Language desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 5

Encyclopedic Value

I am not sure if this question is properly submitted here or elsewhere. Please advise. What is a good working definition of whether or not something has "encyclopedic value" ...? And, does Wikipedia have any formal/official definition or policy for this ...? If so, what is the link for the official Wikipedia definition ...? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As a negative definition, there is the policy What Wikipedia is not. I don't know if anyone has attempted to give a positive definition, but next to importance/notability and verifiability, there is also an issue of relative permanence. It would not make sense to add a paragraph to the article December 5 saying: "December 5 is the date of today.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whatistodaysdate.org|title=What is Today's date?|accessdate=2007-12-05}}</ref>". Of these, assuming the information can be relied on, importance seems to me the most important. It may be true and verifiable that Dennis Rutledge of Middleton has a collection of shoe polish tins, but if we put up all such uninteresting and mediocre content, we soon will not be able to find the interesting things amongst the crud. --Lambiam 02:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll also find Wikipedia:Notability helpful, Joseph. Notability is really the touchstone which makes a subject suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Xn4 05:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English: adjectives: people:

Is there a neutral English word or expression, such as 'to be a bachelor', for someone chooses not to get married for the rest of his or her life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.103.4.144 (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy? AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a non-celibate bachelor who has no intention of ever getting married, I believe the usual expression is "confirmed bachelor".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed bachelor should be used with care; non-native English speakers may be unaware of its particular connotations! DuncanHill (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP was asking if there was a gender-neutral expression for this status. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the status, but the person. People usually use "celibate" as an attributive adjective ("I am celibate"), not a noun ("I am a celibate"), but I guess the latter is possible. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't actually mention gender at all: they merely said "neutral" without saying what it was in regard to. Marnanel (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy means the state of being unmarried - it has nothing to do with whether a person has sex or not. Therefor, any unmarried person is celibate, even if they are shagging everything that moves. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) To be sexually abstinent? Or nearly, but not quite - to be chaste. Lanfear's Bane | t 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that celibacy means the state of being unmarried per se. Take a person who has no particular reason why they shouldn't marry at some time in the future, and may even have been married in the past, but happens to be currently unmarried. They're asked "What is your current marital status?". The most appropriate answer would be one of "single", "widowed", "divorced" or "none of your business". To reply "celibate" would give the entirely misleading impression that they intend never to marry. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy, noun,, the unmarried state, especially under a vow. ... celibate adjective, living single. noun, one who is unmarried, or bound not to marry. [Latin caelebs, single]. Chambers Dictionary, 1983 edition, page 203. DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know what the dictionaries say, but I still disagree that's what people mean when they use the word on its own. People sometimes say "I'm currently celibate", meaning they're currently partner-less. But someone who just says "I'm celibate" means something else entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and according to the dictionary they would be wrong to use celibate in that context. Isn't this just an example of the age-old prescriptive v. descriptive argument? Does celibate mean what the dictionary says it means, or does it mean what people mean when they say it? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think that dictionaries ever tell people they're right or wrong (although they're often used to back up or refute arguments about right-wrong issues). Dictionaries record the meanings that people actually use with particular words; but they usually take their time to do this after new meanings come into general use. For example, people now often use the verb "divorce" to mean "separate" (Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife were described as "divorced" only a day after they made their announcement that they were separating; they couldn't possibly have been legally divorced in 24 hours), or the noun "annulment" to mean "divorce" (celebrities are now regularly said to obtain "annulments", when what they're actually doing in most cases is obtaining a civil divorce of a valid marriage, and not a church decree that the marriage was never valid in the first place), etc ad nauseam. While I personally haven't seen such meanings in dictionaries so far, it's only a matter of time imo. In relation to "celibate", Marco Polo tells us below that "Some dictionaries have caught up with the prevailing usage". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means whatever I use it to mean! DuncanHill (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In French (sorry, I know, not the original question), célibataire is a single person. If an English-speaking person said they were celibate, I would assume they are abstaining from sex for some reason (that's Catholic education for you!), so when I saw that in French it confused me greatly, since it was an article about how much sex célibataires have, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (2001), celibate means "1 an unmarried person, esp. one under a vow to remain unmarried 2 one who abstains from sexual intercourse adj of or in a state of celibacy". Some dictionaries have caught up with the prevailing usage. A person who is unmarried but not sexually abstinent would give the wrong impression by claiming to be "celibate". I don't think that there is a word or short phrase in English that unambiguously refers to people who have chosen not to marry (regardless of their sexual activity or inactivity). I suppose such a person could refer to himself or herself as "single by choice". Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the phrase "in which"

