Talk:Fredo

RFV discussion: August 2019

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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

---

Fredo

Requesting verification of use as an "ethnic slur". Chris Cuomo saying some nonsense is not a reference ("'Fredo,' an ethnic slur? It's debated"). DTLHS (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

100% agree with DTLHS. Not only do the two sources listed [1] and [2] not claim Fredo is an ethnic slur, they also do not claim it is used especially against Italians. The recent sourced used about Cuomo saying nonsense in the heat of the moment in a crowd of people is the opinion of one man and is completely unsubstantiated as a slur against Italians in sources. The recentism in sources published as of yesterday only provide mere speculation and has on place on wiktionary or wikipedia without concrete sources from the start before a big claim like that should be stated. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No reason to get all wound up. It seems very plausible that the heckler intended it to be an ethnic slur. The question now is whether there are a sufficient number of independent and durably archived instances, spanning at least a yesr, of the term being used as an invective aimed at people of Italian heritage. If so, that sense merits inclusion. One use is not enough. But Wiktionary is not Wikipedia; over here we do not require “reliable sources” stating that the term is a slur against Italians.  --Lambiam 19:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Fredo was used by Rush Limbaugh to associate some (presumably Italians, but maybe not exclusively) with the weasely character in the movie. I am reminded of the term Shylock. It could be considered anti-Semitic or it could be (and is) used to refer to usurious money-lenders of all persuasions and ethnicities. It could be hard to determine the intent. DCDuring (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam Of course he intended it as a slur, but it is not known if it really is a slur or just synthesis. "over here we do not require “reliable sources” stating that the term is a slur against Italians." I can't believe that this is a think over here - this ideology would let anyone just write whatever they want on wiktionary regardless of facts - this is really dangerous, no exaggeration, not only in this case, but I can imagine in others. But you do agree "One use is not enough", the key word being use. The usage is not widespread, the coverage in the media is, all of it being speculation from the one man, Cuomo's, in the heat of the moment statement. What the sources say is that it is tenuous at best that Fredo is really a slur, and all the other sources provided other than from yesterday and today do not claim it is "especially against Italians" or an "ethnic slur". Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

cited, although most of what I found was not an ethnic slur - and most of it was in books about running a family business. Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the cites supports either it being directed at Italians, let alone being a slur. It seems to just be about a weak member of a family. DCDuring (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Searching Usenet:

Rock bottom came when she compared Bush and his family to the Corleones in the "Godfather" saga. "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw," she said, imitating the sound of gunfire. (2004)

But why go to the mat for Alberto Gonzales? Even Bush loyalists have rarely shown respect for this crony whom the president [GW Bush] saddled with the nickname Fredo; (2007)

Saudi prince brags he has Fredo Kushner in his pocket (2018)

I had used Limbaugh to see how he had applied the term, but the more recent quotes are from Limbaugh fans and the 2004 is from Air America radio, a Democrat-supporting broadcast business. The term was applied to a WASP, a Hispanic, and a Jew (I think). DCDuring (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:DCDuring, exactly. It is a term that may be offensive, but for the reason "about a weak member of a family", or of the sort - nothing to do with ethnicity or Italians - it just happens that the person it revolves around was of Italian descent but none of the sources use it as an ethnic slur. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

But wait, there's more:

Some years ago someone called Teddy Kennedy the "Fredo" of the Kennedy family. (2002) DCDuring (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, further shows it is not used “especially about Italians” or as an ethnic slur. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have changed the definition to fit the evidence at hand rather than wait 30 days. It is too topical for such a delay. If evidence pointing in different directions emerges, we can make further changes. DCDuring (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  If someone could find some evidence supporting it being an ethnic slur, I'd be happy to see changes. But, at the moment there's not even a shred of actual evidence that I've been able to find. The name is used as in jokes that depend on supposed Italian pronunciation of English. In contrast, a name that is more of a slur against Italians (young Italian males) is Guido/guido. DCDuring (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

it's irresponsible to make this judgement when the term's global use has changed dramatically over the past 24 hours. until we can accurately survey the "new" post-Trump usage of the term, i reverted the edit. even Anthony Julian Tamburri, the Dean of the "Italian American Institute", told BBC that his institute thinks it is a regional ethnic slur:

"The use of the word Fredo as an ethnic slur... is a regionalism," said Mr Tamburri, who is a third-generation Italian American. "It's definitely something more local than it is national."

