Last modified on 28 September 2007, at 04:52

Talk:reformist

Return to "reformist" page.

Why remove the {{oed1923}} label? This entry derives from that source. In fact, that template was designed to have something for this entry. Dfeuer 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was completely wrong about the copyright status. That entire original edition, including the First Supplement,went into the public domain at the end of 2003. I'll add a normal reference to the article. Eclecticology 07:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain why that is? What I read suggested otherwise, but maybe that was wrong. Dfeuer 08:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The OED was published in England, so the English law of 70 years for corporate works would apply. Eclecticology 10:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why change part of speech?Edit

Eclecticology, why did you change from attrib. use of noun to adjective? Can you cite an authority for that (particularly at the time of that quote)?Dfeuer 17:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the quote from Poe. By all appearance his usage has more to do with a reformist philosophy than a because of a person who is a reformist. Other use by Poe:
  • "He that is born to be a man," says Wieland in his "Peregrinus Proteus," "neither should nor can be anything nobler, greater, or better than a man." The fact is, that in efforts to soar above our nature, we invariably fall below it. Your reformist demigods are merely devils turned inside out. "Margoinalia, Part XV.
Eclecticology 03:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree wtih Ec's analysis here. That example illustrates to me that the word in that sense is indeed a true adjective. — Hippietrail 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The OED deserves the same veneration as the Encyclopaedia Britannica ;-) Eclecticology 06:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. Poe's intent is not entirely clear to me even in the full quote. However, some others have use the word that way (and I will add quotes shortly).Dfeuer 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reformist partiesEdit

The word Reformist has been used in the names of several political parties. I could use some advice on how to put the usage in this entry, or whether it should go in a separate entry, etc. One quote to start:

1915: Albert G. Robinson, Cuba, Old and New - In 1893, there came the definite organization of the Reformist party, with aims not differing greatly from those of the Autonomistas.

Need a bit of help with datesEdit

I added another quote for the use of reformist as an adjective. I'm not sure when the original text was written, or when the translation was written, or how to format the two dates.Dfeuer 21:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if this should be a separate definition as an adjective. Dfeuer 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be tagged with {{rfc}} or {{rft}} where more eyes on it can help. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RFD discussionEdit

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


reformist

Not the word itself, but the multitude of quotations, for two reasons:

  • We don't need that many. We need only enough to illustrate the usage of the word. One or two are usually sufficient.
  • Given that the references include the OED, I suspect that the earlier quotations might have been taken from there. If my limited knowledge of copyright law is correct (IANAL) the edition of the OED mentioned is out of copyright, but the supplement is not until 2008. Any quotations that have been lifted from the OED supplement should therefore be removed; I don't think we can claim fair use for these. — Paul G 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree on the number of quotes needed to illustrate usage of an old word, and how it has morphed over time. Just occasionally two might do, but more commonly, the sort of number shown here is necessary...certainly OED thinks so...which brings us to the second point
  • The Etymology and Noun sections were added, in more or less their present form, by user Dfeuer on 12 Feb 06 (assuming he carried on as anon 71.195.194.97 after being logged out, as his edit summary implies). He stated (inline comment at start of very first edit) "This comes directly from the first edition of the OED. As the "R" entries were all published in fascicles before 1923, they have all entered the public domain." I believe the second part of the statement is correct. I have no reference to check the first. Dfeuer then added the Adjective section on 14 Feb 06, and a few more cites were added by a well known copyvio vandal on 27 Feb 06 and removed today --Enginear 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC), namely the 1906, 1913 & 1941 cites for Noun sense 2, and the 1920, 1927, 1950, 1969, 1974 & 1977 cites for the adjectival use.
  • Whatever the provenance, the fact remains that our present entry is almost verbatim the same as OED2, including Etymology and cites. Indeed, the only vaguely significant details which differ are:
  • OED2 has a further sentence in its Noun definition 2.
  • We have two additional sentences in our Noun def 3
  • Our format means that the Adjective use is listed below the Noun rather than intermingled (although two adjectival quotes have erroneously been listed in Noun def 1)
  • In the Adjective section, we have added extra words to the 1849 cite, and we have one additional cite (1913).
  • So, it is clear from the dates that most of the cites added on 27 Feb 06 must be OED2 copyvios, and should behave been edited --Enginear 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC) removed. The remaining work may possibly be from OED1 and pre-1923 revisions, as claimed, but someone with access to it should check. --Enginear 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is the work of User:Primetime - I thought we had got rid of all his copyvios. Please cleanup. SemperBlotto 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Those cites removed. The remainder still needs checking against OED1 to confirm that it was there, rather than having been copied from OED2. --Enginear 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)