Talk:queer

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

The French and Italian translations on this page are probably not in the right section, but since I don't know those languages I can't easily correct them. I've marked them with HTML comments; can someone verify them, please? -- Ortonmc 05:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The French translations are both adjectives. The distinction between (1) and (2) is correct. However, the translation given for (2) is a derogatory term. This raises a question about the English definition. Essentially, "queer" meaning "homosexual" was formerly a derogatory term, and is sometimes still used as such. However, it is also now used (particularly by homosexuals themselves) without any negative connotation at all. Should this be a single definition (as now) but with a usage note added, or two separate definitions (to aid differentiation of translations)? Amatlexico 07:36, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, a usage note has to be added. By the way, what is Wiki*'s politics on offensive and taboo words? I added педал as the Bulgarian equivalent of queer, but this is highly offensive to homosexuals. What can you advise me? Webkid 08:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
They are merely words, so I think we should add them. Describing words and explaining their usage, that's what we are trying to do. Of course, it is very important you indicate that it is very offensive. Otherwise this might create embarassing situations. It if perfectly all right to add usage notes. When they become too long, create an entry for the word and describe it further there. Polyglot 10:40, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Polyglot here - I don't believe that Wiktionary should be bowdlerised or censored to protect its users' sensibilities. The usage note clearly points out that "queer" is offensive in the sense of "homosexual" and also that it is a term that has been reclaimed by gay people. In my opinion, this is sufficient to prevent any offence that might be caused and to show that Wiktionary is responsible in how it defines its entries. (See also my comment below about "nigger"). -- Paul G 11:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I note there is no usage note at "nigger", which has a history of usage similar to "queer". I will add one. -- Paul G 11:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I'm happy with the usage note in principle, but it could be trimmed a bit. Also, we generally put usage notes further down the page. One could argue that a few highly-charged words might merit a more prominent note. Personally, I'm undecided. -dmh 03:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many usage notes[edit]

Too many usage notes. We should convert some to glosses (e.g. "formerly pejorative"), and try to source some of the other statements for accuracy. Equinox 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)