Talk:identarian

RFV discussion: March–May 2022

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

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

---

identarian

Attestable, but looks like a misspelling of identitarian. – Jberkel 20:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Some occurrences are clearly typos,^[1][2] and an interesting case is an often quoted sentence from Sonia Kruks, “However, what makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, pre-identarian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied”.^[3] When quoted, we may find the term “pre-identarian” corrected to “preidentitarian”,^[4] or hidden by paraphrasis.^[5] However, the academic study Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capitalism by Jonathan Tran, Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology at Baylor University, published by OUP and so presumably vetted by an editor, contains many uses of identarian(ism)^[6] (and none of identitarian), so there it is not an incidental error but a conscious choice.  --Lambiam 12:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, it seems to be an outlier. The first page of Google results for identarian are almost all Wiktionary-derived. – Jberkel 18:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact it's intentionally used in a serious academic article suggests that we should be looking in a lot more depth than the first few pages of Google results. Theknightwho (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but it's one single publication, that doesn't mean much. It's a very recent one though (November 2021), so maybe more identarians are on their way. – Jberkel 14:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The term is consistently used in Rosario Lentini (2011), "The Tuna-fishing Structures in Sicily: an Identarian Architectural Heritage" (2nd CITCEM Conference: The Sea: Heritage, Uses and Representations, Universidade do Porto), cited in the Wikipedia articles Favignana and Mattanza. It is also extensively used in Vasile Constantin (2018), "The Feminine Identarian Archetype – a Symbolic-Experiential Perspective Revealed within the Creative Improvisation through Literature", Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy 21:4, pp. 29–36 (see item 5 here). Likewise in Amitava Chowdhury (2014), "Exploring an 'Old Verbal Ambiguity': East Indian Ethnicity and Identity in Trinidad and the British Caribbean", Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 37, pp. 209–220 (doi:10.1080/08263663.2012.10817033).  --Lambiam 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, consistent repeated use in certain academic works convinces me that it's an intentional formation that should have an entry. (And it's not the first time a rare alternative formation using a different suffix has existed alongside a more common formation; I just created decate as distinct from decatize, we've all seen various -er vs -or pairs, and I recently encountered lituicone as distinct from lituiticone and adhese used repeatedly even in technical works rather than adhere.) But let's examine whether the definition ("Of or pertaining to the formation of identity") is correct and, if so, whether it also exists for identitarian, in which case this entry could be converted to an ({{lb|en|uncommon}}?) alt form or synonym entry. (At present, it is presented as if it has a different meaning from identitarian. If this is true, fine, but is it?) - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Citing is not the problem here, it's figuring out the relationship to identitarian. – Jberkel 07:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"" @Jberkel: That's not really a question for RFV - sounds like something to bring up at the Tea room. Kiwima (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)