Before I start a potential edit war with an anonymous editor, I would like to make certain that I am on solid ground -- grammatically speaking, at least. The anonymous editor states that the below sentence is incorrect: X edited a column in which Y said such-and-such. Said editor then removed the word "in" so as to create the following sentence: X edited a column which Y said such-and-such.<br. />I think that the anonymous editor is full of him/herself. Which one of us is correct?<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what "such-and-such" is. Please provide the whole sentence. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that the whole sentence is necessary. I'm with the OP - the in is definitely required. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after 2 e/c)It depends on the context. If such-and-such stands for an adjective describing the column ("sucks" or "was inflammatory") the "in" is wrong. If such-and-such is part of the content of the column (e.g. a quotation) then "in" is necessary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the sentence (sans citations): "Painton edited a controversial November 21st 2007 column by Joe Klein in which Klein published false information regarding legislation that amends the F.I.S.A. law, based upon claims by Republican opponent of the bill Pete Hoekstra." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbahn (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In which". I don't know what to say about it. It's, well, English, that's all. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor referred to him/herself as The Grammar Police. I think that s/he is nuts.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence could be replaced by 2 sentences: "... column by Joe Klein. In this column, Klein published ...", so of course it has to be "in which" in the original. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the subordinate sentence was the column, assuming the column was sentient, it would be fine: "column by Joe Klein which published false information..." Or, "column by Joe Klein, who published..." But those would sound strange. "In which" is obviously the most correct and natural usage here. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even grammar police make mistakes. I would be inclined to revert it without comment, whereupon this person will probably realize their error, if they even notice your edit. FWIW I never get involved in edit wars. Life's too short.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some poking around, and it looks like the mystery editor is a shared IP registered to Merrill Lynch that has a history of vandalistic activity. Give it a vandalism warning on its talk page and move on. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little excessive - this could easily be (and probably is) just a good-faith mistake. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In which" can't be replaced by "which", but it usually can be replaced by "where". --Anonymous, 23:51 UTC, December 5, 2007.

It's subtle but there is something wrong with that construction. The pronoun 'which' acts as the subject of the subordinate clause, except here it isn't the subject at all. The subject is Y and using 'in which' like this is fairly horrible. If you want to use which this way then make it the subject. "X edited a column which contained comments by Y" is correct. TheMathemagician (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARRRRRGH! (knashes teeth and rips out hair) Can't you people come to some sort of consensus on this???!!! God, now I remember exactly why I hated grammar in school -- BECAUSE IT IS SO INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!!!<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. Themathemagician is over-analyzing. Your sentence with "in which" is perfectly natural standard English. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (Takes deep calming breaths and walks away)<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "over-analyzing". He's asked a precise question about the grammar and I've answered it as best I can. It may sound like normal English to you - it sounds gratingly wrong to me. I wouldn't have bothered correcting the original entry had I seen it as there are far worse abuses but why not simply replace 'in which' with 'where'. TheMathemagician (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping not to ruffle your feathers too much with "over-analyzing", but I do it all the time, and I think I know it when I see it. If there was a more apt term I could have used, I apologize for using that one. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "in which" in the sentence ...in which Klein published... And where Klein published would sound "gratingly wrong" to me. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand TheMathemagician's analysis. In which is perfectly normal English, but it's also grammatically correct English. Y is the subject of the subordinate clause, and which is the object to the prepositional phrase "in...". The column is the noun phrase to which which makes reference. However, maybe TheMathemagician hates the phrase for style concerns, which is of course understandable. Pallida Mors 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following sounds completely normal to me: Identify the author’s last name, date of publication, and the place where the work was published. I don't think it is an improvement to replace this by Identify the author’s last name, date of publication, and the place in which the work was published. In general, if "in which" refers to something you might call a place, "where" is a good replacement. But in the sentence The plan in which I had put my trust turned out a failure, this replacement does not work. I don't understand the pronouncement that "the pronoun 'which' acts as the subject of the subordinate clause" (except here it doesn't). Is this meant to be a prescriptive rule? Is there something wrong with clauses like this one from Article One of the United States Constitution: any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting, or this from As You Like It/Act IV: the sundry contemplation of my travels; in which my often rumination wraps me in a most humorous sadness? --Lambiam 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idiom is "to put ones trust in" so using that as an example is extremely confusing as the "in" is already part of the verb. I'm not convinced that legalese or Shakespeare are useful examples for modern writing. Yes maybe it is grammatical but stylistically it remains horrible. I didn't explain my view clearly but I meant it's preferable to have "which" as the subject of its clause. TheMathemagician (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to suggest a clarification. It might make it easier if we call X "Peter" and Y "Mary". If the sentence in question had been "Peter edited a column in which said such-and-such", then I agree the "in" would be out of place - it should be "Peter edited a column which said such-and-such". But that wasn't the sentence in question; it was "Peter edited a column in which Mary said such-and-such". That is, it's saying Mary said such-and-such in the column, and Peter came along and changed it to so-and-so; it's not saying the column itself said such-and-such; because, until Mary came along and said it, it didn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

