Wiktionary:Tea room/2025/January

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← December 2024 · January 2025 · February 2025 → · (current)

---

Pseudo-subsense at England needs work

As I write this, at England, there is a pseudo-subsense that isn't entered formally as a subsense (##) and is rather opaquely written. It needs work to become less opaque and to show plainly why it is (allegedly) different from sense 1, which is Q21. Apparently the intended distinction is the succession of states versus the whole superset of territories that have been controlled by any of those. If so, OK, but it needs some cleanup. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@LlywelynII, Who added what is now the main sense, with a wordier version of the definition that was already there left at the end with only a semicolon as separation (diff). It looks like an attempt to distinguish the states from the region occupied by them. The result was only slightly smaller than its referent, so someone decided later to split it up. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised how little understanding of the English language there is in this tea-room. Looking at lie back and think of England, the definition says "to accept unwanted sex due to social pressures". This is not the meaning. Traditionally in England, there was no "unwanted sex due to social pressures", as extra-marital sex was frowned upon. The meaning is this: that a woman should not enjoy sex. In the 19th century, women were told to think of something else or pretend it wasn't happening and not to enjoy the orgasm. It wasn't "unwanted sex", but marital sex during which the women were to think of England, in order to avoid enjoying it like sluts. That was the attitude then anyway.

Under England, you say the use of England to refer as a pars pro toto to the UK is "proscribed, sometimes offensive". This use of "proscribed" on Wiktionary is odd - it has a haughty tone, as if you think you have the right to "forbid" some usages. In fact, Nancy Mitford in her famous Nobless Oblige refers to England as the U-form of the non-U Britain. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:58B6:75D0:328A:E5EC 11:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s useful to describe certain terms as ‘sometimes offensive’ as in many cases such as this it’s only the easily offended who object. It’s a similar situation to chinky meaning a Chinese meal or restaurant which is far less offensive than calling a Chinese person a ‘chinky’ and was previously labelled as ‘sometimes offensive’ before that label was amended. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. I'm not familiar with a Chinese person called a "chinky". I've heard a Chinese person referred to as a "chink", with no -y. By the way, the word chink was mainly used in my childhood to refer to a certain type of marble (glass balls used in children's games), but Wiktionary doesn't have this. In fact, I can't find a picture of a chink in that sense on the Internet. it was normally a white one with a flash of colour in the middle (possibly seen as equivalent to a narrow eye supposedly of a Chinese person? that may have been the derivation). 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 21:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought you meant the Wiktionary definition had been amended to remove the claim that chinky, in reference to Chinese takeaway food, was "sometimes offensive" as the vast majority of people in England will tell you it's not offensive at all. Now I see it has been amended to say "offensive" as if it were definitely offensive. The Far Left seem in total control of Wiktionary. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 21:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

How do the Chinese people in Britain feel about the word? Do they find it offensive or not? CitationsFreak (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The sitcom Peep Show has a bit about "chinky" (the takeaway sense) which may be instructive! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6C72:82A7:8821:35AA 05:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

close (adj) (2)

We had an over-extended and under-exampled definition, "Accurate; careful; precise; also, attentive; undeviating; strict", which I am trying to break down, or pin down, and furnish with examples. Currently left orphaned is "accurate/precise". Can anyone come up with examples (in particular, modern examples) of this? Not to be confused with the use as in "close match", which is essentially abstract "near", and is covered elsewhere. This "accurate/precise" sense ought to be related, I suppose, somehow, to the other words in the original wide-ranging definition. Also not to be confused with "careful, detailed" as in "a close reading", which has a separate definition -- although, of course, definitions could be recombined if it seems sensible after all. Any ideas? Mihia (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

