Talk:Pejorative/Archive 1

Taken from ?

here?

(Anon.)

The small print at the foot of the above link identifies the text as taken from Wikipedia. --Wetman 07:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The word ham

The origins of the word HAM (radio) are ambiguous at best if not completely obscure. I know of no references that it was originally used in a pejorative manner. Does anyone have a source on this? Anonym1ty 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Idiot - wrong use

It's my understanding that "idiot" was a non-pejorative, neutral term that has come to be pejorative. I couldn't find too much during research to back this up but it seems it was created as a descriptor for early IQ test results by David Wechsler:

They are used in this journal:

IQ Classifications in Psychiatric Use

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) American Psychiatric Association, 1994

(Quote) Mental deficiency used to be divided into the following sub-classifications, but these labels began to be abused by the public and are now largely obsolete: Borderline Deficiency (IQ 70-80), Moron (IQ 50-69), Imbecile (IQ 20-49 and Idiot (below 20). Mental deficiency is now generally called mental retardation.

Link: http://www.webenet.com/iqclassifications.htm

This makes this passage:

"Conversely, a neutral (non-pejorative) term may grow to become pejorative: the term retard, to refer to a person whose mental capacity is permanently held back from development, was originally used as a euphemism, as had been moron before, itself a euphemism for idiot."

..in need for restructure. The point is, moron and idiot are on the same standing, and technically describe different levels of intelligence. This makes the sentence incorrect in that they are each a descriptor born from the same time and cannot be used to explain each other.

210.10.167.170 13:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Derogatory vs. pejorative

I'm a bit surprised that derogatory points to pejorative. To me, derogatory is more personal and implies some kind of moral insult, where as pejorative is more broad and less direct. For example, "bastard" is a derogatory term, while "illegitimate child" is pejorative. Furthermore, I think of a derogatory term as always being intended as an insult, while pejorative may not be, or if it is, it's more subtle.

Merrian-Webster:

Pejorative - having negative connotations; especially - tending to disparage or belittle

Derogatory - detracting from the character or standing of something -- often used with to, of, or from

2 : expressive of a low opinion

Is this really the right redirect? They seem quite different terms. Usually it seems like pejorative words are ones that could be interpreted to be non-insulting, and it's that ambiguity that causes people to use them in certain situations. Ken 06:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Video on Trial

Video on Trial's verdict about Paris Hilton is NOT actual; therefore please DON'T put a picture of her. --Addict 2006 07:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

2007-04-3 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gay

Where does "Gay" fit into this, for example when used as "That is so Gay". - O^O 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Much as if "gay" were listed, personally, I was hard set to not delete the set of pejorative words listed in the article. While I don't find them necessarily offense, I do find such a list inherently limited, if not inaccurate, and as such, think it would be more useful to solely speak in the abstract.

As well, it seems like little more than an aside to have a list of words that, to some, may or may not be pejorative, but which remain derogatory to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.110.106 (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Night Special example

I noticed that Saturday Night Special was listed in this article as an example of a word that was undergoing amelioration and was thus considered by some to be pejorative and not by others. I have no idea if this is a good example or not, but since I read it in this article, I decided to mention it in the Saturday Night Special article. It's a good thing I did that because it brought the example to the attention of the editors of the Saturday Night Special article, and one of them decided it was not a good example. That editor reverted my changes to the Saturday Night Special article, since they did not apply, and from the pejorative article, they removed this:

Sometimes a term is still considered as a pejorative word by some but not by others — for example, Saturday night special.

I assume that editor removed it to get rid of the Saturday Night Special example, but since the "Sometimes a term is still considered..." part is important to the logical flow of the article, I put back the sentence and simply left out the example:

Sometimes a term is still considered as a pejorative word by some but not by others.

Example Needed: IT WOULD BE NICE if someone could find a source for an example of something that is considered pejorative to some and not to others. Since the rest of the article has so many good examples, this sentence is noticeably lacking. VegKilla (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed - funny, but non encyclopedic?

The Simpsons provided an illustration of the meaning of pejorative, when a group chants a protest against Homer Simpson:

"Two, four, six, eight,

Homer's crime was very great!"

The protest group realises that this falsely implies the crime was a good thing, and subsequently adds:

"Great, meaning 'large' or 'immense';

We used it in the pejorative sense!"

