Talk:antizionistic

RFD discussion: October–December 2022

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

antizionistic

Rare misspelling. So rare that GNV does not find it: anti-Zionistic,antizionistic at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep. This isn't a misspelling, just an alternative capitalization in the vein of zionist, antizionist, prozionist, zioclown, ziopig, ziotard, and zioturd. I also don't understand why you singled this term out as a "misspelling", then went on to add {{rare spelling of}} (rather than {{misspelling of}}) to antizionist two hours later. Why is one acceptable but not the other? Binarystep (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

antizionist had the frequency ratio of 100, so the case was not so clear as for "rare" misspelling. However, Google scanning often captures hyphenated forms as solid forms, so the actual ratio is much poorer. 1) Is it a misspelling or incorrect capitalization? I would say it is; this is not the standard way to do this, even if we disregard GNV. 2) Is it a "common" misspelling? Probably not since GNV does not find it. To test for the general pattern, we may look e.g. at [anti - American/antiamerican] at Google Ngram Viewer and see the ratio of 1000: that is, every 1000th spelling is "antiamerican", including the fact that Google scan often captures a hyphenated form as a solid form. [anti - German/antigerman] at Google Ngram Viewer shows similar data; other can be checked by anyone interested. Google Groups search for "antiamerican"[1] finds enough independent uses of AntiAmerican and antiAmerican and probably even antiamerican, e.g. this[2]. Now what, 3 rare variant spellings of the only standard anti-American? What does the dictionary user learn other than what they already knew, namely that many Usenet users cannot spell or do not bother to spell correctly? A copyedited corpus is a different story; if we had 3 quotations for antizionistic from there, that would bolster the "alternative" claim a bit, at least for a very lenient view of what an "alternative" spelling is.

antichristian is a different story: [anti - Christian/antichristian] at Google Ngram Viewer shows the frequency ratio of 8 and google books:"antichristian" finds fairly many uses in the copyedited corpus. You could thus argue that the pattern does find some significant use and that therefore antizionistic is not apriori an incorrect capitalization, merely a rare one. One could adduce transatlantic as further piece of evidence that there are exceptions to the "rule". However, I would argue that we do not need entries for rare capitalizations obtained from non-copyedited corpora as long as we have the "standard" capitalization of the same word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep - a word being rare is irrelevant, and nothing makes this a misspelling. Theknightwho (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep. We have capitalistical listed as a synonym of capitalistic and capitalist and dualistical listed as a synonym of dualistic (though we currently have that as a related term, rather than a synonym, of dualist), so we should relabel this as a synonym rather than an alternative form or misspelling. I see no grounds to delete though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Theknightwho and Overlordnat1 - yeesh! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 00:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Kept Flackofnubs (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)