Talk:warfighter

This is not a word, and definition is ridiculous


 * Two sample citations added. Equinox ◑ 00:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's military jargon that is not used by the wider English-speaking community. There's a reason you cited military manuals. It is not used in any other militaries than the US. It's not a word. We're not going to start putting military acronyms or any other institutional jargon.73.197.25.134 01:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We do include military jargon. We have plenty. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in this case. It's simply not a word. All institutions have words/acronyms they make up. The US military is a closed institution and internal jargon used by them and their vendors does not represent a change to the English language. You must provide many analogous examples to back your claim. On top of this it's patently ridiculous and derogatory to define a warfighter as a member of the US military. You won't get a genuine consensus on this.73.197.25.134 01:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What language do you think the US military is speaking, if it isn't English? lol. Equinox ◑ 01:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For further examples in Wiktionary, see Category:en:Military, and other categories with specialised language, such as Category:en:Computer graphics. These are words. You may not like them but that doesn't stop them being words. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's like defining taxspender as 'a politician, especially a member of the US Congress.' It's ridiculous, inaccurate, and offensive (to reduce all fighters of wars to Americans), it serves no purpose, and it is not used by any English-speaking general population including the US. Put it on Urban Dictionary.73.197.25.134 01:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August 2017
It's institutional US military-confined jargon that is not used by the wider English-speaking community. Editor cited military manuals and US military-specific trade/institutional literature only. It is not used in any English-speaking militaries other than the US. It's not a word. Soldier is the word (or serviceman). Are scissors now paperslicingtongs? On top of this it's patently ridiculous and derogatory to define a warfighter as a member of the US military.73.197.25.134 01:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using a definition of "word" that nobody here will agree with. DTLHS (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's like defining taxspender as 'a politician, especially a member of the US Congress.' It's ridiculous, inaccurate, and offensive (to reduce all fighters of wars to Americans), it serves no purpose, and it is not used by any English-speaking general population including the US. Put it on Urban Dictionary.73.197.25.134 01:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You understand that a definition doesn't automatically make something true? Some people (including the US military) use the word "warfighter". That makes it a word, period. We have no obligation to give a flying fuck whether you find it offensive. You're welcome to start your own dictionary with only strings of letters you personally consider valid. DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So if Microsoft employees (and a few of its vendors in communications to them) start using 'derpaderp' to mean Bill Gates' home, then that nonsense jargon of a single institution is now a word of the English language that belongs in a dictionary? I don't think so. And as I said, to reduce all fighters of wars to American soldiers is utterly, indisputably false on its face, so the nonsense utterance deserves no serious consideration as a word.73.197.25.134 01:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Try not to burn yourself when that massive strawman you've built goes up. Your personal sensibilities don't get to decide what is and isn't a word. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not sensibilities in any way, they're realities: most wars have not involved Americans. Therefore the current definition is nonsense. Though if you want to get political, the US military does in fact fight most wars the last decade or two. But with any kind of long-range view, it's a nonsense definition; and it is not used by the general population, only by one institution and a few of its affiliates. 73.197.25.134 02:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The citations show that the term is used in such casual and slangish works as Military Review and Combat Stress Injury: Theory, Research, and Management, and refers in all these cases to members of the US military who has experienced combat. There is nothing derogatory or nonsensical about any of those cites: if anything, they seem romantically reverential. I submit that if the "one institution and a few of its affiliates" consists of "The US Military and affiliate health-care and technology providers", then that's probably big enough to count. Your objection reduces to "I don't like this word", and is about as relevant an objection as the Monty Python character who demands a special expurgated Olsen's Standard Book of British Birds because he doesn't like the gannet. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Without the US qualification, the entry falls flat since no one uses it outside of (a tiny handful of brochure and training manual authors in) the US military-industrial circuit, including the general US population. With the US qualification ('especially a member of the US military'), it becomes false and ridiculous, and smacks of an Army commercial. 'Warfighter' was originally and continues to be a transparent PR technique/strategy and has no place in a dictionary. Your catch-all gannet analogy is inapplicable and fails miserably.73.197.25.134 12:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Our motto is "All words in all languages", and we have entries on every vile, obscene, and generally offensive term you can imagine, so please quit with the qualitative arguments. The quotes given are more than enough to meet our Criteria for inclusion. This isn't a word only shared by a guy in Dubuque and his three buddies, this is a word used in publications read by thousands of people, in government documents, etc. Yes, it should be further qualified as jargon used only within the US military sector, but there's no chance whatsoever that it's going to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Judging from two of the citations, it doesn't even seem like jargon, meriting a usage label that is military. Yes, the topic is obviously military, but it is not worth a (misleading) label, whatever the value of topical categorization as "military". DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The deletion nomination was bogus, and, all in the same day, consensus from all commenters in the discussion, including me, all agree that it's bogus. As such, I'm making the decision to snow keep this entry. I don't want this sitting here for months untouched. Wiktionary is not about opinion; it's about facts. The question to ask is: How is the word really used? Not: How can we define or delete this term so that it least offends its viewers, even if that means putting inaccurate information there? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)