Talk:Islamicide

RFV discussion: November 2015–April 2016

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

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

---

Islamicide

Definition:

1. The mass killing of Islamics, a slaugtering of Muslims

I was surprised at how little this is attested, and at how much of the usage refers to murder by Muslims rather than of Muslims. This is extremely rare, at best. If kept, it will require cleanup beyond the quick once-over I gave it (the formatting was all wrong, and there was a header for "Entomology"!).

Although the subject matter is reminiscent of Pass A Method, the level of competence is significantly lower than one would expect from PAM (I know, that's hard to imagine- but it's true). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it meaning kills of Islamists or of Muslims? Best to attest it first and then figure that out. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Also ought to be capitalised. Equinox ◑ 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Islamicide just didn't sound right to me. I wondered if the actual word was Islamocide. A Google search turned up a Twitter trend and little else. Purplebackpack89 21:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's a valid word, then it'd be Islamicide, although usage would vary as to whether it should be capitalized or not (Webster's usually says "often capitalized" for words like this). It's based on a Latin root, like homicide, patricide, regicide, etc., all of which use the genitive form of the noun of the thing being killed, never the thing doing the killing. In this case, the assumption is "Islamus" = Islam or Muslim. Neither Cassell's nor Bantam gives Latin equivalents; Vicipædia gives "Islam" and "Religio Islamica" for "Islam" and "Musulmanus" for "Muslim". So technically "Islami" should be the genitive for the religion, but not for Muslims. Not sure what the reasoning is for "Islamophobia", but it could just be an arbitrary coinage. At any rate, as "Islamicide" it has to refer to the religion itself, rather than its practitioners. A Google search turns up blogs and t-shirts, rather than reputable news sources, which seems likely as it's the Muslim equivalent of someone shouting "kill the Jews!" Unless some examples of its use for its literal meaning occur in reputable sources, I would say we should delete it. But it clearly doesn't mean what the sense being RfV'd says; that'd be "Musulmanicide". And in either case, it'd be killing of Islam or Muslims, not killing by Islam or Muslims. If people invent a word that means something other than what they intend it to mean, and use it to say the opposite of what it would have meant had it been formed correctly in the first place, and nobody except some bloggers and their readers are using it, then we don't have a legitimate definition. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There's virtually nothing here relevant to descriptive linguistics. It means what it means. If we don't have sources acceptable to CFI, we have nothing to say about it, and if we do and they mean the opposite of what you think it should say, it might be worth a note that -cide in English usually means killing of the prefix, not killing by the prefix. The idea that one needs a degree in Latin to coin new English words should by now be considered risible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you needed a degree in Latin. I don't have a degree in Latin. I wasn't even a particularly good Latin student. But I know a thing or two about how words are formed, and knowing even a little bit about Latin is important if you're going to figure out how to form words using Latin. It's not necessary to argue ad hominem or air trendy anti-linguistic prejudices in order to make a valid point here. If you're interested in working collaboratively to produce a dictionary for everyone, leave your ridicule at the door. P Aculeius (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ridicule you; I criticized you. If I wanted to ridicule you, I would tell you your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Nor did I use ad hominem. You are labeling standard linguistics of the 20th and 21st centuries as "trendy anti-linguistic prejudices", and that is problematic in collaboratively producing a dictionary based on those principles.

These words were not formed using Latin. They were formed using English. That is how words are generally formed in the 21st century by the speakers of English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You wrongly attributed something to me and called it "risible". So you are ridiculing what I said, and me for saying it, despite the fact that I didn't say it in the first place. The fact that you needed to do so, and dismiss what I said about the meaning as only "what I think it should say" is what makes it an ad hominem attack. And it's certainly not "formed using English". We don't have a word "Islami" in English, or "Islamo" for that matter. Nor do we have a word "cide" in English. You don't go out and caedas people in English. We don't commit mancide or womancide or fathercide or kingcide or racecide. These are Latin roots, formed using rules for Latin. You can't ignore those rules because you have a poor opinion of Latin, or ignore the meanings of those words just because some people use them ignorantly. No matter how many people say "dog" when they mean cat, cat does not become a definition of "dog". If you want to make a word without using Latin, then call it "Muslimslaughter", but even then it still means that Muslims are being killed, not doing the killing. P Aculeius (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• The etyma can be Latin, while the word formation process is purely English -- which would explain things like polyamory (rather than polyphilia or multiamory). For that matter, when it comes to new words in English that include Islam, I don't think Latin or Latin's word formation rules necessarily have anything to do with the actual derivations -- which would explain things like Islamophobia.