-Stevertigo 18:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, it may not be too high-brow but it does illustrate the meaning of perjorative very well. I'd vote to keep it in. 210.10.167.170 13:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I realize I'm a couple years late for this discussion, but I think we should keep it! It is a good example; and it is a real source. I don't understand why it would not be encyclopedic. It is definitely notable. The joke part of it, where they accidentally say that his "crime was very great," makes this example much better than most because by using the word pejorative in order to correct the joke, this example makes it particularly easy for the reader to remember what pejorative means even years after they have read the example. -- VegKilla (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm late too, but I think the Simpsons example is great. It should be in there. 74.181.27.239 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is 'dyslogism' a real word?

Can anyone name a dictionary that contains the noun 'dyslogism'? This article is already hard to follow, it doesn't help when you can't look up the words used. Cbotman 08:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. Search for it, can you find it in any reputable online dictionaries? I can't, leading to me thinking that something is fishy. Someone should at least do a better job than the current article in Wiktionary. 152.1.56.136 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Political correctness

The last paragraph (about "correct terms" for those with physical disabilities) reads pretty oddly for an English audience, particularly the suggestion that "physically challenged" is the "correct" way of describing those with physical disabilities. That may be accepted practice in the States, but not in England, where political correctness hasn't taken quite such a firm hold. 82.69.28.55 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

True - the correct and accepted term in the UK is physically disabled. Blitterbug (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

I think it should be mentioned that there are pejorative words that are still in popular use despite their offensiveness, including the word homophobia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.156.123 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion on how to improve the article, not a soapbox for making (irrelevant) public declarations of words you feel shouldn't be allowed. I think it's clear from your choice of 'offensive' word that you are trolling. Blitterbug (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged content

Some content merged from term of disparagement:

---

Some terms (such as soccer mom, gay, one-percenter, or farm boy) are disparaging only in a particular context or with a certain intonation and are rarely considered disparaging otherwise. Other terms, such as fag and nigger have a history and connection to social issues that makes them widely regarded as taboo.

Many disparaging terms are synecdoches, such as mick, paddy, and taig, all of which are derived from Irish first names and are applied disparagingly to Irish people. Synecdoches can range from barely pejorative (e.g., referring to businesspeople as suits) to inflammatory (e.g. referring to German-speaking people as Nazis).

When applied to people, abbreviations are often regarded as disparaging. Referring to a Pakistani as a paki, a Japanese person as a jap, an Aborigine as an abo, or an Inuit as a skimo (short for Eskimo) are some examples.

Other terms of disparagement are based upon sarcasm (such as sahib in reference to Indians), metaphor (as in the basis of the term white trash), metalepsis (as in the term wetback), zoomorphism (a partial basis for the slur porch monkey) or other figures of speech.

Terms of disparagement have been applied to various political views, such as bleeding-heart, wingnut, moonbat, or pinko. Terms that describe particular views that are considered extreme or outside of serious discourse, such as anarchist, communist, or Nazi have been used as disparaging expressions as well. Some derogatory terms, such as schmuck and cunt, originate as terms for parts of the human anatomy (in this case, the penis and vagina, respectively). Medical terms have been known to become terms of disparagement as well, such as idiot and retard (both of which were used by doctors to refer to people with low IQs or developmental disabilities).

---

-- Neutrality^talk 07:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Shortening nationalities

Why are some shortened national identities, such as Paki and Jap, offensive; yet others, such as Aussie and Brit, are not? It also needs to be pointed out that whilst Paki is considered offensive when used by non-Pakistanis, it is often used neutrally, or even with a sense of brotherhood, by Pakistanis themselves. Best name (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Big Bang from list of Formerly Pejorative Terms

Apparently, the idea that the term "Big Bang" used to refer to the eponymous theory of the origin of the universe was originally used as a pejorative is a misconception. According to Wikipedia's own article (as well as the relevant sources) on the subject, Fred Hoyle used first used the term metaphorically in a 1940's radio broadcast to help listeners easily distinguish the concept from rival theories of the time. He has always maintained that the use of this term was intended as an illustrative simplification, and not a form of derision. In light of this evidence, I have removed "Big Bang" from the list of formerly pejorative terms. If anyone objects to this, or would like to discuss this further, please let me know. Thank you WaynaQhapaq (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Mormon content as example of Pejorative

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not promote the usage of the term Mormon as related to members of this faith. The term Mormon is thought to take focus away from the name of the Church, which implicitly states that this is the Church of Jesus Christ which has been restored in the latter days. Thus, to use the term Mormon as an example of a pejorative that is no longer a pejorative is incorrect, because this is only from a view of non-members of this faith. Members inside this faith do not promote the use of this term. They only accept it partially because it is what has been given them by the community outside this faith is so widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skawalter (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need this page?

