Talk:Turkroach

RFV discussion: September 2022–March 2023

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

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

---

Turkroach

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 26 September 2022.

98.170.164.88 02:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Cited, albeit mainly with internet sources because this term is far too new to appear in books or Usenet. Although the citations can be challenged, with 70 quotes and counting, it's hard to argue that this term doesn't exist. It's certainly more attestable than much of the Usenet slang we've catalogued. Binarystep (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit disingenuous to say "cited" when there are zero CFI compliant cites provided. You do qualify your claim, but based on current policies the term is not cited. I also agree with you that this one seems to have significantly more currency than many of the others recently added, further demonstrating the problem of trying to use the current CFI criteria with social media and other internet sources, the CFI as written does not distinguish between terms used thousands of times and terms used three times. - TheDaveRoss 12:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There are enough Twitter quotations, and the discussion Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Whether Reddit and Twitter are to be regarded as durably archived sources suggests Twitter could pass as an accepted source. This RFV can remain open until the two weeks from the start of the BP discussion pass, two weeks after 21 September 2022, which is 5 October 2022. That's as far as CFI. CFI requires three uses, and even if it required ten times as many for online-only non-copy-edited sources, the term would still pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Prospective policy is not policy. - TheDaveRoss 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to delete the entry now and recreate it on 5 October if Twitter passes? Better leave the RFV open until then, no? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggested nothing of the sort. - TheDaveRoss 14:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So we'll leave the RFV open and all is fine. The disputed claim "cited" seemed fine as an invitation for others to look at the cites and tell us whether they accept the quotes and their sources. This is one way to implement the new policy; another way is the ongoing BP discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I see this word used constantly on 4chan. Blahhmosh (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@-sche If all of Spoonks's creations passed RfV, does it still make sense for them to be blocked? We seem to be sending a weird signal here: discouraging users from adding entries that we deem valuable. If they are confirmed by CheckUser to be a sock of the blocked user, that's a different story, of course. 98.170.164.88 00:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked, and the IPs (different city/state) and device details don't match. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me at all if meat puppetry was involved, but that's not something a checkuser can check for. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• My position is that Citations:Turkroach are good, given their volume and timespan. They would pass 15 quotations spanning 3 years, or even higher requirements. They are not typos and not bots. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as though Reddit + Twitter both ended in no consensus in their votes, this entry does not pass RFV; however, if someone wants to propose a vote specifically for the citations on this entry, feel free to do so. If there's no vote created or continued (meaningful) discussion in the next month, however, I will close this as RFV-failed. AG202 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC) {{look|nocat=1}}

Keep as cited: 1) Creating a formal vote in Wiktionary:Votes space on a per term basis was done before and frowned upon: Wiktionary:Votes/2022-05/elfism validation. 2) WT:CFI: "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks", and this RFV can serve as that discussion. 3) The Beer parlour discussion on Twitter resulted in 60%-majority for 3-quotation Twitter; many of the opposes did not oppose Twitter outright but required a tighter standard than 3 quotations. We should proceed according to that consensus. In case of doubt, a vote could be created to confirm the consensus that "Twitter quotations are allowed provided they meet an unspecified tighter standard than 3 quotations spanning a year". 4) Quotations for this entry meet the following standard: a) accumulation of use; b) spread of use (not only Twitter but also Reddit); c) time-span of use (far beyond one year). Thus, the quotations seem good. This is a subjective assessment since there are no approved numeric criteria for a) through c). --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep per @Dan Polansky. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete pending cites showing that this is being used outside of a couple of subreddits. - TheDaveRoss 20:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There are currently 71 citations: 45 from Reddit (and from 20 subreddits, not "a couple"), 25 from Twitter, and 1 from Usenet. These citations unambiguously demonstrate consistent usage over a period of 7 years. It would be absurd for us to pretend that there's still no evidence of this word's existence, and doing so would suggest to me that no amount of internet citations would ever be good enough. Binarystep (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it is probably the case that, for me, there will never be a discrete number of social media citations which are sufficient on their own to justify inclusion. Social media is just too problematic as an exclusive venue, for many reasons which have been enumerated many times. Also "unambiguously" and "consistent" are a stretch, if you purge the many included cites which do not demonstrate any meaning at all, and the ones which are likely quoting others also included, the number is much lower. I am sure there are other cites out there, but likely not that many. The evidence that it has extremely limited usage is that we are the top Google result, second is "hatebase" and third is Urbandictionary. There are a grand total of about 60 results. - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it is probably the case that, for me, there will never be a discrete number of social media citations which are sufficient on their own to justify inclusion. Social media is just too problematic as an exclusive venue, for many reasons which have been enumerated many times.

