Talk:Swedistan

RFV discussion: January–February 2023

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.

---

Swedistan

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)

Cited since 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)