acronyms

i was trying to research an acronym with no luck. is there an acronym database in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.204.197 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the acronym? You just type it into the "search" box - if it doesn't come up, we don't have an article on it. You can also look at List of acronyms. Neil ☎ 14:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:Glossary, if that helps. Corvus cornix_talk 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organic and non-organic military and police ?

What is meant by the terms 'organic military' and/or 'organic police forces', as against 'non-organic' military or police? For example in the Aceh peace agreement (MOU), there is an article that says, "the Gov't of Indonesia will withdraw all elements of non-organic military and non-organic police forces from Aceh. We also don't understand 'elements' in this context. 213.84.41.211 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks if you can enlighten.[reply]

It probably means non-native forces. "Elements" just means the military and police forces, so "all the military who are not from Indonesia". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.4.4 The appointment of the Chief of the organic police forces and the prosecutors shall be approved by the head of the Aceh administration. The recruitment and training of organic police forces and prosecutors will take place in consultation with and with the consent of the head of the Aceh administration in complicance with the applicable national standards. [1]

Organic police and military would be those which are recruited, trained and are under the jurisdiction of the local administration. Non-organic police and military would be those imposed by the central Indonesian government. Withdrawing all elements would be withdrawing not only the personnel but also the structures of the non-organic police etc. In other words, it is agree that Aceh will have its own police and militayry which are under the control of its own administration, and that it will be able to run its own affairs without interference from the Indonesian government. (But it would be a lot more fun if the organic troops were vegans who wore organic indigo uniforms, wouldn't it?) SaundersW (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not directly related to the question but one also speaks of organic and non-organic sub-units (elements) of a military unit. or organic/non-organic equipment a unit might have. Mct mht (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it condescending to use the phrase: "at any rate"?

While at work yesterday I used the phrase "at any rate" in a meeting. We were discussing a topic, then the conversation trailed off topic. So I interjected with the phrase "at any rate" then proceeded to get back to the topic at hand.

My co-workers claimed that my use of the phrase was condescending.

I did some research, and according to an online dictionary the phrase "at any rate" originally (1619) meant "at any cost;"

Is it grammatically correct to use the phrase "at any rate" to get back to the subject at hand? Could the use of the phrase in this manner be construed as condescending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.16.200 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'At any rate' originally meant 'at any cost', as you discovered. Its literal modern meaning (from the OED) is 'At all events; at least' or 'Under any circumstances; in any or either case'. When used to derail an off-topic discussion, it is this case that is intended. The meaning is 'whatever may be the case in [the matter under discussion], what about [the thing we were originally talking about]'. There is nothing incorrect in this usage. I personally wouldn't find this specific phrase condescending, but I might be annoyed at having what I was talking about dismissed as unimportant and off-topic (unless I agreed it was, of course). Algebraist 19:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the phrase as a discourse marker, in a way I'd use "anyway". It's not condescending, and not ungrammatical. [2] SaundersW (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything condescending in "at any rate", but perhaps it can sound blunt? I much prefer "in any event". The only drawback with that expression is that lawyers use it a lot, and people who know that can think it sounds like legal jargon! Xn4 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these expressions sounds more blunt or condescending than another. It's the act of using one of them to "derail" a discussion that you see as off-topic or irrelevant that might be seen as blunt or condescending. The issue is the spirit of the remark, not the specific words. --Anon, 23:55 UTC, December 5, 2007.

It may not have been the words themselves, but the tone. "At ANY rate...", with a sigh and a rolling of eyes, could be taken as insulting. Corvus cornix_talk 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to try "Let us return to our sheep" in future, this will baffle the less well-educated of your colleagues, and amuse the others. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf

... moved ...

Try asking this at the Humanities reference desk. Although, language-wise, many words in the English language are first used (according to what has survived) in Beowulf. Wrad (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to ask this at the Humanities desk... zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word conveyor?

There's a phrase I came across recently (in wikipedia, I think) which describes an observed phenomenon of words gaining pejorative meanings over time, such that they start out as the common parlance and become terms of abuse - examples: mongol, spastic. What's the phrase? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to the euphemism treadmill. Algebraist 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the chappie; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though on closer inspection, I see that the general process of a word becoming pejorative is simply called pejoration. Algebraist 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]