Talk:feminazi

WT:RFV of etymology

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Request for etymology verification:

I see a cite for a 1951 book. I'm pretty sure Rush didn't have a radio show back then. --Connel MacKenzie 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He probably does warrant mention as the term's popularizer, though. And who knows, maybe he coined it independently; stranger things have happened. (Of course, I doubt the etymology's contributor here had any inside information, so we should probably stay on the safe side and say only that he popularized it.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed rfv tag and added the cite for known etymology, with Rush as popularizer and Tom Hazlett as coiner.

from Rush's book The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 193

"I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is an esteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year..."

I couldn't find citations earlier than 1990-1991. Connel's 1951 cite appears to be an author's birth date that appears conspicuously in the book title in the Google books list. [1] (The book is from 1997). I should mention this lone citation from 1929 [2] for the hyphenated version femi-nazi. It is "Business Week" and it appears to me that the 1929 date is the first edition of the periodical and the issue in question is likely post-1991. -- Thisis0 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! (In the future, though, please wait a bit after justifying the removal of the RFV tag before actually removing the tag. People visiting the entry in question should know if there's active discussion about it.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, good to know! -- Thisis0 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, do you think it would be too disparaging to list this under "Derived Terms" at feminist? -- Thisis0 21:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Disparaging or not, it's derived from feminist, so yes, I'd say so. (For that matter, it should also go in the "Derived terms" section of Nazi.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove discussion tags for your own dubious entries. Listing a "popularizer" as an etymology not acceptable on Wiktionary; that is spam. --Connel MacKenzie 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a dick. I really thought I was trying to do this right, even thinking naively to myself over the last few days, "I'll try do it all so right, even Connel would not disagree." But one comment from the guy and you catch the definition of a true troll. A troll is not a vandal who comes "trolling" by, nor is it the widely accepted use of the term in wiki circles "someone who disagrees with Connel or has proved him wrong," but a true troll is the nasty old miser who sits under the bridge, where he has been a very long time, just waiting for an enthusiastic newcomer to come bounding along hoping earnestly to make a difference. The troll does not take notice of intelligence or potential, but destroys his victims witout prejudice, vandal and contributor alike. I honestly had hopes -- spending valuable thoughts trying to figure out how I could contribute in Connel's world, but it's become clear that was in vain. A troll is a troll. A glance into most conversations on these pages shows the behavior of an antagonizer who regularly frightens off new contributors and raises fellow admins to a boil over petty nonsense.[3] It shows the behavior of a man unwilling to concede or compromise, even when devastatingly shown to have failed. I cannot effect change as one user, but what will we as a community do to create better standards? Speak here and now, unless the answer is nothing. -- Thisis0 09:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain that this is the place for this much-needed discussion, as it is wider than this topic. Were this Wikipedia, I would open a user-conduct RFC, but there is no obviously equivalent place here that I'm aware of (or that is listed on the Discussion rooms link in the sidebar). Thryduulf 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is listing a "popularizer" on Wiktionary spam? The etymology that is there seems to be exactly what an etymology should be - a summary of the history and origin of the word. Thryduulf 08:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I don't get it. He brings this item to the