gleki wrote:
> lunanightfern wrote:
> > gleki wrote:
> > > merrybot wrote:
> > > > gleki wrote:
> > > > > merrybot wrote:
> > > > > > gleki wrote:
> > > > > > > hzrn wrote:
> > > > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't
> > know
> > > if
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if
they
> > do,
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > asbolutely needed here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other
> > > > obsolete
> > > > > > > concepts
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that
> here
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot?
> > > > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki)
> > > >
> > > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is
> > > <i>being
> > > > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............)
> > >
> > >
> > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see
> > > immediately how it can be improved.
> > >
> > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for
> Roman
> > > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no
longer
> > > exist (this was different when Lojban was born).
> > >
> > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma.
> > >
> > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would
be
> > > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just
> like
> > we
> > > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs.
> > >
> > > Wiktionary has such word just fine.
> > >
> > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English
> >
> > English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed has
a
> > page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists, and
> > therefore should have an already-existing definition listed.
> Wiktionary,
> > being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything
new
> > here.
> >
> > The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the adjectival
> and
> > nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to
> create
> > such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people?
Do
> > we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our dictionary?
>
> It's fine to add "offensive" to notes if this word. This word is down
> voted anyway.
>
> How are you going to translate old books where this English word exists?
>
> Next time someone will say we need to delete words for freedom in Lojban
> because it offends employers.

Having concepts/words for race is necessary. That is why I introduced (the
apparently rather disliked) "maska". This word could be okay, but I
would really like the English definition to be changed because it makes me
extremely uncomfortable. Also, I am not a Black person and thus am not
qualified to really discuss whether the word form itself is acceptable;
"maska" was my attempt at deriving a zevla ibternally and removing some of
the etymological baggage while still being able to address race.