Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-10/Removing label proscribed from entries

Rationale

While it has been said that the proscribed label is merely to describe that other people proscribe and not the dictionary makers, the label is in fact a backdoor to prescriptivism. It labels entries as objectionable in a very prominent way, right before the definition. It enables import of proscriptions existing outside of Wiktionary right into Wiktionary as allegged descriptions of there being proscriptions. To me, this is at odds with the descriptivist lexicography we are trying to do here. I believe the manner in which it is allegged that the label "describes" is fundamentally fallacious: I could equally well claim that a differently conceived label proscribed merely describes the editorial judgment of the dictionary makers. No one should be fooled by that sort of "description".

Stating in a usage note that the term is absent from a particular regulatory list is an acceptable compromise. A descriptivist dictionary is under no compulsion to provide this class of information; a descriptivist could say that such information is not descriptive of usage and therefore has no place to seek in a descriptivist dictionary. We make a concession in allowing this kind of information in a usage note. Beyond usage note, no prominent label serving as a badge of shame is called for.

Prominent English dictionaries listed in OneLook do not seem to use label proscribed in their entries; I have not checked every single one, though. I looked here:

• Help - Usage Labels - Merriam-Webster
• How To Use This Site - AHD
• Labels and Abbreviations - Macmillan
• Guide to Symbols and Labels - oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com
• Guide to the Third Edition of the OED - OED

The proscriptions imported by the label may be quite poor, worse than the editorial judgment of Wiktionary editors. The peevers are generally louder in their proscriptions than those who object to the proscriptions. Furthermore, even fallacious proscriptions based on implausible reasoning exist as proscriptions, and therefore turn on the label "proscribed" or "often proscribed" as "describing" them. You only have to remember how plentiful peddlers of astrology are, and compare them to anti-astrology; anyone found their favorite anti-horoscope in a popular magazine? The English Wiktionary should not provide peevers with such a prominent channel of communication and advertisement as is the label space right before the definition. Let peevers use our talk pages to tell the world how objectionable and forbidden various words and forms are; that's more than enough.

Let me come back once more to how the label proscribed alleggedly merely describes. It is worth noting that any prescription or even command can be rendered as a description. An emperor's command of the form "Do X" can be rendered as "It is emperor's will that you do X", a factually correct or incorrect statement descriptive of emperor's will. Similarly, "no trespassing" can be rendered as "The owners of the property ask that you do not enter and are ready to penalize your entry." If the distinction between lexicographical prescriptivism and descriptivism is to be properly maintained, the recasting of prescriptions into descriptive form to be included in the dictionary has to be rejected.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are in for some more reading, here is "Linguistic norms" vs. "groundless peeves" by Mark Liberman, at Language Log, May 16, 2011, a collection of links to other Language Log articles related to descriptivism vs prescriptivism. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As I think about it more, it really is quite simple. The label admits peevers a very simple strategy: if we boo a form loud and plentifully enough, it will eventually earn at least the "sometimes proscribed" label in Wiktionary. Facts about the form and its usage will not be able to change that; the booing will prevail. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There is definitely some deep primaeval thing in me that makes me want to oppose this. On the other hand, you (Dan) make a lot of good arguments. I'm trying to work out what the issue is. I have elsewhere stated that we seem to give too much credence to misspellings, and perhaps I think we are slipping into an inescapable black hole where every moron's typo will get an entry. Perhaps I could formulate my objection along the lines of "if all modern dictionaries are more or less descriptive, why do we include more (arguably) misspelled or non-standard terms than they do?". Equinox ◑ 06:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Misspellings do get deleted as rare misspellings or marked as common misspellings; right now, we have WT:RFD#ciaplatin currently failing, and we deleted aqcuire (WT:RFD#aqcuire). Deleting rare misspellings is mandated in CFI via a passing vote. I have been arguing in favor of using frequency ratio, that is, the ratio of the frequency of the putatively correct spelling to the putatively incorrect spelling. This is great since frequency is a fact of usage, and we now have Google Ngram Viewer to give us much better data for multiple languages than bare Google searches. And once we use frequency ratio, editors can use their taste to see which ratio is to their taste for inclusion of common misspellings. I tend to think that the ratio 1000 is okay for a common misspelling while others can differ and vote "delete" in RFD in such a situation. I don't see any chance that "every moron's typo" gets an entry, or even nearly every one.