i understand that this is a prescriptive characterization, but even a quick glance at right-wing twitter right now shows that the term is currently being used specifically in an offensive manner to highlight Italian aspects of people. we need to not jump to conclusions here and diversify our sources. --Habst (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We do not have to label something as a slur based on the events of the past 24 hours. There is nothing wrong with revisiting this in a year or 5 years. DTLHS (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Especially without any supporting attestation, and based on identity politics ranting. DCDuring (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just going to throw this article in here (used my last free article of the month for this). My own personal conclusion from researching this topic is that there is no consensus as to the validity of labelling Fredo as an ethnic slur. However, it is used in that way by some and its usage has unequivocally changed due to recent events and media coverage. Is it going to stick? Hard to say, but I definitely think that adding the label "sometimes used as an ethnic slur" is warranted. It's also worth mentioning that The Godfather where Fredo is one of the main characters, is seen by many Italian Americans as derogatory, specifically so by Chris Cuomo's late father Mario Cuomo ("[He]was an ardent critic of The Godfather books and films, boycotting them for decades because he thought they depicted negative stereotypes of Italian Americans"; whole article here). Is it as bad as the N-word like Chris Cuomo claims? Absolutely not and I doubt that we can find sources equating the two terms. With that said, it's not supposed to be up to the mob to decide what is a slur and what isn't – it's the individual on the receiving end of it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Since when do we delegate the job of ascertaining the meaning of words to others? Ultimately we rely solely on attestation.

Do you have any attestation of any use as an ethnic slur? I have looked for its use as an ethnic slur. I cannot find such. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough. It is not that slurs against Italians don't make it into print. Many have, including, fairly recently, guido/Guido. The Godfather (book) was published in 50 years ago and Godfather Part II (film), in which Fredo figures prominently, was released 45 years ago, so the use of Fredo as a slur should be findable.

Obviously, given the role of Fredo in the book and movie, it is negative in reference to the person so called. DCDuring (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a side comment: I think this is the first time I've seen a term brought to RFV to verify the glosses and not the actual term (although many months ago, with leftist Twitter in mind, I asked "what will happen when someone claims a term is offensive and maybe it isn't"; perhaps that's where we are now). Equinox ◑ 21:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that a definition is separated by a bright line from the labels that precede it. In this case, the definition itself seems to have been written with the idea that Fredo was primarily an ethnic slur. I have added a definition that, IMHO, fits the actual attestation. If we look at what have been labeled ethnic slurs they range from those that have no other function in current usage to those that, similar to this, are allusions to the characteristics, utterances, or actions of literary figures who are not primarily ethnic stereotypes. DCDuring (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

And this should not happen. One has to rely on exterior information to pin down meanings. Even for nigger one would not know it is an ethnic slur if one “relied solely on attestation.” Such things can be the subject of whole studies, as they have been. If a white calls someone nigger there is little to bewray from the context that it is “an ethnic slur”, what ever that is, and not something else, you might have hundred quotes. It says on Wiktionary “now offensive, ethnic slur, vulgar”. While “offensive” can be seen by the reactions in dialogue, “ethnic slur” and “vulgar” cannot be demonstrated for “nigger” this way. If people in some text ever discuss the quality of the word just used the exitiable “use–mention distinction” comes in the way. Or does one even argue from its absence for something?

Easy example: Historical units of measure. One does not find a contemporary source of 16th Scotland stating how many cubic centimeters a certain measure of capacity was. Though texts may compare measures to other things and thus one can conjecture approximate size, one often knows the exact measure by measuring the container. Non-philological evidence. And there are reference works for historical measures. But boo, these are all mentions and thus do not count, innit. Should we not use everything available but “rely solely on attestation” in form of “uses” in those limited-selection durable corpora?

Similar goes for distinctions between plants and diseases. Funny how Wiktionary wanted to find out if pomelo meant grapefruit in historical sources. Nuances get lost after reencoding. When A writes a text about his citrus fruits to his pen pal B, B will know the cultivars from his common education. But if C reads it two hundred years later the world has changed and he might not so easily know, and so the world is full of “dog whistles” the exact meaning of which must be transmitted in real life with all appropriate smirks and pictures and not by texts merely. I wouldn’t know the connotation of “nigger” if it weren’t mentioned so often and I hadn’t heard it said in an angry fashion. Who has heard “Fredo”? One gets all the wrong impressions. {{uncertain}} belongs to Fredo, except that the quality of an ethnic slur is too irrelevant a detail and it is not that uncertain.

If one is unsure about things that flee the texts, the glosses should stay ambiguous, or it can also be a usage note. Fay Freak (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't dispense with citations just because we have an authority's say-so. The authorities help us know what to look for. I looked through the articles and found nothing that was any particular help in identifying where such citations might be found. In this case what we have is a few interested parties of no particular actual linguistic or cultural authority speaking off the top of their head, possibly after consulting their attorneys and publicists.

