Talk:Hun (disambiguation)/Archive 3

Referencing
This is getting out of hand. This is a disambiguation page but we are adding references left right and centre to prevent valid content being removed. Now it seems that even this is not enough. It seems that the person who keeps removing content is invested in protecting statements that the use of "hun" is "light hearted" and in undermining those that state that it is sectarian. Googling confirms that the term is used and understood in a sectarian way on dozens of blogs and forums. Of course none of those are RS, but it does help demonstrate where the common usage lies. I would welcome advice on how to handle this and for others to get involved so that this is not just a ping pong back and forth between the two of us. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the two references for the use of "hun" as a term of sectarian abuse towards protestants sufficient? One is a FAQ for a newsgroup. Newsgroup postings are not RS but the FAQ of the newsgroup, with a named maintainer, seems quite different. I can't see any problem with the other reference but the fact that the masons are not exclusively Protestant is claimed to undermine its use. I can't see this. The fact is that the vandals clearly thought that the masons were Protestant, even if some of them were not. Misdirected sectarianism is still sectarianism.
 * Should we be referencing content here at all? If not, where does it go? The articles themselves? Wiktionary?
 * Is this a legitimate content dispute or is it time to start handling out vandalism warnings for removing referenced content?


 * Two additional refs have been added now. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These two references you have added Daniel are credible. The other two were amateurish. I have deleted them. You seem insistent upon the usage of this word is strictly and directly sectarian. Clearly it is not.
 * I think we are nearly in agreement though. I don't think we need three expressions of usage. I think we should reduce this to two. Indeed since the Scottish Court only highlighted hun as a term meaning protestant indirectly through the association with Rangers. (NOTE: and clearly was not preoccupied by the idea that hun directly means protestant) I don't think we even have strong evidence that hun is directly a sectarian term. Nevertheless, we should reduce to two meanings to build consensus. “1. Sometimes is sectarian, directly or indirectly, though an association with Rangers. 2. Sometimes is lighthearted, self used, and means Rangers fan.” I think that would simplify and be more definitive. --Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really want to consolidate the two definitions for Rangers then that seems acceptable, so long as it encompasses both meanings properly. As I see it, they are related (although I don't have a reference to back this up). I don't see how it can be justified to remove the definition which means protestant as it is well referenced with two references separate from anything to do with Rangers. To remove this would not be simplification, it would be the complete removal of a significant fact giving a misleading impression. I see this very much the same as the use of Yid, which has the same three meanings: a religious/sectarian insult unrelated to football, an insult aimed at a football team (Spurs) and a term co-opted by that team's supporters to reject and nullify the insult. I am going to leave the three points as they are. I suggest you do likewise until we have heard from a few more people. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The entry for the slang term for Protestant should go entirely; dab pages are not slang dictionaries, and the use is not supported by either of the linked Wikipedia articles. In any case, nobody is going to type in "Hun" expecting to end up at Protestantism. The info should perhaps be added to the Wiktionary article Hun. 2) The football reference is mentioned in the Rangers article, with plenty of references, and so should have a single, non-POV entry--how and why it is used is irrelevant on a dab page. 3) All the references should go; references belong in articles, which dab pages are not. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at it. I never liked the references but we ended up having them to stop stuff being removed on the pretext that it was unreferenced. I am glad that we are clear that this is a red herring. I appreciate that we have strayed too far into dictionary territory and I am going to move it all to Wiktionary, as you suggest. I must say that I am amazed that the Protestantism article does not cover sectarianism at all, but I appreciate that this has no bearing here. I do wonder whether anybody will ever type in "hun" expecting to end up at the Rangers article but I guess it depends how much lager is involved. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Touché on that last point, but it would just be an argument for no entry at all, which is not what anyone heard from so far wants. Having looked into it a little further, it looks like this is a dispute spilling over from the Rangers article, and no one is quite sure where--that is, in which Wikipedia article--the material should be dealt with. But the one article that does touch on it, albeit briefly, is the Rangers article, so that's where we should send people for now. If the topic is moved (or receives a fuller treatment) elsewhere, then the dab page entry can be reworked to reflect that.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with ShelfSkewed. Disambiguation pages are primarily navigation pages. If a linked article does not support a particular usage, the disambiguation page is not the place to assert the usage. older ≠ wiser 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with ShelfSkewed, older ≠ wiser; DAB pages reflect the text of the articles they refer to; they should not become battlegrounds for article content. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)