Talk:anti-Jewish

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Tagged by Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9758:7D90:91FA:587E:5DCB:1A66 as "SOP". &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 22:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The alternative is much worse, I regard anti-Jewish as the correct form. DonnanZ (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * They're both unattested sop.2600:1700:9758:7D90:596D:BAF1:A6D1:C3EE 04:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure the term can be attested. There are even books with anti-Jewish as part of their title, DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WT:COALMINE if can be cited. Everyone agrees that the "SOP" argument doesn't apply to words written together with no hyphen or space. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree! PUC – 08:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It can't be denied the term exists, whether we are Jewish or non-Jewish. DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply as our policy is presently constituted, but logically it makes no difference to SoPness whether a term is spaced, hyphenated or solid. Whether we write "anti Jewish", "anti-Jewish" or "antiJewish"/"antijewish" is really a semi-arbitrary choice or writing convention that does not in any way affect the fact that the meaning in all cases is "anti" + "jewish". While spaced and hyphenated phrases are are already under the scope of SoP rules, the difficulty that we face is how to treat e.g. "antijewish" as SoP. As I see it, there are two issues. The first is whether a user can look up the meaning of a solid SoP term if he/she encounters it and does not recognise the composition. This could be handled in software, without a specific entry, provided we have entries for the components, which in 99% of relevant cases we probably do. This is actually a much better solution for lookup than having individual entries for every case, because it means e.g. any "antiX" that anyone might coin would automatically be catered for. The second issue is agreeing which solid SoP terms to keep and which to discard, and framing rules to differentiate one type from the other. This seems more problematic. Mihia (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I ought to mention one other consideration that I omitted, which is that people may wish to consult the dictionary to determine which form is correct, e.g. whether they should write "anti-Jewish", "antiJewish" or whatever. Mihia (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WT:THUB via Czech and German : these are not compounds and therefore escape THUB exclusion criteria. On the other hand, one might argue that anti-Semitic serves fine as a hub, but I would still keep anti-Jewish as a more direct translation, in common use; ; there are also Czech  and German . --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Waiting to see what happens to antijewish. If we keep antijewish we need to keep this, otherwise delete per CFI: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases."  Anti-Semitic is not sum of parts, all the uses of anti-Jewish I have seen are.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, and the above quote regulation is in no conflict with WT:THUB: "[...] Some attested translation hubs should be included despite being non-idiomatic and some excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. [...]", italics mine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that anti-Jewish shouldn't be spelt antijewish because of English spelling conventions doesn't make it automatically SoP. That is a cockeyed argument. Merriam-Webster agrees with anti-Jewish, now added as a reference. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Beer parlour
See. Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)