Talk:List of English words with disputed usage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Indexes
WikiProject icon This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.

WikiProject Glossaries
This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject Glossaries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glossaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
What is a glossary? It's a specialized type of annotated (stand-alone) list article, where the annotations are descriptions of the terms listed. Glossaries serve the primary functions of lists as well as present definitions to assist topic identification, link selection, and browsing. List structuring and annotation is covered in WP:LISTS, and glossary formatting is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries).

Words with Disputed (or Erroneous) Usage: Refute[edit]

I think it merits noting in the entry for REFUTE that the more precise word to use when meaning "to deny" (other than deny...) would be REPUDIATE.

'Rebut' is not, I think, a counter-refutation; I don't know where that comes from. I don't think there is any way of countering an authentic refutation. I understand 'rebut' as 'present an argument against', and 'refute' as 'prove to be wrong'. So a refutation decisively wins an argument; a rebuttal is just another skirmish in the battle. I think 'repudiate' is somewhere between 'deny' and rebut' - I think I'd expect a repudiation to have some reason associated with it, while (whilst?) a denial might consist of nothing but the word 'no'. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Usage may vary; in debate-team circles and pro versus con writing (e.g. the quasi-famous League of Women Voters' San Francisco Voter Guide), the order is argument, refutation, rebuttal (then the other side's argument, and the first side's refutation, and the now-defending second side's rebuttal; or these can run back-and-forth, e.g. argument, counter-argument, refutation of first argument, refutation of second, rebuttal of first refutation, rebuttal of second). A rebuttal in this sense is an attempt at counter-refutation and defense of the original argument, just as the earlier refutation is an attempt and not always successful.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your remark. However googling 'refute rebut' turns up a page-full of results that all support the idea that a rebuttal is an argument against, and a refutation is a proof that an argument is wrong. So at least there should be a citation to support the view that refutation is no different from rebuttal, just in a different order; and it should be mentioned that this makes sense only in the context of debating-society jargon. And there should be some mention of what appears to be the more common view. I plan to make that change once I can find a good RS for the majority view; blogs and web-only dictionaries don't inspire me with confidence. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@User:SMcCandlish I am unable to locate the LWV San Francisco Voters Guide. Can you provide a link? Alternatively (you mentioned it for the sake of an example) can you provide another source to support the interpretation that refutation doesn't imply proof? Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of RFC[edit]


Please help improve this related article. Comments should be placed at that Talk page rather than here.

Should "utilize" be added to the list?[edit]

Maybe with exceptions? I understand it's a bad word for use. Not sure how understandable to all it is (at least a rule for simple WP?). comp.arch (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of English words with disputed usage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)