Talk:Epithet

message: Though wikipedia is not supposed to be censored for minors, the content the author inserted here is very unnecessary. 
Quote: "In contemporary usage, an epithet often is an abusive or defamatory phrase. "Jew-lover", "pinko commie", "Bible-thumper", "cock-sucker", "wank-merchant", "tit-man" mother fucker and "nigger"..."
The inclusion of such language is completely unnecessary, and instead of being informative, leads one to believe such terms could possibly reflect the opinion of the author.
--Greenday121 17:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessarily offensive examples

message: I am confused by the section heading "Mortals".  It is clearly wrong, but I can't work out what it is meant to be.    Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: "However, in zoological nomenclature there is no such term as an "epithet"." - strictly speaking no, but the term is also applied there wor simple want of a proper one, or am I mistaken? Dysmorodrepanis 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biology

message: I've replaced Suleiman as the second half of the example of double usage of the epithet great. I've never heard of him except as "the Magnificent" and, indeed, the Wikipedia article never mentions him as "the Great". Czrisher 12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Would the Koranic phrase "God, the Merciful, the All-Compassionate" count as incorporating an epithet? Rhinoracer (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it would. KarstenO (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allah 

message: This article seems to be confusing nicknames with epithets. For the 101st Airborne Division, Screaming Eagles is more of a nickname, not an epithet. KarstenO (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing nicknames with epithets 

message: The words above follow "defamatory, abusive" etc. Did the editor mean dysphemism, or has some text been removed? Either way, I'm confused.
tharsaile (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the wording here is somewhat confusing - I had to stop and think about it for a minute, whether it was a mistake or not. I think it is what was intended, though. I guess they mean in the sense of, by calling something, say, a 'racial [e.g.] epithet' rather than a 'racial slur', that epithet is used as a euphemism for slur; and they take exception to this because, they say, it sullies the word epithet. (I would say in response that the same can be said for just about every euphemism that has ever existed: like, for example, 'shit' is thought to have originated as a euphemism, etc) Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Shit" is just the modern form (with a slightly broader meaning) of Old English "sċitte," meaning "diarrhea" (in the sense of the physical substance, not the medical condition of producing that substance). It's considered vulgar due to the combination of having its meaning and its Anglo-Saxon (rather than Greek, Latin, or Norman French) origins. 35.11.156.189 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This use as a euphemism is criticized by Martin Manser' 

message: The lede says that epitet comes from the greek επιθετον, which is 'the neuter' of επιθετος; but it does NOT say which gender επιθετος is! (Or if επιθετος be a base/dictionary form that is genderless). This should also be stated, as it should not be assumed that the reader is knowledgeable of the Greek language's grammatical gender system Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'neuter'