But this is really about proscribed more than about misspellings. Proscribed is liable to end up in terms that some people find incorrect, often based on incorrect descriptive claims. That is one objection raised against prescriptivists: while each prescription contains a non-factual, non-descriptive component, they are all too often based on factually incorrect linguistic claims.

As for your question, I don't have a good answer. It could do with 3 attesting quotations in non-copyedited sources such as Usenet being too low a bar for inclusion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The problems with 'proscribed' on its own is it doesn't tell you who proscribes it. Then you need usage notes to say who proscribes it. I think it's basically a bad idea all around, and 'nonstandard' doesn't have this problem. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't it? Shouldn't we have usage notes to say whom it is non-standard to? Equinox ◑ 11:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the idea behind 'nonstandard' that it's not standard anywhere, unless otherwise stated. Like goin' is not a standard form of going anywhere. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That we describe a fact about certain words, that they are proscribed, does not detract from our descriptivist nature. Failing to describe it does detract from our utility as a general-purpose dictionary, given that one of the reason native speakers use dictionaries is to confirm how their idiolect matches up with the lect of their target audience. We should have proscribed markings whenever the user of a word in a sense runs a risk of getting a negative response because of that use. The fact that we feel that sense is etymologically or historically supported is irrelevant to that user, and is itself a form of prescriptionism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Prosfilaes on this. We ought not to be so rigid in our descriptivism that we give undue weight to misspellings, heavily frowned upon forms of words and the like. It is simply unreasonable to treat those kinds of things the same as general normal forms and spellings. We risk looking like we prescribe those nonstandard forms and spellings if we do. Tharthan (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I argue above that it does detract from our descriptivist nature. A descriptivist dictionary is descriptive of usage, not of there being boos and peevers. I argue above that even a straight imperative can be recast as a description, and that therefore, one should not be guided by the word "describe" alone. I point out above that dictionaries do not seem to use label "proscribed".

Misspellings are a whole different story; rare ones get deleted and common ones get marked as misspellings. For more about misspellings, see my post above. Some deleted misspellings include hisown, himand, dolemite, motted, enthousiastic, informacíon, trolly dolly, blackhoe, stylishy, râter, animalike, suthern, increidbly, and aqcuire. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If a descriptivist dictionary is descriptive of usage, then do we have etymologies, translations and anagrams, none of which are usage? If "boos and peevers" are worthy of a proscribed note, they are in fact part of usage, they're part of what will get past editors and get published in newspapers and journals, what will get accepted as an essay in English class.

Yes, straight imperatives can be recast as a description. A report of an election is merely a statement of many imperatives bundled together. Likewise, when many English teachers make an imperative, it is entirely within our bounds to report on that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If a proscription is based on a fallacy what better way is there to fight it than to refute it in the usage notes for all the petty prescriptivist pedants to see? Users will assume the entries to be based on misunderstandings and we'll waste precious editor time on arguing with them. Crom daba (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to fight prescriptions in any other way than refusing to give them attention in the first place. Descriptivist dictionaries do not usually contain discussions between prescriptions and their opposers, as far as I know. There is no need for these dictionaries to serve as that sort of advertising space for third parties. Our entries are not based on misunderstanding but rather on WT:CFI, especially WT:ATTEST; sooner or later, our readers will figure that out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We will certainly need to fight them because people will keep adding them unless we address it somehow Crom daba (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really. When a term does not meet WT:ATTEST, we usually just delete the entry: we don't create an entry containing a discussion of WT:ATTEST. When someone adds "proscribed", we can remove it and point out to our being a descriptivist dictionary in the edit summary. In fact, if it were not for the precedent of "proscribed", it would not be so easy or obvious to add "proscribed". Once introduced, the label spreads, slowly at first. It contains the ingenuous trap of allegedly being merely descriptive of there being proscriptions. Once removed (a big if), the label will not keep being added at any significant rate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for an addition to the vote

I think a section should be added to this vote allowing people to vote support, but on the condition that the proscription of the word be mentioned in a usage note. I think it would be harmful to remove the "proscribed" label without replacing it with anything. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the words "proscribed", "proscribe" and the like should by absent from entries. However, this is the usage note that we currently have in tchýně:

• Pravidla českého pravopisu, a handbook considered by many Czechs to decide what is correct spelling, does not contain "tchýně" and only contain "tchyně". However, the pronunciation is long and the form tchýně is in common usage.

And this is the usage note in publically:

• This spelling is omitted from many dictionaries. The suffix -ally is normally used in this context (added onto words that end in -ic), but public is an exception, and publicly is generally considered more correct.

