According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the term purist dates from 1706 and is defined as "a person who adheres strictly and often excessively to a tradition", especially "one preoccupied with the purity of a language and its protection from the use of foreign or altered forms."
In Wikipedia, we use English as it has evolved and continues to evolve. So there is an obvious conflict between Wikipedia and purism.
|This page in a nutshell: The purist is almost always wrong anyway, and here is some evidence.|
Don't be a purist.
It should be obvious from reading any of a great many policies and guidelines that purism is not helpful here (and this is explored at User:Andrewa/purism). But that doesn't always get through, somehow.
So this page takes a different approach. Listed below are some examples of purism. See for yourself.
This is not an attack page. It's a place to critique content, not pillory the contributor. So unlike almost any other project, user or talk page, diffs and wikilinks to the evidence are not welcome here. They identify the culprit, and that's not necessary or even helpful. So just give the example. Let it speak for itself. The curious can find it with a bit of hard (and pointless) work. The rest of us can assume good faith and move on.
Some examples of purism
I read "anthropomorphic insects" I think this is not correct, because each insect has his own form, I think. In any way, only agree with the eyes of some characters. Anthropomorphic insects are in animation films like "Antz" or "Bugs", but not in "Minuscule". And later You are right. Anthropomorphic means an animal with human-like characteristics, though the bugs do have minds of their own in the show,... Um, no. According to our article, anthropomorphic applies to traits, emotions, and intentions, not just physical characteristics. The article was subsequently "fixed"... and became pointlessly wordy and obscure. There was nothing wrong with it to fix, before this purist point was made. There was afterwards.
Moral: If you're going to quibble over the definition of a word, look it up first. Your own feelings on the matter may not be as reliable as a good dictionary.
For me purism is linguistic purism or architectural purism. I don't see the point of all these Star Trek examples. It rambles on and on of whole cloth. Worse than car analogies, the article is one big tomato patch. Feel free to make the article more concise, but again maybe consult a good dictionary first.
Moral: Wikipedia is interested in anything that can be supported from reliable secondary sources, or that helps us in gathering this content. But the opinion expressed above doesn't seem to qualify. Sorry.
"Shrapnel" is incorrect terminology. "Shrapnel" is a small ball-bearing sized projectile which is part of a Shrapnel shell. It incorrectly became used as a term for shell fragments and bomb fragments, and from there spread to any jagged metal propelled at high velocity. But it is not. Maybe read wp:SOAP. If It... became used as a term for... any jagged metal propelled at high velocity, then... well, what's the problem? Oh, I see, it annoys you and you think Wikipedia is a good place to start your campaign to reform English. Not true.
Moral: The purist is almost always wrong.
- User:Andrewa/purism for a theoretical approach