Talk:privateer

RFV discussion: August 2016–April 2017
Etymology 2 noun and verb. Definition is awful, but without citations it is hard to tell what the core meaning might really be and whether it is worth saving. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could replace the definition with something with less editorialisation, such as "Someone who supports or implements privatization". I can find plenty of citations to support that definition:
 * Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have now looked into the use as a verb as well. While the noun does not seem to be clearly distinct in meaning from privatizer (and clearly predates the George Lakoff book from which the definition was lifted verbatim), use as a verb clearly has implications of profiteering that make it distinct from the term privatize:
 * Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent citations, but they seem more like allusive or metaphorical use of Etymology 1.
 * The verb seems to be alluding to the idea of "state-sponsored piratical practices" being the consequence of kleptocracy or crony capitalism. I would let the allusion remain allusive rather than be rendered into a definition.
 * The noun, too, seems to be playing on the idea of privatization as leading to piratical behavior.
 * Both sets of citations make me wonder whether there really is any separate etymology, rather than perhaps figurative senses of Etymology 1. But the existing interpretation and separate etymology cannot simply be dismissed. I think I would incorporate the idea of Ety 2 into Ety 1. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think Etymology 2 comes from the George Lakoff book, where he is creating a neologism with the given definition. But many of the cites, including the use as a verb, predate that book. I think a new noun and verb meaning should be added to Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 removed as a neologism that was not picked up. Kiwima (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The verb seems to be alluding to the idea of "state-sponsored piratical practices" being the consequence of kleptocracy or crony capitalism. I would let the allusion remain allusive rather than be rendered into a definition.
 * The noun, too, seems to be playing on the idea of privatization as leading to piratical behavior.
 * Both sets of citations make me wonder whether there really is any separate etymology, rather than perhaps figurative senses of Etymology 1. But the existing interpretation and separate etymology cannot simply be dismissed. I think I would incorporate the idea of Ety 2 into Ety 1. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think Etymology 2 comes from the George Lakoff book, where he is creating a neologism with the given definition. But many of the cites, including the use as a verb, predate that book. I think a new noun and verb meaning should be added to Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 removed as a neologism that was not picked up. Kiwima (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rfv-sense: noun: "An unethical individual or group acting covertly with enabling, usually bribed, accomplices inside government to destroy a government’s ability to carry out some aspect of its moral mission of protection and empowerment, by transferring critical moral functions along with public funds."

I can't imagine what a citation would look like that supported this thesis definition. Perhaps a book? DCDuring TALK 12:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August 2016–February 2021
A very wordy, POV sense was added and the etymology morphed into an equally word and POV discourse on that sense. It looks like this will need to be split into two etymologies, and the new material will need to be pruned into something suitable for a dictionary- does anyone have a chainsaw? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have split the etymologies.
 * I won't try to address the definitions without citations. See WT:RFV. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Trimmed it a bit. Equinox ◑ 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did some more cleaning including re-merging the etymologies; sorry, DCD, I did this before I read your comment. However, the OED shows plenty of usage for this sense back to the 1600s so I think the proposed 2008 etymology was one of those spurious back-formations. Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read WT:RFV? DCDuring TALK 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't! But yes, I agree with Kiwima's conclusions, which is pretty much what I did. Ƿidsiþ 12:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Closed as stale. &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 22:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)