These usage notes report absence from dictionaries, which the vote does not limit in any way. The 1st usage note even concedes that "a handbook considered by many Czechs to decide what is correct spelling". I am the author of the 1st usage note (diff).

On another note, let me quote the Merriam-Webster definitions[1] of "proscribe":

• 1 : to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
• 2 : to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful : prohibit

Sense 1 does not apply, it seems. The remaining sense is rather strong, isn't it?

I hope this kind of labeling can be removed but if it were to stay, better words should be used, like "often bemoaned", "often criticized", "controversial", and the like. Either way, such a label seems to be an original invention of Wiktionary.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Bemoaned" is a very emotionally loaded word and suggests angry bitching. Please drop that one. Equinox ◑ 06:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I did not know that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

On a general note, let voters post not only bare votes but rather votes that state or reference a rationale, and add futher comments and nuance, as usual. These can include "Let us state the absence from a regulatory list in a usage note", or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Label prevalence

Oneliner

grep "{{[^}]*proscribed" enwiktionary-20151102-pages-articles.xml |wc -l

yields 434 occurrences of label "proscribed" in the November 2015 dump. The same report on January 2012 dump yields 168 occurrences.

What it does: Find and count all lines in the November 2015 dump that start with "{{", followed by characters different from "}", followed by "proscribed". This covers labeling that uses templates context, label and lb. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The terms so labeled seem to be categorized to Category:English disputed terms created on 2011. The cross-language category is Category:Disputed terms by language, where you can see that there are 241 English disputed terms, 36 Polish ones, 20 Russian ones, 19 Armenian ones, 16 Portuguese ones, 12 Dutch ones, 9 German ones, 5 French ones, 4 Galician ones, etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A similar search can be done using insource:/\{[^\}]*proscribed/ in the search bar. It yields 507 results. — Eru·tuon 04:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that's a cool search; thanks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Other label name

For some reason, I am uncomfortable with the rendering "proscribed". It seems too strong, also based on M-W[2].

Other renderings that come to mind include "often deemed incorrect", "disputed", "contested", "often criticized", "controversial", and the like.

I checked Google Ngram Viewer: disputed spelling, contested spelling, proscribed spelling, criticized spelling, condemned spelling, controversial spelling, nonstandard spelling at Google Ngram Viewer. Of these, only "disputed" and "nonstandard" found anything.

We have Category:English disputed terms.

I do not see we need this label in addition to nonstandard, but since editors want a label with this kind of semantics per the current results of the vote, it seems worthwhile to ponder a better name.

I seem to like "often deemed incorrect", although it is quite long. I like how "deemed" indicates that Wiktionary editors take a distance from the incorrectness claim.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

For spellings, "proscribed" seems to be an uncommon descriptor (google books:"proscribed spellings" turns up almost nothing), and a label like "often deemed incorrect" might be better. For describing words that have been proscribed/ condemned by linguistic authorities, "proscribed" seems to be the word that English uses (google books:"proscribed words"). Especially in cases where authorities proscribe a word rather than only proscribing one sense (saying e.g. "this word [string of letters] shouldn't be used as a noun"), placing "often deemed incorrect" before a definition seems confusing, like it's a comment that the definition is incorrect, but then "well what is the correct definition"? "Criticized" and "condemned" seem liable to be misinterpreted as a comment on the referent of the term/sense when that referent is a person or thing or action (and when describing a spelling that is deemed incorrect, saying it is merely "criticized" seems too weak), though "condemned" might still work. "Controversial" doesn't convey the same sentiment as "proscribed": it's broader and weaker (in the US, whether to say a drink is soda or pop could be described as controversial, but I don't know that authorities recommend disusing either term or condemn either one as wrong), and it also seems likely to be misinterpreted (and then potentially misapplied to new entries) as saying the referent of the term/sense is controversial. - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

For google books:"proscribed words", when I click to the right, the last page where I can actually see the phrase is page 4. Not sure what is going on. One sentence that I see there multiple time is "... but that if they persisted in using the proscribed words they should be hanged. ..." - good idea.

Do authorities ever "proscribe" a word? That is, do they ever use the word "proscribe" to describe what they are doing? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Most prescriptive authorities don't admit to being prescriptivist, or at least would not use the word "prescriptive" or anything like that. So that's irrelevant. The real question is whether descriptivists ever use the word "proscribe" to describe something that a prescriptivist authority does. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)