Talk:insidious

Discussion
Hi, I spent some careful time over this and would appreciate a little courtesy and input to go along with this its reversion. Of course you are busy but you weren't busy enough to skip evaluating the edit. You can describe your evaluation now thanks. I have reread my edit. Insidious still does not mean treacherous and the references do not say that either, even if they are all 100 years old. Happy to discuss. NOTE: He was nastily hammering does not equate Nasty = hammers. This is what my edit amounts to. I may be asking you to slow down a little... RTG 02:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * insidious is an adjective. Your addition - "A disguised trap or dangerous object." is a noun. How's that for being ignorant? SemperBlotto 07:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * noun? Insidious is not an intention to trap. Simple treason, the reason I edited the page at all, is not insidious so that is another, and most, misleading entry. The Hansel and Gretel example is more like a noun as it is, "Insidious Gingerbread House". The witch and her cunning is the insidious part. The gingerbread house is just an attractive house. The page needs rewritten and if my edit is closer than the current page, that is the one that should be until further improvements are made, hint, hint. That is why the page is open to edits. Would you agree with that idea? Partial improvements are better than none at all? RTG 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you doubt the existence of a "treacherous" sense, don't remove it, but, rather, add { {rfv-sense}} to it (right after the  at the start of the line) and, after saving the page, click the "+" that appears there to add the sense to [[Wiktionary:Requests for verification]]. However: Please only do this after you have attempted to verify it for yourself, i.e. searched http://books.google.com for the word used in that sense and failed to be able to do so. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was obvious to me that insidious did not mean treacherous but what I did was to check the references provided. The operative word was "stealthily" in that case. "Stealthily treacherous". And then it wasn't a very definitive entry for such a colourful word even at that. Something like, "A thing or an action which is harmful but not obviously so until serious harm is done. Esp. with cunning and deviciveness." would be more precise. I don't know but I do know that the three entries need rewritten to be a bit more precise if not to be accurate at all. I may not have accomplished that but it should be accomplished nontheless... ? RTG 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that some of the concern has been addressed but insidious still does not mean treacherous and the gingerbread house is not insidious, the witch and her trap is. I don't think the word treacherous is a very good word at all for a sentence explaining stealthy and harmful. Treachery is often best known for being open, public and defiant. Some who commit treason are brave heroes of renown, hardly a fitting example of insidiousness. Of course some who commit treason are insidious altogether. Sorry don't have a better one now should just delete that one. RTG 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeating what I said on your talk page, please click on and read WT:RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not respond before now because I was blocked albeit without warning or notification (thanks msh120, your views on the blocking policy page are fascinating, no really). Anyway, the reason I edited this page was that although treachery can be insidious, insidious does not = treacherous. The sources on this page do not support the mistaken entry as such either although one uses the definition "stealthily treacherous", stealth being the operative and treason, as illustrated on this page in my opinion, being a poorly chosen or confusing example. Further, is it the intention to entrap or the manner of entrapment, intentional or otherwise? Is the gingerbread house insidious, or is it the witch and her plan? There is definitely something in it.


 * This is the second page I have edited on this wiki over a period of some years so it is unlikely that I will make a lot of edits here any time soon. The link you have left here is of ridiculous complexity for what equates to spotting a spelling mistake. "Would you like to fix the spelling of that word?" ... "No but if you take a quick diploma in *bureaucracy*, maybe we will let you fix it yourself." A bit overwrought in this case. RTG 01:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Insidious is not just ambush or a simple lie. 'Tis trickery and leading strays, malignance you don't spy. 'Tis camouflaged or hard to spot but not just that alone. It weaves a web around in which you're stuck when you are prone.