ageism

There's been a discussion on Discord and at WT:RFDE#ageism about whether or not the primary definition should include "especially old people". My argument is that it puts us in line with various definitions and usages of ageism including: MW; OED "...esp. against elderly people."; Dictionary.com, albeit in a second sense; The American Psychological Association; Wikipedia; NIH; the U.S. Age Discrimination Act references 40+; and the Canadian Gov. To be clear, ageism does affect younger people, but my point is that the average person uses ageism to reference discrimination and prejudice against older people much much more. Nonetheless, on Discord, it was argued by @MedK1 that in their experience, they see it more often "in reference to minors, calling stuff like saying "minors shouldn't be on Twitter", dismissing a kid's opinion or treating a 19-year-old in a restaurant like a dependent as ageism". I've personally never seen referred to "ageism", and I doubt that it would be by folks my age and up (mid-twenties), but I would like to get the opinions of other folks here as well. If the former case can be cited, I would think it'd be a subsense rather than altering the primary sense.

The question is if there's a consensus to include the phrasing or not, especially since it affects the aforementioned RFD. CC other participants in the discussions: @CitationsFreak, @Soap, @Polomo47, @Mihia, @LunaEatsTuna, @Surjection, @P Aculeius, @Hftf, @Theknightwho. AG202 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hftf also stated:

fwiw in more than 9 times in 10 i (personally) hear "ageism" used, it's referring to discrimination against "the relatively older" (and not "the elderly") - example: (even experienced) 35 year olds seem less desirable for faangs/startups to hire than 22 year olds (because of their life responsibilities, having less "potential"/"energy" in keeping up with shiny new toy syndrome, etc), but i follow tech news and not youth spaces on social media. i suspect that the places one frequents are going to strongly affect the way you experience the word "ageism" being used. to verify my experience you can search [Google Search for Hackernews] etc

which I personally have heard, but I still think that can fall under our current def. AG202 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to note that older people (I wouldn't call people in their 40's, 50's, or 60's "elderly") are the primary focus of ageism, though it can be directed at younger people too. P Aculeius (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the cited refs, and nonetheless perhaps the best solution for Wiktionary is to take the part conveying the idea of "often said of people viewed as either of a certain age or older adults" (or words to that effect) and make it either (1) an {{ngd}} that follows the def, or (2) a usage note. I think this would address the concern of someone who didn't like the "especially" part in this instance. And I think the words "often said of" are good because they can prevent any quibbling about "especially" or "usually" in this instance. I agree with the cited refs that, at least before the 2020s, most discussions of ageism have concerned discriminating against people viewed as "too old" for something, according to a bias. In the United States it has often been about the fact that companies avoid hiring people in their 50s and 60s, whether because they think the olds (1) can't use tech well, (2) will bog down the company's [carrier-administered but self-funded] health insurance by needing too much health care (what a nerve people have, actually needing health care), or (3) are asking for a higher salary than younger applicants. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's just saying the exact same thing as the current inadequate definition but with different words. It doesn't help anything. MedK1 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My main problem isn't that the definition mentions older people, but that it frames the use pertaining to prejudice against younger people as marginal or rare. MedK1 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No, saying "often X" doesn't portray Y as either marginal or rare. That's a misreading. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

...you mean to tell me you don't at all see how removing the mention of young people from the definition can carry the implication that said use is less relevant or widespread than the other one? If they're both especially notable, it stands to reason that both be mentioned. To not mention both of them is to imply they're not, in fact, both notable. MedK1 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with Solar Oak. Noting the particular association of ageism with the elderly is not the same as suggesting that any other forms are rare, much less "marginal". P Aculeius (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that in my opinion, the best definition we've had was the one just before this change, which was made during a RfD discussion for a different sense of the word, and agreed on between only two users. The definition was perfectly fine before, and I believe the change was for the worse. If my edit was reverted on the basis that more talk was warranted, surely the same should go for the other one as well? MedK1 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you there: "especially youth or seniors" implies that young people are particularly vulnerable to discrimination based on age—and I doubt that's what most people consider age-based discrimination, if we filter out legal disabilities imposed on minors, which are usually not included. The terms are also not parallel: "seniors" is a slangy way of referring to older people; "old people" is an improvement on that. If you disagree, you're welcome to bring that up on the entry's talk page—but that's not the subject of this discussion, which is whether the words "especially old people" or other words of similar effect are warranted, not whether the choice of "old people" vs. "seniors" or some other word or phrase of choice is the best alternative. Bringing it up here simply confuses the issue. P Aculeius (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As is often the case, citations would help, though it is likely tedious to find the relevant information that establishes the age of the target of ageism and the age of the ageist. DCDuring (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Very true. MedK1 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on old people vs elderly vs seniors vs whatever-have-you. AG brought the discussion here to the Tea room after I went to the Discord to talk about how I don't agree with removing the mentions relating to bigotry against young people. That is what it's about.

