Talk:adiaphora

RFV discussion: June–September 2015

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

adiaphora

An English adjective, an alternative spelling of adiaphorous — really‽ — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

google books:adiaphora, e.g. [1]; seems to be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• DCDuring and I have each added an additional sense to the entry, so I've converted this to an rfv-sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Those hits make it look like a plural noun, as is confirmed by [[adiaphoron]], “adiaphoron”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC., and “adiaphora”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC.. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I agree with DCDuring that all the English hits you linked to are examples of the plural noun; on my interpretation, "the adiaphora concept" also exemplifies the plural noun, meaning "the concept of adiaphora".

@Mr. Granger, DCDuring: Shall we mark the singular sense nonstandard, like singular uses of criteria and phenomena?

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't contest the details of the definition, but it still exists; it needed correcting, not deleting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen no unambiguous attestation for the sense given and under challenge. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to mark the singular sense as nonstandard. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If it were to pass RfV that might well prove the right way to handle it, but is it even worth the citation effort? DCDuring TALK 00:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we must be talking about two different senses. If I understand correctly, I.S.M.E.T.A. wants to mark the singular noun sense, which currently has three citations, as nonstandard. The challenged sense is an adjective sense, which I agree is not yet cited and does not seem to be citeable. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My mistake. DCDuring TALK 01:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ RFV failed. Sense removed etc. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)