4,994
edits
Changes
→Dictionary definitions
:I don't see how dictionary definitions, based upon a neologism that came from ''Screw'' magazine, have any authenticity in an encylopedic entry. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't see how dictionary definitions, based upon a neologism that came from ''Screw'' magazine, have any authenticity in an encylopedic entry. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not I'm understanding your point [[User:RobS|RobS]]. The [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html| cite] provided the history of the neologism...Is it your objection that the term was not first coined by an reputable source? What is being given more weight: the '''history''' of the neologism ''or'' the '''source''' of the history? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 14:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not I'm understanding your point [[User:RobS|RobS]]. The [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html| cite] provided the history of the neologism...Is it your objection that the term was not first coined by an reputable source? What is being given more weight: the '''history''' of the neologism ''or'' the '''source''' of the history? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 14:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dictionary definitions may or may not be correct, but they are ''relevant.'' They are widely accepted as impartial authority. You can certainly say "standard dictonaries are wrong," for thus-and-such reasons, but you shouldn't just ignore them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)