RFV
I have no idea how this works. I am unlikely to post here again. Insidious does not = treacherous. The sources listed do not support that assumption either although one says, "stealthily treacherous". Stealthily is the operative word in this case and I would support the idea that treachery might be a more confusing example than something like cunning. Treacherous is very close to deceitful but not insidious. Beside that, the entry "intention to entrap". The intention to entrap is not an example of insidious although the entrapment itself or its manner may be. And, for the entry which says "witch's insidious gingerbread house". Is it not "the insidious witch's gingerbread house". Is it not her cunning and deciet which is insidious or is it the gingerbread and candy canes? RTG 01:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Chambers has "developing or advancing gradually and imperceptibly; deceptively attractive; cunning and treacherous." The house is the middle one. Equinox ◑ 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Vocabulary.com says, "Beguiling but harmful; intended to entrap; working or spreading in a hidden and usually injurious way." It says intended to, not intending to, i.e. the purpose rather than the intention. I did not see any gingerbread houses in those ones but perhaps the gingerbread house had "an insidious purpose"? The one you quote in bold is rather vague to say the least even if it is a quote from Chambers. Are we restricted to the quality of Chambers if it is not so good? There are various hits for the phrase "insidious treason" and hundreds for "insidious treachery" (page one of James Russell Lowells book Abraham Lincoln for one to pick). Suggesting that "insidious" is used possibly to describe treason rather than being it. Currently it blunty says insidious = treacherous. It could be ironed out of those at very least. Note, the "insidious treachery" hits are quite revealing, everything from marvel comics to Lincoln literature, news, blogs and the like. Barnes and Noble quote Lowell (under features tab) RTG 15:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Would someone who has it like to check the OED? Equinox ◑ 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command :- Full of wiles or plots; lying in wait or seeking to entrap or ensnare; proceeding or operating secretly or subtly so as not to excite suspicion; sly, treacherous, deceitful, underhand, artful, cunning, crafty, wily. (Of persons and things.) SemperBlotto 15:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No Party Now But All For Our Country, Francis Lieber, Inaugral Meeting of the Loyal National League, 1863, page 2, line 3, quote:"Insidious treachery" RTG 16:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, treachery is treacherous, so that doesn't preclude "insidious" having that meaning. Compare e.g. "his devices for preying upon the avaricious greed of his fellows". Equinox ◑ 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not relate the e.g. but for curiosity I searched "treacherous treachery" There were over 1,000 hits on the internet most of which were lists but one quote included the bible... so I searched for "righteous righteousness" which turned up almost 30,000 of which all but one on the first page were about the bible and that one again was a list of words on answers.com. Probably doesn't matter anyway it's only a bunch of meaningless words when you put it like that. Try Leisure Guys The Torturous Tourture Debate, an ex head of torture teaches us that torture really is torture. RTG 04:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Challenge: Find us a newspaper heading, or the like, published EVER that says, "...found guilty of being insidious." "...was court martialled and shot for being insidious." Not, "...insidious plan." but, "... found to be insidious and sentenced for it." That which means treacherous is often taken very seriously. Find us a quote that not only equates insidious to a state of action or being, but to a state of crime. The most defining feature of treachery is that it is a crime and punishable by death even in countries long abolished of the death penalty. A defining feature of insidiousness is that it is not viewed a crime by any on its own. Show us the statute that says"...the minimum and maximum sentences for insidiousness..." There are none I think. For being treacherous though, there are in every book. RTG 16:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added a few citations to the various senses. However, it can be hard to tell precisely which sense is intended. IMO, "this insidious city" (1969, Brewster and Burrell, referring to Paris in Henry James' The Ambassadors) seems to fit the disputed definition of "alluring but harmful", while "insidious house of Austria" seems more likely to mean "treacherous". Equinox ◑ 17:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed. - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It means insidious about being treacherous.. Treachery can be blatant in your face. It is always a betrayal and never a method. The Insidious house of Austria quote does not confirm the word insidious to mean the word treacherous and the other quote just says insidious folk talk a lot of dangerous nonesense. What has that got to do with the price of treachery, except that there might be treachery in the book, and a load of talk nonesense? And the last one. The battle was lost to people who defected insidiously. Does not show the word treacherous to be interchangeable with the word treachery. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. RTG (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that Chambers 1908 has the "treacherous" sense and does not gloss it non-standard. Equinox ◑ 03:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nonstandard?
How does "insidious" belong in Category:English nonstandard terms? That category is for "English terms that are considered improper, incorrect or commonly misused." How is "insidious" any of those things? 216.158.243.9 22:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)