Talk:expedient

I thought "expedient" meant "useful in achieving some particular end", usually a self-serving end? The current definition here shows "Simple, easy, or quick; convenient." Convenient might almost be correct, but I think this Wiktionary entry needs review and revision. 108.65.210.35 21:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a definition for this sense, but did not remove the original one, because the two quotations seem to ascertain its validity. Further review is still needed.--Anareth (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2016–April 2017

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

expedient

Sense: "Simple, easy, or quick, convenient" (particularly the "easy" and "quick" part). Speaking of which, does anyone know what the difference is supposed to be between that def and "Quick; rapid; expeditious," which is marked as obsolete? There are two quotations given for the RFV'd sense, but neither seem to relate very well to the definition, unless I'm missing something. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Quick, expeditious" is a definition marked as obsolete in Webster 1913.

I usually look at Webster and Century for questioned or questionable definitions that are labelled obsolete or archaic or have curious, dated wording. Also, a definition in the form of several synonyms, especially separated by semicolons, leads me to Webster. DCDuring TALK 10:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Can it be safely assumed that the RVD'd sense is not distinct from Webster's? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

AHD: "3. (Obsolete) Speedy; expeditious."

Webster 1828: "3. Quick; expeditious. [Not used.]"

I suppose it's a blend of various dictionaries' definitions of the same obsolete sense, apparently already archaic or obsolete in 1828. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Expedient seems to be often synonymous with short-sighted and opposed to of true/long-term benefit. It is sometimes synonymous with selfish and opposed to for the greater good. I can't find anything that makes it synonymous with "simple, easy, or quick", except in ways better covered by other definitions. I'm not sure that the citations match the definitions very well. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that someone had tried to tease apart the first Webster definition into separate definitions, without the benefit of citations. I don't think anything is lost from the challenged sense failing, though the remaining definitions could be improved. DCDuring TALK 02:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@DCDuring I'm not overly concerned about it failing; I just wanted to be reasonably sure the sense didn't exist. I think it's fairly safe to assume it doesn't, so can the RFV be closed by someone, or must it be left until it ends up near the top of the page? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is a formal requirement, but we keep items on this page open for 30 days or more, ie, until September 3. I'd like to give it a week more (ie, October 1, two months) since I just added some cites, expanded others to provide more context, moved them around among sense and added a new sense. I'm sure that the challenged sense is not a common, current one, but it could be obsolete or uncommon. An OED check would be prudent. DCDuring TALK 01:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Good to know, and thanks for the additions. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)