Talk:fragilize

RFV discussion: May–June 2022
I'm requesting a verification, or at least guidance, on 'fragilize.' The word doesn't appear in major dictionaries, including the OED an Merriam-Webster as far as I can tell. A google search turns up about 30,000 results--which seems strikingly low. And a google nGrams search returns some results, but the word is clearly used in multiple senses that are not necessarily in line with the definition provided in the article. And what's more, most (or at least many) of the books that use the word seem to treat it with the understanding that it isn't conventionally 'real.' This book quotes a press release, and writes "...to fragilize [sic] the future debate by admitting that society is not prepared." The 'sic' is original to the book I cited, and clearly shows that they did not consider it standard. Many of them describe it (independently) as a new coinage. For instance, this book on behavioral therapy says "Fragilize is a word I invented for DBT; it means treating participants as if they are fragilize and unable to tolerate, learn, or do what is needed. The idea is that treating a person as fragilize can have the unintended effect of increasing fragility." Most frequently, it is used in some religious sociology book and described as deriving from Charles Taylor's book A Secular Age. The usage in this book doesn't seem to simply be 'to make fragile.' One commentary defined his use of the term as: "In the face of different options, where people who lead “normal” lives do not share my faith (and perhaps believe something very different), my own faith commitment becomes fragile—put into question, dubitable." Elsewhere, there is also much use of the term 'mutual fragilization' which ties again into the specific idea of weakening faith because of social conditions. Anyway, I feel that 'fragilize' is a word without widespread usage, which has been independently 'coined' by a number of people without actually contributing a single word and definition to the lexicon. I am unsure of Wiktionary's policies on that sort of thing, or whether that would actually count as independent usages. I personally am inclined to think that 'fragilize' fails.

As an aside--the word is used a fair bit within Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if that was partially because it's confirmed as a word within Wiktionary. I checked out four articles that used the term, and at least two were non-native English speakers (the others didn't say) and one sparked a small edit war. The user said the word was too long, although it's clearly not. I suspect his issue was that the word sounded strikingly unnatural, as it does to me and at least some of the sources mentioned above. --Elaboration Station (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In reading through dozens of Google Books results it seems that this term is used plenty with the common definition "to make fragile". Many things are fragilized in the various books, systems, people, fibers, aircraft canopies, bones, etc. It does seem to be rare, perhaps coined repeatedly, but coined enough times with the same meaning that it clearly meets the CFI. I added six cites to the citations page. - TheDaveRoss  15:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Less fighting, more citing. Added 3 cites very easily. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)