Talk:reason

I think this needs reverting/some editing. The last change didn't make the definition any clearer. trunkie 09:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow, this entry has needed cleanup for a long time. - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–October 2012
Rfv-sense 2x: Tagged a couple years ago but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "proof, more or less decisive, for an opinion or a conclusion"
 * 2) "(obsolete) due exercise of the reasoning faculty"
 * 2. seems to be referring to its use in premodern philosophy / theology (and discussions about them), which should be well-attested. It's quite hard to verify because it's difficult to distinguish from the "rational thinking" definition, but the distinction does hold. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the first sense ("proof") as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed/resolved. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion: January 2007–July 2009
Do we really need an obtuse paragraph for each definition? Perhaps someone could pare this down to something more reasonable? --Connel MacKenzie 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm doing something similar; a list of 850 (later 1000) words with an exact concept in spanish and italian. The "weight of the word" (so to speak) is based also on if it has or not a direct translation in 1 word. The uses are different (to manage a basic vocabulary on N languages); but it may help. I'm basing first on the "simple english" dictionary, with some deletions and additions and later on a vocabulary based on frequency that I found (in ~5 languages).


 * At least it's a way to study languages, but I may give input on this category. This dictionary is on my userpage--Esteban.barahona 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The definition looks fine now - at least to me - can we strike this discussion or is there yet work to be done? L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 17:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion: June 2010–October 2017
Get rid of the cause subdivision. Can’t we remove the webster tag by now? Split up derived terms and translation sections. H. (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All Webster tags should be considered tantamount to rfc tags, IMHO. When I am ambitious, I tackle one. (I tried at accident. Does the new version seem better?) It is quite time-consuming. The wording is usually stilted and using words and wording likely to communicate effectively to few users. Modernizing the formatting only or removing only serves to make such problematic entries harder to find and correct and perpetuates the illusion that we have a satisfactory monolingual dictionary.
 * If I were translating, I would avoid such entries as a matter of course and add them to this list if they are important to you. Correcting them may take time. I would be happy to make any entries that appear here as having a matter of priority for my efforts. DCDuring TALK  15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, all webster entries need modernising. Exactly the reason why I don't want a great batch of similar entries generated from the old medical dictionaries (see Grease Pit). SemperBlotto 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And some of the Webster tags have been removed prematurely. The medical dictionary entries would probably languish unless we recruit and train (!) some medical types. Perhaps other templates and a process for updating would give us some hope of eventually getting such entries right. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone is simply dumping definitions from the medical dictionaries, I'll be happy to join in the collective administration of a cluestick. So far, with just us regulars working through the list, I haven't seen any evidence of that.  -- Visviva 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up, I reckon. I updated the definitions, added some quotes from Wikisource, checked a translation. Yes, there are some TTBCs remaining, but the essence of the page looks good enough to me. And good enough is good enough, as a wise person once said. --P5Nd2 (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

sufficient reason
sufficient reason: the philosophical principle that nothing happens by chance and that an explanation must be available for everything Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

reason out
3. resolve using rational thought: to formulate or resolve something using rational means reason out a math problem Microsoft® Encarta® 2009

reason something ↔ out (phrasal verb) to find an explanation or solution to a problem, by thinking of all the possibilities https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/reason-out

However I do not know where I can find the meaning of the symbol ↔ that longman dictionaries use --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is just a guess: are they saying that you can either use "read something out" or "read out something" (i.e. the particle can move within the phrase)? Equinox ◑ 16:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

in reason
Idiom With good sense or justification; reasonably. https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=reason --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

by reason of
Due to; on account, because, or as a result of: by reason of this being the defendant's first offense, we've decided to pursue a lenient sentence. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reason for/*of (cf. cause)
The reason for something is the fact or situation which explains why it happens, exists, or is done. Don't use any preposition except for after reason in sentences like The reason for this relationship is clear. You can talk about a person's reason for doing something. https://www.wordreference.com/EnglishUsage/reason --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)