Talk:antijewish

RFD discussion: July–October 2020

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

antijewish

Tagged but not listed (but see the above section on anti-Jewish). Equinox ◑ 08:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep: should be RFVed, not RFDed. Equinox ◑ 08:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I did find one, for what it's worth [1] DonnanZ (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Possibly keep as a common misspelling of anti-Jewish if we can trust the following: (antijewish*250),anti-Jewish at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. If we believe that GNV counts scannos, we could delete this as a rare misspelling. By contrast, anti-British,antibritish at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. does not find antibritish. RFV is also an option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy move to RFV. It may be citable but most hits are search engines helpfully matching anti-Jewish. I added one citation. I found a second I won't add because it's the English abstract of a German paper and may be ESL. For comparison, journal articles by scientists from non-English speaking countries occasionally use potatoe but potato is considered the correct spelling in modern standard English. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no basis for the above "speedy" since this form is at least somewhat plausibly subject to a RFD-relevant deletion rationale of WT:CFI#Spellings: "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The nomination was "unattested sop". The unattested part is RFV material. SOP does not apply to unspaced compounds. Do you want to nominate on the additional ground that it should be considered a misspelling? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The RFD page does not state any RFD rationale; one would have to check diff. Anyway, I am now nominating this for RFD as a rare misspelling, while not voting yet. Let us have a look at whether evidence suggests this is a rare misspelling. Evidence (above GNV) makes it pretty clear it is a misspelling; the remaining question is whether it is a rare misspelling or common misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete as a rare misspelling, actually; I don't believe most of the GNV finds are anything but scannos, from randomly checking Google Books. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly rare, but it can be intentional, in this article the spelling antijewish occurs three times. DonnanZ (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, misspelling can be intentional in that it can be systematic in an article written by someone who has that misspelling stored in their mind as canonical. The above article's title is "The Belgian and French medicine and the "Ordres" facing the "jewish question" during the Second World War", with jewish in lowercase (should be Jewish), apparently written by French-speaking authors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)