Talk:Swedistan
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Sgconlaw in topic RFV discussion: January–February 2023
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/TK_archive_icon.svg/55px-TK_archive_icon.svg.png)
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.
This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 3 February 2023.
- Sense 1: "A facetious movement begun on 4chan that advocated replacing the Swedish flag with one that had a crescent and star rather than a cross, as an attempt to arouse a rejection of Islamic immigrants to Sweden."
- Sense 2: "(informal, xenophobic) Sweden, viewed as an Islamic country because of immigration from Islamic countries." Requires one more qualifying quotation. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- The first sense should be moved to Operation Swedistan. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Citedsince I moved quotation 2 from the first sense, which was clearly wrongly categorised (it is a translation of an interview of a Hungarian nationalist bemoaning Sweden in these terms). It's probably the first sense that should be moved and RFV'd. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)- First cite is too mention-y. AG202 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced by that, since WT:CFI specifies that the use–mention distinction is about conveying meaning, and a parallel sentence like "he referred to Paul as 'a pop star'" is clearly conveying meaning (on Paul's part?) and not just a discussion of the term 'pop star', cf. the categories mentioned at CFI, "commentary on the form of a word, ... lone definitions, and made-up examples". I don't care to defend this particular term though and it seems very borderline either way, having tried to look for an alternative cite, so I'll strike my "cited". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, I am RFVing both senses. Both senses need at least one more qualifying quotation, since the 2016 quotation (which I've moved to the citations page) is regarded as a mention, not a use. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sense 1 failed; sense 2 passed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced by that, since WT:CFI specifies that the use–mention distinction is about conveying meaning, and a parallel sentence like "he referred to Paul as 'a pop star'" is clearly conveying meaning (on Paul's part?) and not just a discussion of the term 'pop star', cf. the categories mentioned at CFI, "commentary on the form of a word, ... lone definitions, and made-up examples". I don't care to defend this particular term though and it seems very borderline either way, having tried to look for an alternative cite, so I'll strike my "cited". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- First cite is too mention-y. AG202 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)