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mswake 14:15 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

Why do we need any page? :-) But seriously, the page on pejorative has plenty of information which wouldn't be found in a dictionary. Since any number of offensive words in the Wikipedia may be considered pejorative, it's worth labelling them as such, and this page provides some explanation about the term (which may not be in everyone's vocabulary). You're right that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this page serves several useful purposes. Rootbeer 07:03 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

This article requires expansion actually

Actually pejorative words are not confined to what has been mentioned. For example in most Asian languages, there are differing words for You, He, She, For Him, For Her, and even for verbs which signifies different levels of human existance. When many of these words are used by certain senior social or positional levels, they can more or less maim the other person/s mentally, intelluctually, socially and even physically. The only problem is that modern Englsh based social studies is currently unaware about the gravity of this issue.

In many ways, it remains an open secret, in that if it is made understandable in English nations, there would be deep distress about the words many immigrant groups are using about the native populatioin. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ved036 makes an important point. For example, Japanese "synonyms" ordinarily communicating relative social position (i.e., humility, respect, etc.) can be used in a pejorative sense. Someone knowledgeable in such matters should provide an exposition in this article. Myron (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pejorative (frequently misspelled pejorative)" ?

"A word or phrase is a pejorative (frequently misspelled pejorative)" Confusingly, the "misspelled" word is written in exactly the same way as the correct word. How is it frequently misspelled then?

Perjorative and pejoritive are the most common misspellings, apparently. I frequently misspelled it as pejoritive myself, because in English, the pronunciation would be the same. Runa27 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Ummm, at least in my dialect of English there'd be a pretty noticeable difference ("ah" in pejorative instead of "ih" in perjoritive, different vowels after all). However, it's awfully tempting to put a "pre" or "per" at the front since English-speaking tongues are far more used to prepending words with those two than just a "pe". Phil Urich (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, although different dialects may pronounce it differently, according to Merriam Webster, the sound for the "a" would be schwa, represented by an upside down e and is prononced "uh" link in "America." If perjorative were misspelled pejoritive, it would still be pronounced the same(represented by a shwa) because the schwa is an unstressed vowel. Thus, the ambiguity is easy.

As a very belated answer to the original inquiry, see this edit, which explains the nonsensical introduction at the time: overzealous, thoughtless correction of a deliberate spelling error. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Added

I added Category:Connotation. sorry I didn't mention it when I first did it. Anyone object?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Derogatory versus pejorative

