Talk:possimism
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
"A way of thinking in which one is basically pessimistic, but manages to use it to one's advantage." Equinox ◑ 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- cited Kiwima (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think some are typos for "pessimism". Look at the actual meaning of the 1982 cite, for instance: it's saying nobody need feel negative because things are good. Equinox ◑ 12:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- Given the proposed senses, it is incredibly difficult to tell which cites actually support them. 1982 and 1943 seem to be clear typos, and many others are suggestive of that; certainly none of them gloss the very rare and unexpected word, if it actually exists. 1978 is odd because it also uses "possionate" in the next sentence; there is clearly some kind of affectation or continued mistake being made there. I would consider this not cited, and by looking at BGC, I don't see how it can be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding sense 1: The 1958 citation doesn't make sense with definition 1 (which it is currently under) subbed in, although it sort-of makes sense with definition 2 subbed in. But the book uses "pessimism" and "pessmistic" elsewhere, and never uses "possimism" again AFAICT, so it seems likely this one usage is a typo if the typed letter is not, in fact, outright an indistinct e. The 1978 citation doesn't make much sense with def 1 subbed in, either, but seems to just mean pessimism, which is the spelling used elsewhere in the work; together with the possionate typo Meta notes, it seems like that use, too, is a typo. 1979 also seems better explained as a typo for pessimism (by non-native speakers/editors?). I would say it fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 07:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sense 2's quotations also seem more likely to be (and perhaps impossible to distinguish from) typos. I've functionally deleted the entry as RFV-failed, although I kept the quotations (and indeed the entire edit history) visible to non-admins by moving it to the talk page (see its edit history), where this discussion will go. - -sche (discuss) 07:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)