Talk:simplistic

Why is overly simplistic a tautology?


 * Our sense 1 says "overly simple", so then "overly simplistic" would mean "overly overly simple". I think I disagree with our usage note, though. Equinox ◑ 16:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the foregoing remark. Tautology is not in all circumstances necessarily undesirable, nor vacuous; note that we (correctly) include "(comparative more simplistic, superlative most simplistic)", thereby implicitly recognising that degrees of simplisticity are meaningful, and that appropriate degrees of distorting simplisticity are convenient or even useful (as in rhetoric for example). From such a point of view it would be overly simplistic for us to deprecate in general expressions such as "very simplistic" or "overly simplistic". I shall accordingly edit the usage note as a proposal, subject to further improvements by others. JonRichfield (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The usage note does sound preachy, doesn't it? Reminds me of people refusing to accept comparatives for "unique" and "perfect". Equinox ◑ 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Equinox far be it from me to sneer at preaching; I am most unkindest cutting in my reactions to the equivalents of "perfectest" and "uniquest"! But if we can have "hemisemidemi" or "Double, double..." maybe I should offer an occasional indulgence to the guilty. (At cut rates of course! :D ) JonRichfield (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't make head or tail of the claim that "more simplistic" is "tautological" (or even redundant). If two things oversimplify, one might oversimplify more than the other. I removed the reference to that phrase but left the note about "overly simplistic." Ou phrontis (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction between "more simplistic" (which is a logically unexceptionable usage) and "overly simplistic", which is logically equivalent to "overly overly simple", which certainly is exceptionable. "More simplistic" would mean "leaving out a greater amount of relevant complexity than the alternative", whereas "overly simplistic" would mean "leaving out an undesirably large proportion of relevant complexity". "Simplifying" rather than "simplistifying" (to coin a nonce term) would imply leaving out material that would not corrupt the meaning, because it would omit items that are non-essential, whereas simplistic omission would imply corrupting the sense by leaving out essential items. Other things being equal, any loss of sense would be intrinsically undesirable.JonRichfield (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–October 2021
Rfv-sense: Of or relating to simples, or medicinal herbs. OED only has one cite (which is actually a mention of a cite) Roger the Rodger (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Not adequately cited - I'm assuming you just searched for simplistic and herb(s) to get these quotes, which is smart. Those cites, however, fit too well with the main definition to convince me. Roger the Rodger (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I moved Kiwima's quotes to the main definition Roger the Rodger (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)