It doesn't take an advanced degree to surmise that Chris Cuomo may have been upset because he was being called the weak sibling in his family. It doesn't take an MBA to surmise that CNN may be defending a talent asset because they benefit financially. It doesn't take great socio-political insight to see that the most confident participants in the public "discussion" are arguing based on their own social and political identities. It doesn't take an excess of skepticism to discount the public "discussion" almost in its entirety. DCDuring (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I can think of one (other) entry where a scenario like Equinox mentions already happened, that a word is not (generally) offensive but certain people claim it is in bad faith. (In that case, it's people with institutional power and platforms who are de-facto on the right wing doing the claiming.) Ultimately, if we have proof some group X takes offence at a word, I guess the word is at least "sometimes considered offensive by group X" (or something)... but in this case, it doesn't seem that "Italian-Americans" or "Italians" take offence, but only that a few individuals have taken offence in the last few days. Ehh... - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  This is a term that, in speech, could easily be used to insult someone. That does not make it an ethnic slur or insult. If one called a German-American a kraut or Fritz, that might be an ethnic slur. If one called a German-American Adolph, that would not be IMO. I think Fredo is like Adolph and Guido is more like Fritz. Calling someone by a name associated with their ethnicity, but that is not not their name, is insulting because it intentionally de-individualizes them, which is not usually an ethnic slur, though Sambo shows such a name could be an ethnic slur. In any event, we still need to find evidence that the term is used as an ethnic slur. We have abundant evidence that it is used allusively to place a person in a constellation of family relationships. DCDuring (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I think the claim that this is an "ethnic slur" is the most dubious thing currently in the entry. Once it is removed, I am not sure if these really has two senses, or just one one. - -sche (discuss) 09:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not @DCDuring, I'm starting to come around to the same conclusion as you. The dust has started to settle and I'm finding it increasingly hard to find evidence that supports an "ethnic slur" label – maybe in time this will change but right now I'm no longer sure that including such a label is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, mentioning the current discussion somewhere – maybe under =Usage Notes= – might be an appropriate compromise. Concerning the last remark in my statement above, I just want to clarify that what I was trying to say was, what some people consider to be offensive or a slur, is subjective and stems from the individual's own personal experience. What is offensive to person A might not be offensive to person B even if they come from the same background. I just felt that this whole discussion started with the intention of trying to dismiss Cuomo's experience of being on the receiving end of the Fredo remark, ergo, politicising what should have been a semantic and linguistic discussion. It shouldn't be up to the general public to say "it's not an insult, so don't be insulted". I full-heartedly support the requirement of finding durable sources, but as it was pointed out by Fay Freak, context is sometimes lost when trying to prove usage. In this case, Fredo is definitely used to offend a person who is the black sheep of the family and the entry should, as it does now, say so. As to the ethnic slur debacle, as I suggested earlier, adding =Usage Notes= might not be such a bad idea after all. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with usage notes, but I'd like some not in the media to say at least:

1. they have heard Fredo being used as an ethnic slur
2. they would be offended by its use

There would still be the question of whether they knew the difference between an ethnic slur and other kinds of insults.

That would at least make it seem that the whole thing was not just one Sonny ("hothead") overreacting to being called a Fredo in public in front of his family.

I would welcome any evidence, especially citations, that Fredo might be or have been in use as an ethnic slur, even if just as a 'typical' ethnic given name referring to someone with another given name (the de-individualizing type of slur). DCDuring (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"[T]he term's global use has changed dramatically over the past 24 hours", Habst? I think not. Also, since when did the usage of a word by some bigots in some subcultural community suddenly mean that the word itself is now bigoted? And you're absolutely right that making such a change would be prescriptive. Although we do have some odd, unhelpful prescriptive definitions here, we aren't supposed to have them, and we don't need any more.

Also, @Robbie_SWE: Are you sure that we ought to be adding things like:

"At the moment, this term is potentially developing racist connotations"

to an entry? I am not aware of much precedent here for doing that, unless we would like someone to come across some Wiktionary entry in the future, and say. "Wow. This dictionary sure seems dated"

I'm not sure what value there is in adding a sort of "as we speak, usage could **perhaps** be evolving" to the entry so soon after the aforementioned happening took place. I'm not sure what good justification there could be, either, as ever since the social media revolution reared its ugly head there have been "fad senses" that come and go in a flash. Tharthan (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tharthan; no, not in those words. Maybe something along the lines of "Is believed to have been used as an ethnic slur in certain communities, however to a limited degree. Labelling it as an ethnic slur is difficult because of a lack of trustworthy and durably archived sources". Might not be how we've done things until now, but maybe that's where we're heading (to be honest, not a fan of this development). --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I for one will never be able to hear this word without racial connotations, because I never knew the word before hearing about its racial connotations. That's how a word can suddenly get connotations, when it jumps to being well-known based on one event.

We should be descriptively prescriptive. We do not tell people how to use the language, but we should tell people about the prescriptive hangups other people have, that might help them navigate the complex world of communication with other people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)