Talk:ku'irni

RFV discussion: January–February 2018
Lojban. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Lojban is listed as a language well-documented on the Internet at all. In the absence of a large number of durably archived sources for the language of any sort, I am not going to do this, but I imagine 90% of Lojban words would fail a RFV, and question why this word in particular, out of all words, is being subjected to this. Finsternish (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My reason for including it was simply that it is found here: ku'irni at jbovlaste. I'm honestly stunned that a RFV is being submitted for it, due to the reasons I already gave. The language is not well-documented in durably archived sources. Finsternish (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I chose this word in particular because you created it after learning about the rules, yet it did not seem to be inclusible. All constructed languages are listed as well documented because of the way they are spread (documentation occurs prior to use, rather than the other way around in natural languages). Lojban has never had a vibrant user community like Esperanto, so it is possible we should not even have it in mainspace at all. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Either way, be consistent. And ask yourself, "why did ku'irni not seem to be inclusible, but I never tag other Lojban words? Why is Lojban in mainspace at all? And why did only the translation of queer bother me? Why did I never have a problem with Lojban's inclusion until this was added?" I'm not the one who decided Lojban should be in Wiktionary. You should be aware of why it's in Wiktionary; I'm not. Certainly there has to be a good reason. In the meantime, it just seems that you're tagging words that marginalized people use to find one another, build community, and find common purpose, and ignoring all others. I'm sure you're doing so in good faith, but we all have unconscious biases. Finsternish (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your response seems to be largely concerned with your agenda. A large proportion of active editors here are part of the LBGT community and therefore have personal reasons to sympathise, but my identification with your editing agenda has nothing to do with the dictionary and the rules we have agreed upon. I will take this opportunity to review whether we should hold a vote on Lojban, and you can take this opportunity to consider how you can assume good faith instead of pointing fingers. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I literally said "I am sure you are doing this in good faith," and I literally meant it. Having unconscious biases doesn't mean you're not acting in good faith, by definition of "unconscious." Since you have a genuine desire to improve Wiktionary, you might want to look at your unconscious biases so they aren't reflected in the project.
 * Now you, on the other hand, you assumed I had an agenda, just now, and I am curious about your motivation for making such a bold claim. Above all, the use of the word "agenda" is itself heavily coded for queerphobia. Finsternish (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to tell that you are assuming good faith when you say that my use of words is heavily coded for queerphobia, and thus imply that I am queerphobic. I used the word "agenda" as inspired by Equinox, who used to have on his user page the following wording (under things he dislikes): "any editing "agenda" (Islam, Anglo-Saxonism, gender studies, etc., to the exclusion of actual real-world usage)". The last 50+ edits of yours have been mostly on queer terminology in constructed languages, and you have been creating terms regardless of whether they have real-world usage, thus constituting an editing agenda as described above. Anyway, I will not be responding here any more, because I have no further interest in discussing something that has little to do with this RFV. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the words "bad faith" and "agenda" at all. Finsternish (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like, your claim that I am saying you are acting in bad faith simply does not follow from the premise that I believe you have unconscious biases. Do you even understand anything I'm saying? Finsternish (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I have arachnophobia, does that mean I have a conscious desire to hurt spiders? Does that mean I made the active, bad-faith decision to hurt them? Finsternish (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What you need to understand is that LGBT people are a respected and indispensable part of our community, and Metaknowledge has been a staunch defender of that where's it's come up. There's nothing wrong with having interests- if I only saw -sche's work here on the two-spirit phenomenon in American Indian languages, I might suspect an agenda- but he's contributed so much else in every subject imaginable in such a fair and even-handed way anyone can see that's not true. We even have a few people who do have an agenda- User:Dick Laurent comes to mind- but they don't let it affect the quality of their edits. We've also had people who tried to compensate for a lack of entries in certain areas by making things up- that's one thing we don't tolerate. You haven't contributed enough for us to tell where you are on that spectrum, but your edits so far are more enough reason for us to want to check. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Chuck Entz, I don't know what agenda you're talking about. —  Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 13:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposing the influence of sexual taboos on content and increasing realism in sex-related material. In the right hands, an agenda can absolutely be good for the dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever way you spin it, whatever you want to say about anything I'm doing, I'm not making it up. I don't need to. The words exist, but there's a difference between citing an existing word and citing an existing word for which three durably archived citations can be found. The claim that it's even within possibility that I'm making anything up is not only baseless but contrary to what can be learned after a Google search. ku'irni, for example, is part of the main jbovlaste dictionary; inventions go in something broader and only become Lojban words when they have received sufficient votes from the Lojban community. I added it to Wiktionary because it was in jbovlaste and was searchable and it came up when I searched it. I have no reason to add words because I've never run into a case where they didn't already exist. Finsternish (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO Lojban is not well-attested enough to belong in the main namespace. Suspicion of others' good/bad faith seem inappropriate here; it is common that when someone (especially a new-ish user) adds one or more terms that fail RFV and then adds another term that doesn't seem to meet CFI, the later term gets noticed and RFVed, without regard to subject matter. Some users are more sceptical of "newer" or "niche" terminology because it is less likely to be used often enough meet CFI, and the same users are usually also sceptical of "old" Anglish-esque words for the same reason that they are sometimes added without regard to citability, and anyway in this case it seems like what happened is the more general phenomenon that you've added some terms that proved hard to cite, so other terms that an editor has a hard time finding evidence of also get RFVed. This explains why someone RFVed the newly-added ku&#39;irni rather than plucking a random word out of CAT:Lojban lemmas, like, say, braxamsi (which has gone untouched and unnoticed by humans for 6+ years). - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, this fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)