4,994
edits
Changes
Conservapedia:Articles for deletion (view source)
Revision as of 23:10, May 12, 2007
, 23:10, May 12, 2007→[[Homo]]
::::I'd like to make a request: due diligence really requires checking a dictionary before saying what a word "means," if it's an important element of a debate. (The dictionary is ''prima facie'' correct. If the dictionary is wrong, fine, but in that case one should both state what the dictionary says and then explain why it's wrong.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I'd like to make a request: due diligence really requires checking a dictionary before saying what a word "means," if it's an important element of a debate. (The dictionary is ''prima facie'' correct. If the dictionary is wrong, fine, but in that case one should both state what the dictionary says and then explain why it's wrong.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Dictionaries ''do not'' give definitions, they give usage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Dictionaries ''do not'' give definitions, they give usage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::What dictionaries give ''is'' indeed a definition. It is, as you say, a definition of the word ''as it is currently used'' by most people. However, one of the reasons I like the AHD is that in cases where usage is uncertain or controversial, it's followed by a paragraph or so summarizing the opinions of their usage panel as to how it ought to be used. There's no such paragraph here so they've judged this is not a term where the usage is disputed.
::::::But in any case I'm not sure what your point is. What authority do you suggest we should use for the meaning of words? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
*(2) this misuse of the term appears to be a end run around the various [[evolution]] amd [[homosexuality]] articles
*(2) this misuse of the term appears to be a end run around the various [[evolution]] amd [[homosexuality]] articles