Talk:discredulous

RFV discussion: October–November 2012
I don't buy either of the two definition s given, though there seems to be a third another that might be citeable- otherwise I would have speedied it. There are a couple of cases where the term seems to be confused with incredible or discredited, but I didn't see enough to support an entry. I also don't think the citation given has anything to do with either of the current definition s. Rather than getting into a revert war with the editor who created it and later reverted my changes, I thought I would bring it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the definitions was removed by the original editor just before I added the rfv tag, so there's now only one definition- which I still disagree with. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only other meaningful cite (besides the one already in the article) is part of a play where the dialogue of the episode begins mid-conversation and hence makes it near impossible to divine the sense. It is a hit in gbooks but not visible, but is visible in Amazon's look inside:
 * 1978, Mervyn Peake
 * [ KITE hides in the room. Enter UNDERTAKERS. ]
 * PARKINS : Oh, quite discredulous: it wilts me, Laurance,
 * To see you subdivide at such an hour -
 * WATKINS : Oh such a day, dear fruit, in such a year
 * Of such a decade as decays the chord
 * [half singing]
 * That binds us ... binds us ...
 * Nobody loves or ... minds us ....
 * Besides which the characters are drunk and not making much sense in any case. The word is not in the OED. Spinning Spark  09:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One usenet example, while not a use exactly, does support the untrustworthy meaning. As do some undurable hits don't want to put a discredulous stigma on my company, Unfortunately we live in a world where the police have to protect themselves from discredulous individuals, , . Spinning Spark  09:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Discredulous can be found in significant numbers using Google Search. I had originally thought it to mean "defamatory", but deleted that definition as I couldn't find a good quote of its use in such a way. --Victar (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The word is non-standard but it is a word nonetheless in my opinion. --Victar (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Our Criteria For Inclusion (WT:CFI) call for three independent citations in durably-archived sources. Websites, as a rule, aren't durably archived. We mostly depend on Google Books and on Usenet (accessible through Google Groups). The one durably-cited quote you included in the entry looks, from the context, to mean "not inclined to believe". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rereading the quoted book, I'm inclined to agree with your understanding of its use in that context. I've added a definition of " Incredulous", and attributed the quote as that. It does indeed seem to also have a meaning of untrustworthy. His transparent party loyalty makes him discredulous and unreliable.﻿ --Victar (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's three durably archived citations per sense, so two meanings now require a total of six citations. We still only have one. Spinning Spark  16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, an impossible task at this point in time. I think it's a word worth watching, even though it may be non-standard/proscribed versions of incredulous and discreditable, respectively. --Victar (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited first sense. Astral (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * First sense RFV-passed, second sense RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)