Talk:long goodbye

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

References and citations all say that the disease may be referred to as the "long goodbye". Can we find any text that actually uses it? Equinox ◑ 23:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I added one more quotation which provides a use, not a mention, of the term. But only to humour you. This defn was already adequately substantiated. (BTW, the title of the article given in the Wisconsin Healthlink reference also uses the term in my opinion). -- WikiPedant 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it substantiated? Texts that say "'the long goodbye' means this" are not evidence. Equinox ◑ 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By authority. Academic journals and medical school links are authoritative with respect to this term. -- WikiPedant 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we usually accept words only on the grounds that an "authority" (however that would be defined) says they are words. Need to meet WT:CFI as with anything else. Equinox ◑ 13:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Attestation, not authority, is the very foundation of lexicography. We accept authority for non-English terms. We are influenced by those authorities who take attestation seriously (the "serious" dictionaries, OED, MW, AHD, RH, Longmans, Cambridge, Macquarie, etc.). It would definitely be preferred that the quotations not surround the headword with quotes or otherwise mark it as not an ordinary part of the language of the writer/speaker and reader/listener. It might be attestable. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Attestation and authority are different albeit related concepts. Attestation of a term pertains to the function performed by the quotation (whether it uses or mentions the term). Authority pertains to the source of the quotation. Each attestation carries with it its own degree of authority. Attestations sourced from literary classics or refereed academic journals are rightly recognized at WT:CFI as having greater authority (since only 1 such attestation is needed to satisfy CFI). Like you, DC, I prefer to avoid quotations in which the definiendum is set off in quotation marks, but I'll settle for them as long as it is clear that this is not a one-off coinage by the author. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The straight uses (not mentions) that I find come up in many contexts and always refer to an extended departure. One amusing quote is about it most literally. Others are about extended departures from the public view. The Alzheimer's sense is included in that sense. I am not at all sure that any sense really is idiomatic as opposed to simply an SoP metaphor or figurative use. I also not that is much more common in attention-grabbing titles than in ordinary text. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The specific nickname "long goodbye" for Alzheimer's is widely used in North America by health professionals. I've heard it used this way for many years. I honestly believe it qualifies as a distinct sense. Since you still have doubts, DC, I shall look for more quotations. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now added 3 more quotations (all uses, not mentions) and expanded the defn and the etymology. -- WikiPedant 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This b.g.c. search produces many hits for "cancer" as affording a long goodbye. It just seems like a nice turn of phrase for the situation generated by many diseases of aging or indeed any debilitating disease without institutionalization. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DC, I saw a few in this vein when I was rummaging around. I see the Alzheimer's sense as a separate, established sense (which has its own wrinkle of meaning since it involves progressive loss of the ability to recognize and communicate with friends and family), but think a 2nd, broader sense is probably attestable with respect to any lengthy, degenerative disease (or even process) which is ultimately fatal. -- WikiPedant 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The current 57-word definition is clearly not supported with the quotes given. There are not enough quotes in existence to support the sense. It is not the name for a disease. It is a lovely turn of phrase that makes a great title for books, poems, plays, movies, essays, albums, songs, etc. It is not limited to the particular aspects of terminal Alzheimer's, being used relative to cancer. Moreover, it is used for all kinds of extended (ie, "long") leave-taking (ie, "good-byes"). We can hardly justify a separate definition for each application of the term, ie, to Alzheimer's, dementia, terminal cancer, terminal Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), a protracted divorce, a long breakup, etc). Whether it is supportable at all as a dictionary entry is an open question. I think we need to harden our hearts and our heads and make a decision. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Our 2000 cite is not referring to Alzheimer's — at least, not specifically — and our 2006 cite is mention-only. So, we only have two valid cites. Anyone want to produce a third? (Note: I'm basically disregarding DCDuring's arguments, because they're not really arguments for RFV. In my opinion, the question here is whether "long goodbye" is attestable in reference to Alzheimer's; if we determine that it is, then we can discuss at RFD whether it's idiomatic.) I'll wait at least a week before marking this failed, in case anyone wants to try. —Ruakh_TALK 19:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to Talk:long goodbye for now. —Ruakh_TALK 18:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)