table, requesting "etymological verification." (Which he or anyone could do. It's the internet for Christ's sake.) I looked into it, provided a well written etymology that included not just the popularizer in context, but also the man credited for coining the term. I sourced it well, wikified it minimally, and what do I get? A fat rebuff. I provide the best answer to the query, and the messenger is shot. Don't punish me because this neologism has a popularizer. All this, and I also showed how his "1951 cite" was a juvenile error on his part. There will be no peace until this troll sleeps. --- Thisis0 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your timing, arriving as an "innocent newbie" I find questionable, but your insistence that Wiktionary entries must contain spam is simply inexplicable. Who "popularized" a term has little (if anything) to do with where the term came from. Previous similar terms have had similar treatment; the spam is removed. While Ruakh agreed with that, he is relatively new here and may not have been aware of that nuance. Above, I gave a neutral two line factual explanation of two errors you made. You spent kilobytes ranting and raving about abuse. Who exactly is trolling here? --Connel MacKenzie 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What timing? Just in time to rally against you on the dire subject of "for all intensive purposes? Or was that I was just in time to accurately do the research on your original query here for feminazi? Timing. We are so conspiratorial. I am new -- and absolutely unaffiliated. Just because I am well-written, engaged, and vigorous in debate doesn't mean I am not brand new here. I will take your thinking otherwise as a compliment. I definitely concede in learning to keep the rfv tags on for a while after I've made the actual verification. It is clear throughout these pages that you are consistently unwilling to make any similar concession, especially when you are clearly and stubbornly in the wrong. In my active tenure here of a few weeks, you have 1.) accused me of being "British," threatening to stalk my IP for verification (go ahead), 2.) accused me of being dishonest about my newness [in addition to the flagrant violation of "good faith", this is outrageous and libelous because I have NEVER used newness an excuse, despite your insinuation surrounding "innocent newbie"], 3.) called a troll for no such act, after which I pointed out that the activities of a traditional troll in stories align much better with the treatment you give your peers, 4.) designated my accurate fulfillment of your query as spam. "Popularizer" here is clearly given in context along with origin, and sourced. I did the work for your query -- if you don't like it, do better. Go ahead. In fact, do everything here yourself. But then, you would have no one left to belittle, which apparently must be fulfilling. There will be no more kB rants on abuse the day you stop abusing. -- Thisis0 19:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am hardly new here and I am rather thrown by your idea that this information is spam. If a new term is especially propogated by a particular individual it seems relevant to include that information. As an editor with a particular interest in Etymologies I see no problems with the Etymology section here. Also bear in mind that questioning Thisis0's status as an ‘innocent newbie’ isn't really in line with our general policy of assuming good faith. Widsith 11:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He made a half dozen personal attacks, laced with numerous false 'pedia policy arguments, long before I "questioned his newbie status." The statement that "popularizer" stuff isn't removed is erroneous; it is routinely removed, because it is spam, particularly for living persons. The conspiratorial comments he made on various user talk pages (of course, intermingled with more personal attacks) is why I am certain this person is here for no good. Doremwitzer can pile his nonsense pretty high, but his lies are easy to ignore. This, on the other hand, is way beyond reasonable. --Connel MacKenzie 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, how is a citable statement of fact "spam"? Why is something spam when you say it is but everybody else who has commented says it isn't? Please can you also cite evidence, in the form of policies, discussions and diffs for all the following:

• that ""populairizer" stuff ... is routinely removed".
• that popularizer stuff is spam
• that mentioning the name of living people in etymologies is spam
• that a conspiracy exists
• that this0 and Doremítzer are part of this conspiracy
• that your personal attacks against this0, Doremitzer and others are acceptable and justified
• that Doremítzer has "blazing evidence of foul play" on his talk page

Until I see this evidence, I am forced to make a judgement based on the facts I am aware of. These facts do not support any of your claims or accusations, and I am forced to conclude that you are the one in the wrong. This and your other actions (especially regarding usuress) are resulting in you being perceived as a radical contributor intolerant of opposing views. Thryduulf 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to do your own homework. You are welcome to download full-history XML dumps and analyze over time the number of "popularizer" removals. You are welcome to search discussion archives, deletion log entries and discussion pages for "spam" references yourself. You are welcome to search out the "living (people|persons)" discussions yourself. The WP:DUCK test can be used as evidence of the conspiratorial actions; while dispersed across numerous user talk pages, obviously does exist. Your assertion that I have made personal attacks is unfounded...I have made factual observations about disruptive behavior and vandalism. But thank you for confessing your personal opinion regarding me. --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You make this too easy. Have you actually read the essay at WP:DUCK? It's main point warns against what you spend most of your time doing here. -- Thisis0 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the use of spam to mean the addition of trivia meets any of the definitions given at spam. And I'd dispute that it doesn't belong there, unless someone can prove the citation is nonfactual. RJFJR 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Searching for coined & popularized in etymologies reveals abstract nonsense, regime change, retronym, WYSIWYG, etc. It is claimed that against the grain was popularized by Shakespeare and Iron Curtain by Churchill. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the revision in question. Now, per Ruakh, I don't normally remove the RFV tag for terms I've cited myself, but then we don't usually put etymologies to RFV either. To err on the side of caution, I move to strike. DAVilla 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The presence of two other errors is no indication that such a thing is encouraged. (I see two that mention living people.) There is absolutely everything wrong with spamming Wiktionary articles with "popularizer" nonsense. It is not relevant to word formation - you know; where the word came from. It certainly is not relevant to how the term evolved. --Connel MacKenzie 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The populariser is not relevant to how the word was formed, but it has everything to do with how the word is used. Part of the job of an etymology is to debunk incorrect "folk etymologies", which this does. Or would you rather it said "often incorrectly attributed to Rush Limbaugh, who has credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, with coining the term."? Thryduulf 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting rewording. I still have reservations about mentioning the media-culture personality, when that (as far as I can tell) does not have anything to do with the term, nor how it is used. But is it even true? That is, do people incorrectly attribute it to him? --Connel MacKenzie 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I know precisely why "popularizer" in many cases is spam. I will be there agreeing with you on those. Just open your eyes on this one. Rush has everything to do with this word, how it was coined (in converstions with his friend), and how it has been used from it's inception till today. His show bears the sole responsibility for nearly anyone using this word ever. I know it's a bold statment, but any use of this disparaging term is certainly traced back to it's use by Rush, as there is no evidence of any other primary source. And, as I've said twice already, popularizer is in context; the information is necessary to lead into who actually coined the term, who did so in personal conversations with Rush himself. There's no question he bears the greatest weight for the existence of this word, and thus bears mention for his role. -- Thisis0 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the request has been answered, so I'm fine with striking this. Thryduulf 11:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Etymological RFVpassed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee, wasn't it you that was just saying "if there is no dispute...the tag can be removed in a week" or something? Yet you, of all people, with blazing evidence of foul play on your talk page, deeply entwined in a personality conflict, decide to take action after three hours (i.e. as soon as you noticed)? If you had any concern about correctness of the entry, you might have said so; clearly you did not, rather, just wished to force an invalid point...that a newcomer should be permitted to spam recklessly. Brilliant. --Connel MacKenzie 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you brought this to RFV because you were confused about a date (you saw a book which you thought was published in 1951, remember?) in the etymology. The discussion has since moved on to whether this word’s “popularizer” ought to be mentioned in the entry’s etymology (an RFC, not RFV, concern). Noöne has disputed the verification of the etymology (not even you; you’ve just been bitching about spam); therefore, I was right to declare (with prompting) this etymologial RFVpassed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So, yea. I'm still waiting for you to rewrite it the right way. Can I be of any help teaching you how to use the Internets? -- Thisis0 04:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer. I think I can manage a web-search myself, however. I haven't removed the spam part, as 1) it is still being discussed, 2) there is some indication that other long-term contributors think I may be mistaken, 3) there is too much ancillary noise surrounding the discussion. --Connel MacKenzie 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Struck; the etymology has been verified/fixed. (This isn't to say that we can't discuss removing part of the etymology, simply that RFV isn't the place to do so.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymological research

Full quote from Rush Limbaugh's book The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 193

"I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is an esteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year..."

Another quote, from p. 296

"Feminazi: Widely misunderstood by most to simply mean 'feminist.' Not so, boobala [sic]. A Feminazi is a feminist to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur. There are fewer than twenty-five known Feminazis in the United States ... "

Research notes: No known citations earlier than 1990-1991. Google Books lists what appears at first glance to be a 1951 occurence, but that is the author's birth date appearing conspicuously in the book title. [4] (The book is from 1997). Also, there would appear to be a citation from 1929 [5] for the hyphenated version "femi-nazi". It is "Business Week," and it appears that the 1929 date is the first edition of the periodical and the issue in question is likely post-1991. Verified cites from before 1990 are welcomed. -- Thisis0 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted a citation with a mention (but little meaning) by Hazlett from 1987. StrayBolt (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)