the source is reliable and whether it's relevant to what we're using it for. IMO a novelist saying "I don't like being described with this word" is not a great source for "some people, plural, as if maybe a lot, find this word offensive". Earlier, William Shatner made headlines for disliking the term, and there was some discussion of the nature/legitimacy of that objection back then, but I've been avoiding mentioning those, either, because I still think (hope) it'll be possible to find more reliable sources for more general statements about what kinds (and proportion) of people object to this term and why (and how credibly) — particularly as I suspect more are probably being published in response to this news story, heh. - -sche (discuss) 16:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ewww, Shatner said that? I don't know why I'm surprised. --{{victar|talk}} 04:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the difference in the document you linked on how sourcing differs here. I believe, as sche says in the comment above, that these sources are being used in a different way to make an argument about the controversy rather than its usage. It's usage is well documented going back many years. What's more, there's a definite political piece to this that should be evaluated. This is a minority group under attack and platforming anti-trans rhetoric on an "objective" page ignores that this too is a political statement.

Who cares if some author has decided that cis is a slur? How does that in any way tell you how the word is used by the general public?

But, let me argue a different way. I will claimm that the sources listed here are insufficient on their own. Removed from the broader context means that someone evaluating these definitions might believe that this controversy is much larger than it actually is rather being "louder". To show that there's opposition, why not include items from recent news articles showing that this word is not a slur to better indicate that there's differences in opinion? I found a handful of opinion pieces in newspapers, just like the ones cited in the notes currently, which could be used to provide a more complete view. Shendaras (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

'Who cares if some author has decided that cis is a slur? How does that in any way tell you how the word is used by the general public?' If you're referring to Elon Musk, I'd have thought that if a major platform bans a word, it's because people there are complaining about it, but what do I know? Adam9007 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And the whole lot has been deleted, sigh.... Adam9007 (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see this page's protection being increased to admins-only.... Adam9007 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I also oppose labelling it as "(potentially/sometimes) offensive", but I am very sceptical that a strong emotional among cisgender people against being labelled cisgender is "very fringe". It is quite common for people who constitute a default of some form to object and even react very strongly emotionally to being labelled; compare neoliberals (embracing neoliberalism in sense 1 or 2) mewling about being labelled neoliberal and insisting that it is not a thing (despite the Mont Pelerin Society and the Washington Consensus e.g. being very real things). That said I think that the current usage note misses the point by prioritising rather academic concerns, not centring the most common objection ("I don't want to be labelled!") and not mentioning the elephant in the room (which itself constitutes a range of responses): socially conservative objections to trans people (existing, being out, achieving acceptance), to normalising transhood and therefore to being explicitly labelled themselves. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ha, I was deliberately trying to avoid "platforming loaded anti-trans views" (the words of @HastinessParrot), you can't please everyone. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not know if I correctly understand what you and xe mean with "platforming", but I think that I agree. I am not for uncritically airing those views, just in favour of pointing out and describing a relevant political factor in the very political agitation against the word cisgender. I think that can be done without any quotes. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think disagreement/confusion over exactly what is meant by the label "offensive" has played a big part in this drama, so this needs clarification: what exactly do we mean by labelling a term as "offensive"? Does it mean that the term is primarily used with offensive intent (which I agree isn't the case here), or does it mean that offence might well be taken by its use regardless of whether that was the intent (which does seem to be the case here)? As we ourselves define the word "offensive" simply as "causing offence", I think the label could apply to either situation. Edit: just looked at the glossary, which defines it as "Language that is intended or likely to cause offense" (my bolding), so that indeed sounds to me as if it covers both situations. Adam9007 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Citing the Metro is just silly. The Irish Times item is an opinion piece, not a scholarly source with secondary analysis. The story from the Times is quoting the co-director of a transphobic lobbying organization. None of these would be acceptable sources at Wikipedia. I know that Wiktionary is a different project, but there are reasons why Wikipedia has standards for what its editors can cite, and this is a darn good illustration of why standards are needed here too. Quotes in a dictionary should illustrate shades of meaning and show the historical development of a word, not be agenda-pushing broadsides. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

To say it another way: quoting the co-director of a group that actively campaigns against improving the legal status of trans people without indicating who they are means that the dictionary is falling down on its job of explaining who reacts to a word and how. Over the years, various people have used lesbian to mean man-hating, for example, and a quotation to illustrate that use could in principle be appropriate, but merely dropping that in as meaning 2(c) of "lesbian, noun" without the necessary context would be bad lexicography.

Even if the question is just whether a meaning is attested, one must take care. But here, as noted above, Wiktionary is "doing the same thing as Wikipedia, using something as a source for whether a word is offensive or any other claim of fact". Consequently, on general principles, one should "make a similar effort to evaluate whether the source is reliable and whether it's relevant to what we're using it for". XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is going to take some work to get right, but I'm coming around to the point Lingo Bingo Dingo made partly above and partly on Talk:cisgender, that it'd be good if we could put together a (ref'd) usage note about who dislikes this term (I said something similar on Wikipedia), e.g. specifying when it's transphobic lobbyists, political conservatives, etc. (And I would still prefer not to cite individual people's dislikes, like Boyne's or Shatner's, if it's possible to cite more general sources about what kind of people in general dislike it.) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. It's clear and it adresses the "concerns" without implying that they're a common belief in cis people as opposed to a belief in anti-trans groups HastinessParrot (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Animal adjectives

Does this Wiktionary have a category for, or list of, English language adjectives such as "feline" for cats, "canine" for dogs, "equine" for horses, etc.? Also, what is the adjective for walruses? Does it even exist in the English language? 2601:18A:C500:E830:526A:B17D:E5EF:4ACD 05:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we have a couple appendices. See the "adjective" column in Appendix:Animals as well as Appendix:Animal adjectives deriving from Latin and Ancient Greek. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

walrusine is attested, also walrusian, maybe google books:"walrussian". I would've expected the Latinate adjective to be rosmarine, but this seems to be blocked by the fact that rosmarine already means something else. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

IPA policy

Where are the Wiktionary policies on IPA? "WT:IPA" only leads to a guide to IPA. I'm especially looking for policies regarding the sourcing of IPA transcriptions, since I highly doubt "look at yourself in a mirror, say the same word 100 times, and then transcribe it" is a reliable source. A diehard editor (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We have a preference for phonemic transcriptions, but will occasionally do phonetic ones i.e. for particular dialects, within reason. Vininn126 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen Wiktionary:Pronunciation? Also, for convenience: WT:IPA. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

WT:IPA is the chart. Turns out Wiktionary:Pronunciation is the page I was looking for. Thanks! A diehard editor (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for deciding to edit here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)