That's a problem, then, because social media is still one of the primary forms of communication in the 21st century, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. If we exclude words from those sources, our dictionary will forever remain obsolete.

Also "unambiguously" and "consistent" are a stretch, if you purge the many included cites which do not demonstrate any meaning at all, and the ones which are likely quoting others also included, the number is much lower.

All of the citations demonstrate meaning, it's just that the context isn't always going to be apparent from a single comment in a longer thread.

I am sure there are other cites out there, but likely not that many.

My research has indicated the opposite thus far.

The evidence that it has extremely limited usage is that we are the top Google result, second is "hatebase" and third is Urbandictionary. There are a grand total of about 60 results.

Google isn't a reliable indicator of how frequently a word is used. I've found that it doesn't pick up most tweets or Reddit comments, so it's useless for a lot of internet slang. Binarystep (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

My results:

• ["turkroach" site:reddit.com] 2,280 results
• ["turkroaches" site:reddit.com] 750 results
• ["turkroach" site:boards.4chan.org] 3,420 results
• ["turkroaches" site:boards.4chan.org] 1,240 results
• ["turkroach" -reddit -4chan] 8,960 results
• ["turkroaches" -reddit -4chan] 2,920 results

Which feels around right compared to similarly used words. It seems like Google can be very inconsistent with its result count.

Ioaxxere (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

RFV Passed (2-1) Ioaxxere (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not accept these sources. Reopening. Needs more widespread usage. AG202 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There are currently 113 citations, far more than most entries have. How many more would it take to prove "widespread usage"? Binarystep (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep. This term obviously exists, deleting it at this point would be a pure denial of reality. Binarystep (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep, but remove some of them. The 4chan ones in particular, as I don't think we ever allowed them. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the vote allowing online sources on a case-by-case basis didn't mention any disallowed sources. The 4chan cites are beneficial because they demonstrate some of the earliest uses of the term. Binarystep (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The early 4chan ones I can see keeping, but not the ones post-2016. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are from the /r/4chan subreddit, not 4chan itself. There are only two 4chan citations, both of which are from 2015. Binarystep (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep (including 4chan quotes, though we should probably remove '4Chan' from the label and just leave it tagged as 'internet slang'). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

CFI Vote

(Requested by @AG202 in November and again today after the first vote was closed)

• Current Keeps: User:Dan Polansky (now banned), User:Ioaxxere, User:Binarystep
• Current Deletes: User:TheDaveRoss, User:AG202

RFV Passed (3-1) Ioaxxere (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere "I do not accept these sources. Reopening. Needs more widespread usage" Did you just ignore my comment? That was clear that I do not accept these sources. AG202 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. There are currently 122 citations spanning eight years, exactly how many will it take to prove "widespread usage"? At this point, it looks like nothing will ever be good enough. Binarystep (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have every right to reject sources just like everyone else does for their vote. Even if the entry is kept in the end, I at least want my stance to be counted. I solely quoted what I said earlier. I’d respond to the repeated question but I already know where it’ll lead and I clearly did not want any more of that for me when I didn’t respond the first time. AG202 (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Reopened (no consensus) @AG202 it seems like I never added your comment to the list. I've bolded your comment to make it easier to pick out as well. The current count is 3-2. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. AG202 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV-passed (5-2). Binarystep (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Passing 3 days after 2 votes were added when the prior result should have been RFV-no consensus after 2 weeks is scummy (and also directly violates RFV guidelines), but I do not care enough to reopen it. Leaving this comment mainly for facts-keeping sake. AG202 (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)