Talk:religious right

RFD discussion: October 2022–August 2023
Rfd-sense, "the right for someone to practice their religious beliefs," the Etymology 1. This is SOP and a literal definition, do we really need this if it necessitates a separate etymology? This'd be like if we had a separate etymology for learning permits (plural of learning permit) to define for a phrase like, "Learn as much as learning permits!" PseudoSkull (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete but replace with &lit, given the fact there is also a non-SOP sense. No need to keep separate etymologies after doing that, though. Theknightwho (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: when an entry covers some senses, it should also cover other senses of the same term in some form. A minimum way is to invoke &lit, but explicit coverage as is seen in religious right seems better; otherwise, a non-native speaker needs to consult the polysemous right entry and figure out which of the multiple senses are meant. Picking the salient sense for the reader adds value. As before, I would find a label "sum of parts" on the sense lin perfectly fine, to make things explicit for the reader. But these are not two etymologies: the different senses of "religious right" are under the same etymology of "right". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn’t relevant to how we decide what etymology sections to use for this entry. You also seem to now be trying to include senses which you admit are SOP, which is contrary to both policy and established practice. Theknightwho (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As for common practice, I know of no evidence to that effect. As for policy, WT:CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers". But that is arguably not about SOP senses; I know of no policy regulating inclusion of SOP senses. Let others comment and we will decide together; my position is that the current explicit phrasing is better than &lit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is hilariously bad, even for you. It is trivial to see that senses are also covered. Theknightwho (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI: "including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic". No talk about senses. A search for the word "sense" in CFI did not reveal anything. Indeed, if SOP senses were excluded, there would be no use for &lit at all, but since we use &lit, there is some support for SOP senses. And if we interpret that language to cover senses (which we shouldn't), then what I quoted allows inclusion of SOP items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be because of (sense 7). You and I both know you're being disingenuous in the extreme. Theknightwho (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice . Theknightwho (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguably, the sense is not even really SOP. Since, "right that is religious" would well fit Sharia law, but what is meant by it is the right to practice a religion. The "to practice religion" part does not have the same meaning as "of or pertaining to religion" and cannot be easily derived by it. The plural "religious rights" seems less ambiguous; Sharia is not "rights" in plural. I maintain there is only one etymology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The right to practice religion is not the only right which is related to religion, and not the only religious right. Being an inadequate definition should not save it.
 * Unless the same sense of is being used, they have different etymologies, because the route to get to the term in question differs. The fact that it forks at the term  and not earlier is irrelevant from the perspective of how we lay out the entry . Theknightwho (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are 6 edits to compose a single post really needed? Now to the point: What, then, is a proper definition of "religious right" that covers the right to practice one's religion and perhaps more? I for one cannot obtain it from "right" and "of or pertaining to religion". And since Sharia is not "religious right", I rest my case about non-SOP until shown otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're unable to deduce that a religious right is a right which relates to religion from "right" and "of or pertaining to religion"? That suggests a competency issue on your part, not that this term is not SOP.
 * The number of edits to write a comment is irrelevant. You frequently write many irrelevant things. Theknightwho (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD kept with &lit Pious Eterino (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)