Also, remember that Wiktionary is descriptivist -- the project aim is to describe words as they are used (and formed, etc.), not as they should be used (and formed, etc.). This is why we have an entry for brung, among others, even though this is widely thought of as "bad English" or "not a word". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet, words derived from Latin roots are normally formed using Latin rules, which is why it's "homicide" rather than "homocide" and "patricide" rather than "patercide". "Polyamory" doesn't even pretend to be a proper word; it was coined on the internet, and only constant repetition has resulted in its addition to the lexicon. I'm not arguing that Wiktionary shouldn't cover words that don't have a legitimate etymology, but rather that where a form that follows the rules exists (Islamicide), it shouldn't be rejected in favour of one that doesn't (Islamocide). But there's still the question of the word's meaning, and the meaning of a word is derived in large part from the elements that make it up. And the word "Islamicide" literally means "killing of Islam", not "killing of Muslims", and certainly not "killing by Muslims". If some people misuse a word because they don't understand what it means, that may be the basis for a usage note, but it shouldn't give rise to a definition that's the opposite of the word's actual meaning. inflammable isn't defined as "incapable of burning", no matter how many people think that's what it means. It has a usage note instead of an alternative definition because people get confused by it, but it never meant "incapable of burning", no matter how often it's misused. P Aculeius (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Your examples of “words derived from Latin roots” actually derive as whole terms from Latin: homicide and patricide are not examples of English word formation using Latin roots, and are thus irrelevant analogies for the formation of modern English islamicide, etc. And re: polyamory, Merriam-Webster notes a first appearance of 1994, which is a bit early to be an internet coinage. More importantly, what is a “proper” word by your judgment? I really think you've mistaken the goal of the Wiktionary project as being prescriptive in saying how words should be spelled and used. The stated goal is instead to be descriptive in saying how words are spelled and used. I think a big part of your frustration here is caused by unmet expectations. You might benefit from reading WT:NPOV, particularly these two paragraphs:

Wiktionary’s editorial policy is to take a “neutral point of view”, often abbreviated “NPOV”. This policy means that we accept all significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging which is correct. Our aim is to be informative, not to convince readers of something. It’s OK to state opinions in entries, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact. Also, it’s a good idea to attribute these opinions, for example “Supporters of (...) say that...” or “(Notable commentator ___) believes that...”

On Wiktionary, neutrality directly implies that a descriptive approach is taken towards the documentation of languages, and not a prescriptive approach. This is one of the primary tenets of how Wiktionary works. Entries should not impose any particular view on the correctness of a word or meaning, as this is subjective and does not represent all views fairly. Incorrectness is always a subjective matter when language is concerned, as different people speak differently and no speech variety is inherently less valid than any other, only perhaps more or less widely used.

It is clear that you are passionate and interested in Wiktionary, which is great. However, I'm concerned that your mistaken expectations and resulting unhappiness may lead to you leaving the project. I hope instead that you read WT:NPOV and revise your views on Wiktionary, and resume editing on a happier and more productive basis. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Polyamory doesn't even pretend to be a proper word; it was coined on the internet." There aren't proper and "improper" words; this is silly snobbery. "Only constant repetition has resulted in its addition to the lexicon." How else do you think words are added to the lexicon? OED secret police go out and enforce them? Equinox ◑ 02:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see that it's useless to try and discuss whether a word is correctly formed or means what people are using it to mean, if you don't want to be insulted by everyone who disagrees with what you say. So far I've been called totally irrelevant, ridiculous, and a silly snob. It's no wonder this community is so small and insular. The only thing that people can agree on is the desirability of shutting down meaningful debate. P Aculeius (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• After looking at your user page and noticing you self-describe as “a regular contributor on Wikipedia”, I would also like to strongly recommend that you read Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians, and Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not. I really think your upset is caused by an acute case of mismatched expectations: Wiktionary and Wikipedia have substantially different operating rules. Of note on the WT:WWIN page:

