Talk:kulturberikare

RFV discussion: November 2016
Tagged in August by User:Robbie SWE but was not listed here. Equinox ◑ 20:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This term stirs up a lot of emotions — it is strictly used by right-wing nationalists to describe immigrants. I don't contradict that this word exists; I however oppose referencing a blog belonging to a politician who represents the aforementioned users of this word. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can see hits in Google Books. Why not add those as citations? Equinox ◑ 20:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Robbie SWE: Can you please clarify which of the quotations found in are not good enough for WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Dan Polansky: as I said before, the term exists and I do not contest its existence. In hindsight, marking it for verification might not have been my smartest move. However, I oppose the exclusive use of sources attributed to one of the founders of the word. It would be as if I would make up a word – albeit used by other people – and provide myself as the only reliable source. I just want a more "neutral" reference, that's all. And to address your question Dan, all the citations you provided in your comment are acceptable. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * When the word exist and is not questioned, then it's not a matter of RFV. Instead one could use RFC (request for cleanup), as "cleanup" is a more vague term.
 * The reference is used for "Used by immigration-critical Swedes". So I can't see any problem with that. Firstly, primary sources IMHO are better than secondary sources or secondary literature. Secondly, using a "more 'neutral' reference", a politically correct or politically left source, would not necessarily proof the claim as political factions sometimes spread lies about their enemies. As the reference nowadays gives "Kunde inte hittas - Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here." and maybe isn't needed anyway, I guess one could simply remove it. -84.161.48.20 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Robbie SWE: In that case, let me note that the top of this RFV page says: "Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. ..." --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV closed as out of scope: existence is not challenged as per above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)