Calling someone belligerent is general done as an insult. So yes in typical Wiki fashion they are technically using the word correctly. But if read with connotation then it reads more like “here’s the list of assholes.”

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago

That is what the word is for. It is an insult because you are calling someone confrontational

[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Okay I don't agree because well. Beligerants basically means aggressive person/nation/etc. But if we don't use beligerant what would you use instead?

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying the usage is wrong. I’m saying if you read the page in the same way people casually speak then it’s funny

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstand. The way Wikipedia uses the word is the original usage, so only funny if you don't know about it. Applying it to bar fights and such is the tongue-in-cheek usage.

From Latin belligerans (“waging war”), present active participle of belligerō (“I wage war”), from belliger (“waging war, warlike”), from bellum (“war”) + -ger (from gerō (“I lead, wage, carry on”)).

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I’m not saying the usage is wrong.

But thank you for googling something I already looked up before posting my original comment. I genuinely don’t understand why people on this platform think they have authority on how language can be used and interpreted. It’s exhausting

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Well I found your observation amusing

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Well sorry. No offence intended.

[–] Satelllliiiiiiiteeee@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Not every conflict is between nations and the infobox has to work across different conflicts. Belligerents is probably the best option to label the sides of a conflict