Wiktionary is not an arbiter of what is good English; correct English, acceptable English, suitable English, or even grammatical. Wiktionary describes usage, it does not prescribe nor proscribe it, and adheres only to its criteria for inclusion, which state that any term or meaning that can be shown to be in sufficiently widespread use may be included. By including or not including a certain term, it by no means accepts or attempts to promote a certain point of view, but is simply documenting, explaining what is in use in English or any other language.

Please read these two documents, at least. They go a long way towards explaining the hows and whys regarding this thread above and other users' responses to you. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My points, which you conveniently ignored, were not that "only proper words should be included" or that "words that have some vague relation to Latin must always and forever adhere to all the rules and regulations of Latin grammar", neither did I complain that "you people don't adhere to the standards of Wikipedia!" What I've been trying to say repeatedly, and apparently without any effect, is that (1) you can't arbitrarily pick and choose the "right" form of words based on how you feel that they ought to be spelled, when there are perfectly clear examples to guide you and which support the spellings currently in use; (2) the rules of Latin are not irrelevant when discussing the formation of words using Latin roots, nor is it laughable to suggest that we look to Latin in order to figure out why the word and closely related words take one form and not another, and (3) you cannot have a collaborative discussion when people reply by ridiculing ideas and opinions with which they disagree, and instead resort to name-calling!

This is not a question of mismatched expectations. If you can find a Wiktionary policy that says "it's okay to ridicule opinions with which you disagree," or "personal attacks are encouraged on this project," please link to it here. Meanwhile, if your contention is that being "descriptivist" means that a word is defined as whatever mean when they say it, then inflammable and other words that are commonly misused should gain new senses as a result. Mrs. Malaprop would be delighted. P Aculeius (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Prosfilaes may not have been very diplomatic about it, and used an exaggeration when talking about "a degree in Latin", but, on substance, I have to agree with him. English is what English speakers speak, not what makes sense based on understanding the normal morphological rules- see irregardless, for instance, and terms such as pea and adder, which were mistakenly formed from pease and nadder.

As for inflammable, both the standard sense and the proscribed sense are derived from perfectly valid application of the rules: Latin has two prefixes with the spelling in-, one mean "into" and the other meaning "not". It's strictly a matter of historical accident as to which one ended up as the one we use today. In fact, the entry is an exception to our normal practice: we definitely should have a "not flammable" sense, with a "nonstandard" or "proscribed" label (if we can find usage of it, of course).

As for the question at hand: my impression of what little durably-archived usage I could find is that it seems to be a series of one-off coinages by people who needed a word to express what they meant, and who vaguely remembered the element -cide in words such as homicide, and patricide (which have "-i-") as meaning "killing", without remembering all the details of its proper usage in word-formation. What we have to determine here is whether there's enough usage to show that the nominated sense exists in the real world. It seemed close enough to be worth checking, given the other serious problems with the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• “Meanwhile, if your contention is that being "descriptivist" means that a word is defined as whatever mean when they say it, then inflammable and other words that are commonly misused should gain new senses as a result.” → Precisely. You are correct on both counts: words mean what people use them to mean, and words gain new senses (and lose old ones) over time as a result. This is basic lexicography.

Re-reading this thread, I don't see anyone directly attacking you. I do see you directly attacking the Wiktionary community, and the underlying basis for your attacks, as best I can tell, has to do with your belief that some words are “proper” and other words aren't. For the sake of your own happiness, please either disabuse yourself of that misconception, at least with regard to Wiktionary, or please leave: attempting to contribute here without understanding or accepting the project's ideals of lexicographic description will only lead to disagreement and disappointment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think taking offense at "The idea that one needs a degree in Latin to coin new English words should by now be considered risible" is hostile to communication here; certainly Wiktionary plays a little rough socially. It's an attack on an idea, which you followed up with attacks on people!

