Talk:pulchrism

RFV discussion: April–May 2018
pulchrism, pulchrist, pulchrists and pulchristic. All neologisms/protologisms invented and extensively promoted by the artist Jesse Waugh. Not used in any academic works, mentioned in any news or books sources. Only used by Jesse Waugh.104.163.158.37 04:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did find at least one old use here. Other than that, it's a campaign as far as I can see.104.163.158.37 04:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree: can't find anything meeting CFI in this sense except one book by Waugh himself, about himself, which uses it in the title and claims to be published by "Carpophage Press", about which I can find nothing. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Carpophage press is a vanity press run by Waugh. 104.163.158.37 02:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are other valid sources: The John Barton Journals, Thomas Darnell bio, as well as a third artist who identifies her work as being Pulchrist: Annabel Cisternino (see photo on that post or on Waugh’s site), and also Augustiniana Volume 53. 213.4.185.197 15:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wharton is a wiki. Facebook is not a good source. Darnell is a student of Jesse Waugh. The last is for pulchristic, not pulchrism the art manifesto.104.163.158.37 02:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s Waugh who studied under Darnell. And although the Cisternino photo was posted on Facebook, it still demonstrates that three artists identify as pulchrists. And you’re splitting hairs by attempting to separate ‘pulchristic’ from ‘pulchrism’ or ‘pulchrist’. That leaves us with no less than three very reliable sources for notability: The Athenaeum - an important 19th century London periodical, The John Barton Journals - which are reliable historical documents, and the Augustinian - a theological publication which is held in high regard. With these references, ‘Pulchrism’ simply cannot be regarded as a neologism or a protologism. 88.22.181.68 08:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Aethenaeum seems like a pretty good usage to me, as well as the ones noted above. 2607:FB90:A25A:150B:734:51D6:87CA:6D98 00:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, cue the army of Jesse Waugh Pulchrism supporters. It's preyty hilarious. I am fairly sure that photos taken by your pals and put on Facebook do not constitute durable sources. The only thing that goes here is actual published reliable sources, which obviously do not exist.104.163.158.37 10:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are three “published reliable sources” cited above, which you’re ignoring for some reason. Are you of the opinion that they are unreliable sources? 83.43.108.237 12:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how two anonymous accounts came out of nowhere to support this!104.163.158.37 02:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren’t you an anonymous account? 88.22.181.68 08:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you're using three different IPs (so far) to give the false impression that you're more than one person. I've blocked all three of you. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For the experienced types here, you may want to be aware of the extensive efforts to keep articles on Jesse Waugh and his theories on Wikipedia, supported by dubious accounts or IPs. The short story is that two or three people have worked together to promote this theory and the 'artist' behind it, and I really strongly have to emphasize the single quotes there. I have been doing artist AfDs for a while at Wikipedia, and I have never seen such an orchestrated vanity effort. It is almost industrial. I was disgusted enough by those practices over at WP to come here and nominate this product of personal vanity. See Jesse Waugh first nomination at AfD and also Jesse Waugh second AfD, and Jesse R Waugh. At this point Jesse Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh and Jesse Waugh (artist) are all salted so that only admins can create them. Oh and there is the "pulchrist manifesto" that is frequently added and then deleted to Wikipedia: art manifestos. And deleted from the page again. It's just truth vandalism, this "pulchrism". 104.163.158.37 02:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the "Bibhorr formula" fiasco we had recently. Equinox ◑ 02:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, that looks like a similar technique. the method for pulchrism has been to a) publish a manifesto of one's own design, b) post that to as many places as possible (e.g. wikisource, archive.org), c) round up some friends or possible **puppets to keep an eye on things and pipe up as required (above). They're relentless, although I am not sure why, as no one seems to care about the pulchrism theory-- it's 100% self-promoted amateur theory. If you look at Wordnik, they now now have a pulchrism entry, with notes by Cinesis, a former Wikipedia sock, whose avatar is also of Waugh. It's all (and I am sorry to invoke this phrase) fake news.104.163.158.37 03:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, here’s Waugh’s page on the etymology of ‘Pulchrism’: ETYMOLOGY. He states that he created the word on his own, then later discovered it in old literature - the references for which are included on the page. 213.4.185.197 08:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job on the IP hopping. Words created by one person (pulchrism) and not used in any reliable sources are words to be deleted. Puchrhristic might have a place here, but nothing to do with pulchrism or Jesse Waugh does, as it's just a word some guy invented and nobody uses. 104.163.158.37 10:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You brag about deleting many artists from Wikipedia, and then ignore the three solid historical references listed above that cite the word Pulchrism, as well as its variants. The John Barton letters contain usage of both forms of the word, for example - ‘Pulchrism’ and ‘Pulchristic’ (both capitalized). The Athenaeum has ‘Pulchrism’, and the Augustinian ‘pulchristic’. How are these not reliable sources? 83.43.108.237 12:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read our Criteria for inclusion. We go by usage, rather than reliable sources, and we're a dictionary, so differences in spelling count. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or put another way, usage is a reliable source. This isn't a prescriptive reference work, so a few durable citations in different contexts across years is enough. It's fine to mark it rare but it's not fine to delete it from the dictionary&mdash;if a word gets sufficient attestation from use, it's permanently a part of the corpus of words. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems similar to how we set the bar for fictional terms, at Criteria_for_inclusion. If someone is bound and determined to push a certain neologism, are we (Wiktionary) happy with any three cites?  Or do we need three cites, which are independent of the initial neologism-pushers?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Criteria_for_inclusion DTLHS (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)