I'm proposing moving this article to derogatory under the rationale WP:COMMONNAME. Derogatory is unquestionably the most common form of the word with close to 11.7 million hits on a search engine test, whereas pejorative lists only about 2.3 million. A redirect will be in place if editors decide to use pejorative in an article. I do recognize that there are different connotations to each of the merged terms but I'm not certain if WP:PRECISE will be able to resolve those issues unless each of these terms is given their own article. Considering the fact that it's already controversial to the purpose of this article against WP:NOT#DICTIONARY this is seemingly the best compromise. Mkdw^talk 17:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not object, but moving the page to a new name and then proposing the move is strange. So you are not proposing, but basically telling us the rational for what you have done and asking if anyone objects. However, we should consider merging the whole thing into the article Insult and improving that article. Google books can compare frequency of word usage. Here is a comparative graph for pejorative, derogatory, insult, slur and disparagement. "Insult" has way higher that all the rest. Some might argue that "pejorative" sees more usage in academic papers, but I do not think that should be the major consideration. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth: Yes sorry, I decided to make a bold move after I looked over the talk page and realized the majority of threads never received a reply and were years old. I would have carried on a discussion here and reverted my changes willingly if anyone opposed the move. A merge to insult sounds like a fine idea. I support it. Mkdw^talk 03:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the bold move because it violated WP:NOUN, which states that, when choosing an article title, "nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech". Please start a formal move discussion if you still believe Derogatory would be a more appropriate title. Neelix (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem Neelix. Since this conversation ended in mid-April and you revived it a few weeks later, a ping would have been appreciated. Mkdw^talk 05:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Pejorative → Derogatory language – "Derogatory" is a more common term than pejorative by a significant margin. Grammatically speaking, derogatory is an adjectives and therefore fail WP:NOUN. Therefore I suggest "derogatory language". The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on it and moving it there and expanding it to cover the wider ranging aspects of it may resolve the issues with WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Mkdw^talk 05:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To expand on something I forgot to include which was the whole motivation behind this was that pejorative is not very commonly used. Above I started a discussion about how "derogatory" has a strong argument for WP:COMMONNAME here over pejorative. Mkdw^talk 08:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think the title currently gives useful support to the use of Category:Pejoratives. I don't see great benefit of a move but a move to Derogatory term could lend support to the use of Category:Derogatory terms. GregKaye 07:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - If WP:COMMONNAME is the reason for this proposed move, then only a more common name should replace the current one. The word "derogatory" itself may be more common than "pejorative", but, as has already been pointed out, "derogatory" by itself fails WP:NOUN. The two proposed alternatives, "derogatory language" and "derogatory term", are both much less common than "pejorative", as the relevant Google Books searches reveal. Of the valid titles available to this article, the current one is the most common. Neelix (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• COMMONNAME was the motivation in looking at finding a new home for this article, not the rationale for moving it. Please read the nominator's statement for that. Mkdw^talk 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• If you are referring to your suggestion that the move would broaden the scope of the article, I am not convinced. What difference do you see in the scope of these two terms? The article can be expanded with or without the move. Neelix (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Do you think the article about "pejorative" could cover the scope indicated in the examples I provided and that "pejorative language" or "derogatory language" would be a less accurate title? Mkdw^talk 22:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• If by examples you're referring to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, then yes; "pejorative" sufficiently covers the scope. The phrases "pejorative language" and "derogatory language" cover no more nor less scope than the word "pejorative" on its own. Neelix (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Derogatory is a word everyone knows. Pejorative is a trivia word. I don't know if I've ever heard anyone actually say it out loud. Red Slash 00:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ngrams GregKaye 05:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced that "derogatory" is more commonly used than "pejorative". Consider the 11,100 Google Books hits for "derogatory" as compared to the 451,000 Google Books hits for "pejorative". Neelix (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

When I click those links it says 480,000 hits for pejorative and 1,380,000 for derogatory. Mkdw^talk 22:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It is very odd that Google is giving us different numbers of hits. Does Google give different numbers of hits depending on where someone is located geographically? Neelix (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Neelix: can you re-do your search results? When I redo them with google.ca I see 8k for pejorative and 11.1k for derogatory. I really don't see how pejorative would be more popular. I hardly see it in any print publications but I see derogatory all the time. Even a web search it shows derogatory with significantly more hits. Mkdw^talk 22:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have redone the searches and I am getting the results that you mention; I apologize for my previous error. Even with these results, however, my reasoning remains strong; the usage frequency of "pejorative" and "derogatory" varies only a little, and "pejorative" is a much more frequently used term than "derogatory language". Neelix (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is succinct, clear and commonly used (even the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article noted in the nomination uses "pejorative" in its title). No reason for a move to a more unwieldy title per WP:TITLECHANGES. —  AjaxSmack  05:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too trivial are the reasons given. Pejorative is a perfectly good word. Poor grammar in the nomination ("derogatory is an adjectives and therefore fail WP:NOUN") is reason for a speedy close for such a nomination. The addition of "language" is the same, whether it is to be "Pejorative language" or "Derogatory language". Renaming of articles from use of one simile to another should be discouraged, as per WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Ain't broken, doesn't need fixin.--KTo288 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Do we dare compile a short list of examples?