The "correct" spelling of island is iland. Someone in the 16th century looked at isle and Latin insular and inserted a silent s into a word of Germanic descent, with origins in Old English igland, cognate to Dutch eiland. Should we "correct" it in Wiktionary?

The rules of Latin are useful when talking about words formed from Latin roots. Islamocide isn't; it's formed from Islam + o + cide, where cide is an English suffix, and o is tossed in there because -cide words usually have a vowel in there. To say that it must be killing of Islam is silly; compounds just aren't that regular. To say that it should mean the killing of Muslims is not unreasonable, and may be worthy of a usage note, as that is a violation of the most natural English meaning. But if people who use it consistently use it to mean killing by Muslims, that's its definition.

If words like awesome (which "really" means "awe-inspiring"), silly ("good, blessed") and tubular ("in the shape of a tube") can gain new definitions, so could inflammable. I doubt that people are reliably using inflammable in a way that they mean and are understood as meaning not flammable, but that's a matter for its own discussion if someone wants to argue it does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you reread what I wrote, I said that I was accused of saying something that I didn't (that you need a degree in Latin to coin new English words), and calling what someone says "risible" is insulting (especially if they didn't even say it). So is describing a perfectly valid opinion "totally irrelevant" merely because you disagree with it. And when you accuse someone of "silly snobbery", that's pretty insulting too. I don't need to be called "ridiculous" or "totally irrelevant" or a "silly snob", and it's no use saying that it's only what I'm saying that's "ridiculous, irrelevant, silly snobbery". The implication is that I'm a ridiculous, irrelevant, silly snob for saying it. And that's what makes this so hard to discuss meaningfully.

You'll also note that my point about "polyamory" was that it's a completely arbitrary coinage, and far too new and irregular to be a model upon which to decide whether "Islamicide" or "Islamocide" is the right form. It's a strange back-formation form the adjective "polyamorous", a Greek-Latin hybrid. How did it acquire a 'y' at the end? Because the first person in the chain that led to it being treated as a word decided it ought to have one, presumably on the model of "polygamy". Yet no other words formed from 'amor' use such a form. 'Amory' doesn't exist anywhere but in this arbitrary word. It's not a good example to use when debating how other words should be formed.

Please consider that the entries in the category "English words suffixed with -cide" consists almost entirely of words of Greek and Latin derivation, and almost without exception use Greek and Latin rules to join the first and second element; nearly all of the words with Latin first elements use Latin genitives, ending in -i; nearly all the ones ending in -o are Greek; and the entry under discussion already uses -i, not -o, which makes sense if the underlying assumption is that whatever is intended (whether Muslims or Islam itself) would have a Latin form Islamus rather than a Greek Islamos. It's also noteworthy that, as far as I can tell, none of the terms listed mean "killing by the thing in the first part" (although I noticed a nonce usage of "autocide" to mean "suidide by means of crashing a car"). They pretty much always mean "killing of the thing in the first part." I think it's a valid opinion that a common misuse of a word should become a usage note rather than a new definition. I don't demand that you agree with me, and I won't call you silly for disagreeing. But I don't think I should be ridiculed for pointing any of this out, or thinking it worth considering. P Aculeius (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Again: "debating how other words should be formed" won't necessarily tell us how they have been in reality. Equinox ◑ 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who raised the question of whether it should be "Islamocide". The entry is already at "Islamicide". My point was that there's no linguistic basis for changing it to "Islamocide", because it would normally be formed with an i-stem; and nobody seems to be suggesting that "Islamocide" is a regular or preferred form, so without clear evidence supporting "Islamocide", the entry should stay where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The only basis on which to decide which form to prefer, "Islamicide" or "Islamocide", is based on evidence from quotations. Linguistic bases and personal opinions are irrelevant. So let's stop arguing about irrelevancies and start doing research on which forms actually exist in the real world. I am finding very few citations of either form. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've added three quotations that appear to support this sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 05:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)