Talk:bezjak

Do you speak Serbo-Croatian Dominic? --Ivan Štambuk 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. That is why I flagged it for RfV rather than citing it myself. Dominic·t 01:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification
There are two senses I have flagged for RfV here.

The first sense, "A stupid person," has been repeatedly removed by an anonymous editor, who just emailed OTRS to complain that he was removing it because he finds it offensive and thinks it is vandalism, "Bezjak" being a surname. Considering it's a name, I am not sure if it is an attack/vandalism that got overlooked, or if it's actually legitimate. Citations would clear that up.

I am also doubtful that the Harry Potter sense passes WT:CFI, so I have tagged that one as well. Dominic·t 00:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have several harrypotterisms (even Category:Harry Potter), and it's absurd to remove them because they're globally-known words. That this is indeed the translation of the corresponding term from the Harry Potter book series, you can verify on the Croatian Wikipedia article Bezjak (Harry Potter)
 * As for the "stupid person" sense see here (right column at the very bottom): the definitions are, among others, "homo rusticus" and "homo plumbeus" which should be sth like "peasent man" or "unrefined barbarian". At any case, the term is certainly a pejorative, with interesting etymology from the phrase bez jaja ("without eggs/balls") + agentive suffix -ak. It's kind of hard to distinguish the actually used meanings in the attestations; according to Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik one of the meanings is priglup čovjek "dumb person", so there you go. --Ivan Štambuk 01:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We judge words based on their own merit, so Harry Potter words don't get included just because of the work they were in. The criterion calls for "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" (which others in the category you point to undoubtedly satisfy). As for the first sense, you appear to be referencing other dictionaries rather than primary-source quotations. I don't disbelieve you at all, but since you speak the language, would it be possible to actually get the three citations to attest this sense? Dominic·t 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We judge words based on their own merit, so Harry Potter words don't get included just because of the work they were in. - What is this sentence supposed to mean? Both of the dictionaries I referred to are exclusively based on corpora, the first one even has citations embedded. --Ivan Štambuk 21:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, senses removed. —Ruakh TALK 01:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since citations have been provided since August I'd appreciate if you stopped vandalizing the entry. --Ivan Štambuk 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)