Talk:Pejorative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Languages (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Spade, eh?[edit]

I'm not sure if it's intentional, but when the article mentions "calling a spade a spade", it reminded me that someone once told me 'spade' was a pejorative term for a black person! Though I fear this will start us off on the euphemism treadmill again.

A question[edit]

Some individuals (e.g. User:FWBOarticle) appear (from discourse) to believe that words may be inherently pejorative. I genuinely wonder if there are any philosophical discussions regarding such ideas? (20040302 00:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))

"Pejorative" vs "disparaging"[edit]

From the article:

Although pejorative means the same thing as disparaging, the latter term may be applied to a look or gesture as well as to words and phrases.

But the article linked to (as should be obvious from its title) does not discuss its application to a look or gesture. Brianjd 10:19, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Bites more then it chews[edit]

This ariticle starts the huge subject of taking away the power of pejorative words, but doesn't really explain any of the process or the rationale. I think Dr. Judith Butler says some crazy stuff on it, though I might be mixed up. It would be awesome if someone (maybe me, later,) gave more support.

Also, the article could use something on the use of pejoritives by groups against each other (I linked here from terrorist, for example).

Transwiki[edit]

I would propose that this article be transwikied to wictionary. Not quite sure how to go about doing that, but it sounds like a good idea.

Derogatory versus pejorative[edit]

I'm proposing moving this article to derogatory under the rationale WP:COMMONNAME. Derogatory is unquestionably the most common form of the word with close to 11.7 million hits on a search engine test, whereas pejorative lists only about 2.3 million. A redirect will be in place if editors decide to use pejorative in an article. I do recognize that there are different connotations to each of the merged terms but I'm not certain if WP:PRECISE will be able to resolve those issues unless each of these terms is given their own article. Considering the fact that it's already controversial to the purpose of this article against WP:NOT#DICTIONARY this is seemingly the best compromise. Mkdwtalk 17:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not object, but moving the page to a new name and then proposing the move is strange. So you are not proposing, but basically telling us the rational for what you have done and asking if anyone objects. However, we should consider merging the whole thing into the article Insult and improving that article. Google books can compare frequency of word usage. Here is a comparative graph for pejorative, derogatory, insult, slur and disparagement. "Insult" has way higher that all the rest. Some might argue that "pejorative" sees more usage in academic papers, but I do not think that should be the major consideration. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: Yes sorry, I decided to make a bold move after I looked over the talk page and realized the majority of threads never received a reply and were years old. I would have carried on a discussion here and reverted my changes willingly if anyone opposed the move. A merge to insult sounds like a fine idea. I support it. Mkdwtalk 03:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the bold move because it violated WP:NOUN, which states that, when choosing an article title, "nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech". Please start a formal move discussion if you still believe Derogatory would be a more appropriate title. Neelix (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem Neelix. Since this conversation ended in mid-April and you revived it a few weeks later, a ping would have been appreciated. Mkdwtalk 05:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)



PejorativeDerogatory language – "Derogatory" is a more common term than pejorative by a significant margin. Grammatically speaking, derogatory is an adjectives and therefore fail WP:NOUN. Therefore I suggest "derogatory language". The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on it and moving it there and expanding it to cover the wider ranging aspects of it may resolve the issues with WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Mkdwtalk 05:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To expand on something I forgot to include which was the whole motivation behind this was that pejorative is not very commonly used. Above I started a discussion about how "derogatory" has a strong argument for WP:COMMONNAME here over pejorative. Mkdwtalk 08:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the title currently gives useful support to the use of Category:Pejoratives. I don't see great benefit of a move but a move to Derogatory term could lend support to the use of Category:Derogatory terms. GregKaye 07:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If WP:COMMONNAME is the reason for this proposed move, then only a more common name should replace the current one. The word "derogatory" itself may be more common than "pejorative", but, as has already been pointed out, "derogatory" by itself fails WP:NOUN. The two proposed alternatives, "derogatory language" and "derogatory term", are both much less common than "pejorative", as the relevant Google Books searches reveal. Of the valid titles available to this article, the current one is the most common. Neelix (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • COMMONNAME was the motivation in looking at finding a new home for this article, not the rationale for moving it. Please read the nominator's statement for that. Mkdwtalk 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If you are referring to your suggestion that the move would broaden the scope of the article, I am not convinced. What difference do you see in the scope of these two terms? The article can be expanded with or without the move. Neelix (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you think the article about "pejorative" could cover the scope indicated in the examples I provided and that "pejorative language" or "derogatory language" would be a less accurate title? Mkdwtalk 22:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If by examples you're referring to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, then yes; "pejorative" sufficiently covers the scope. The phrases "pejorative language" and "derogatory language" cover no more nor less scope than the word "pejorative" on its own. Neelix (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Derogatory is a word everyone knows. Pejorative is a trivia word. I don't know if I've ever heard anyone actually say it out loud. Red Slash 00:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Ngrams GregKaye 05:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not convinced that "derogatory" is more commonly used than "pejorative". Consider the 11,100 Google Books hits for "derogatory" as compared to the 451,000 Google Books hits for "pejorative". Neelix (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
When I click those links it says 480,000 hits for pejorative and 1,380,000 for derogatory. Mkdwtalk 22:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It is very odd that Google is giving us different numbers of hits. Does Google give different numbers of hits depending on where someone is located geographically? Neelix (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Neelix: can you re-do your search results? When I redo them with google.ca I see 8k for pejorative and 11.1k for derogatory. I really don't see how pejorative would be more popular. I hardly see it in any print publications but I see derogatory all the time. Even a web search it shows derogatory with significantly more hits. Mkdwtalk 22:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I have redone the searches and I am getting the results that you mention; I apologize for my previous error. Even with these results, however, my reasoning remains strong; the usage frequency of "pejorative" and "derogatory" varies only a little, and "pejorative" is a much more frequently used term than "derogatory language". Neelix (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is succinct, clear and commonly used (even the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article noted in the nomination uses "pejorative" in its title). No reason for a move to a more unwieldy title per WP:TITLECHANGES. —  AjaxSmack  05:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too trivial are the reasons given. Pejorative is a perfectly good word. Poor grammar in the nomination ("derogatory is an adjectives and therefore fail WP:NOUN") is reason for a speedy close for such a nomination. The addition of "language" is the same, whether it is to be "Pejorative language" or "Derogatory language". Renaming of articles from use of one simile to another should be discouraged, as per WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ain't broken, doesn't need fixin.--KTo288 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.