This will obviously cause some blood to boil, but if it can be done (without the PC Police raiding the article) it would be very helpful. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a short list of examples is worth at least two thousand. What if each editor suggested a few pejorative terms that have been used in reference to herself/himself? I, for example, have been called a "know-it-all" and accused of "mansplaining" things to my wife. Both terms are good examples of pejoratives IMO, but I would like to get some feedback from my wikipeers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8003:5360:9C06:BA00:FF3:AC35 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(Start new topics at the bottom of the page. See WP:BOTTOMPOST)

Thank you for your thoughts. There is a list of ethnic slurs and list of religious slurs full of examples. We only add an example if it makes the subject clear. I do not see how that is necessary. What person does not know how to insult? Trying to keep the list short will be an annoying task that any benefit of the list will not justify. Lastly, "punk" and "dude" is mentioned and are pejoratives. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Slurs

There is no page for slurs and it directs to this page but there is no mention or distinction of slurs here NeurodivergentGoddex (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Should "Slurs" redirect to List of ethnic slurs? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh. I came to this page wanting to find out why a user had marked this article incomplete, but instead I find a section on a problem I just had noticed on another page's wikilink and fixed! I added Template:Redirect at the top for Name slur, and bolded the1st mention of"name slur," which had already existed a while in the intro. I also added "a slur" to the first sentence in the list of synonymous terms, in bold as another subject team's first mention. —Geekdiva (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article really needs an overhaul. Slurs, in the historic and cultural sense as they are used to refer to different racial, ethnic, or religious groups, are a very important part of the way humans interact with others (for the worse) and deserves a somewhat lengthy wiki article that dives into the history of their usage and how they affect society. As it stands, slur just redirects to pejorative, which does not have the same connotations, and this article simply focuses on linguistics and semantic drift. I agree with the user above that pejorative should be a dictionary article. Maybe we should consider renaming this to Slur and overhauling all the content? Would be happy to help but since I'm sort of new, I would love to get some input before I got the ball rolling. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Pejorative → Slur – Reasoning detailed above but I'll rehash it here: slurs are a key part of our social fabric and have played a notable role in interracial, interethnic, and inter-religious dynamics. However, the term slur (in this usage) redirects to pejorative which does not have the same connotations. We either need to rename the article or create a separate one for slur but I lean towards renaming because pejorative as a stand-alone term lacks notability in my opinion; it should be a dictionary entry. We can always port over the current content to a page called Slur since slur is simply a synonym of pejorative but we cannot do it the other way around (add historical/social context about slurs to a page called Pejorative) because pejorative does not connote the same things slur does. Aurangzebra (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this controversial or not (I don't think it is?). I'll give this a week or two and if I don't hear any complaints, I may just rename it myself. Aurangzebra (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Slur" is also a verb (indistinct speech, etc.). And as a noun, a slur can also be just insinuated ("slur on my reputation"). "Pejorative" is clearer. Walrasiad (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Walrasiad: Would you be OK with a rename to 'Slur (pejorative)'? Or a split into two articles: slur and pejorative? I am aware that slur has other definitions but those are just dictionary definitions and not something someone would be confused at not finding on Wikipedia, much in the same way that no one who looks up rose on Wikipedia expects to find a Wikipedia article talking about getting up in past tense. My main point here is that slurs and their history and social context certainly deserve a Wikipedia article but it doesn't make sense to put that content in an article called 'pejorative' since that is primarily a linguistic term that can refer to anything derogatory. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think slurs and pejoratives are different, and there should be two articles. Pejoration can be almost anything negatively loaded, and I'm not sure that silly or any of the WC terms mentioned in the article are usually considered slurs? Also, there are languages with pejorative morphology which fits into an article on pejorative forms but would not really fit in an article on "slurs", and more text on pejorative morphology would probably make it notable. I think it can be solved as a move (without leaving a redirect?); at least the intro would fit just as well (or even better) in an article on slurs, and it would be fine to have a section on pejoration. But could also be done as a split? There's a question about what to do with the current disambigution, but I don't think that's an argument against change. "Pejorative" is broader, so I wouldn't call it clearer. --//Replayful (talk | contribs) 11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Replayful: Good points and makes sense. I am also happy to create a brand new article and split off slur into its own thing. I thought a rename would be the easiest path forward since the content currently in the article could easily fit under an article entitled Slur but it seems like there is contention on this. I'll wait for Walrasiad's input above and then I'll probably get the ball rolling on a draft. Seems like quite a notable oversight that we don't have a page for the social context behind slurs especially when there is so much material available for us in the Further Reading section which is currently going unused because it wouldn't fit in with the linguistic theme of the rest of the article. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Because the whole thing could be merged into the article Insult which has the more in-depth coverage you suggest. This and slur would be a WP:content fork of insult. You can add a subsection for "slur" and one for "pejorative" to the article insult to explain the difference between the two. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.