I don't care how we refer to older people — that's too nitpicky even for me —, I care that we've removed "young people" from the definition for little reason and thereby a) made it less neutral and most importantly b) made it emphasize a usage that I haven't often come across in the wild, to the detriment of particular also-common usecases. MedK1 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"Discrimination against young people" is still included in the definition; it just emphasizes that the most common usage uses the word when referring to discrimination against older people. AG202 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

To restate what i said on Discord .... i think we should opt for a neutrally worded definition, as we do with both racism and sexual harassment. 95% of sexual harassment is men acting on women, but when women do it to men, it's still sexual harassment just as much, and therefore the definition needs no further specification. I do want to add though that I see the other side of the argument and I think it's ultimately an argument over what we should base our entries on. Im not saying AG202 is wrong, just that I think we should follow the model set by the entries I've named above. —Soap— 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think age and, especially, aged are different from race and gender/sex in that it is more likely when unmodified to be used about the old rather than the young. So 'neutral' wording is somewhat misleading. I think that it should be unsurprising that ageism is more often used about discrimination against the old rather than the young. Therefore, it seems to me appropriate that there be an "especially"-type phrase in the definition to note this. DCDuring (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm quite happy with wording along the lines of "especially the old" because I believe that in practice the word is very predominantly (you could almost say overwhelmingly) used that way. Sometimes it is even defined just as that, e.g. "Ageism is defined as discrimination against older people because of negative and inaccurate stereotypes" [1], and there seem to be entire books on the subject of "ageism" that take it as given that it means discrimination against old people. Having said that, I wouldn't mind if we changed the definition to "especially older people". As someone else may have said somewhere, it can affect, say, people in middle age, who wouldn't necessarily think of themselves as "old". Mihia (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• On another point, at one time the wording was:

a) The treating of a person or people, especially old people, differently from others based on assumptions, prejudices or/and stereotypes relating to their age.

Now it has somehow become:

b) The treating of a person or people differently, especially old people, from others based on assumptions, prejudices or/and stereotypes relating to their age.

To me, (a) reads better and I propose that we put it back that way. Mihia (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That was my bad, I'll fix it now AG202 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Mihia (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

meat assault

I put some cites here. But should I create an entry (is this idiomatic?), or is the relevant sense of meat used outside of this phrase often enough that it should be at meat instead? - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would consider it idiomatic. I think in Russian they say "meat" for "cannon fodder", which doesn't seem very common in English. At any rate the term is surely a calque from Russian/Ukrainian, though I don't know the original form(s). The English equivalent seems to be "human wave attack". The term "meat assault" in English is of course used mainly as an anti-Russian propaganda term, which your quotes also show. (For what it's worth, the Russians did use such tactics at Bakhmut for example, where it was Wagner's convicts fighting. The Ukrainians used them in their failed summer offensive of 2023. But all in all both sides are trying hard to minimize casualties.) 92.73.31.113 05:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that meat needs a definition that encompasses meat machine/assault/computer and whatever other collocations seem to use the sense. "Meat machine" goes back at least to a reported conversation with Nikola Tesla and is common in philosophical and cognitive-science writings about AI. Also meat robot/meat automaton. DCDuring (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)