Talk:Disestablishmentarianism
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Rewriting article
I just rewrote the article. Although the disestablishment of the English Catholic church is certainly the most well-known example of disestablishmentarianism, it isn't the only example.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Henry VIII may be described in many ways, but disestablishment is not one of them; Nationalization may be closer. Reverting.
- The following paragraph was added since:
- The church-state links are now far less robust than in the 19th century when the campaign for the disestablishment of the Church was in its heyday, led primarily by ISBN 0716202026.</ref>
- The church-state links are now far less robust than in the 19th century when the campaign for the disestablishment of the Church was in its heyday, led primarily by
- I'm not sure how much of it is redundant with the restored text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Inncorectly stated as the longerst word?
The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism states "[Antidisestablishmentarianism] is the longest word in the English language, excluding coined and technical terms not found in major dictionaries." yet this article says it is not the longest word. Does anyone know which of these two positions is correct? Richtea2007 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The longest word given by most common dictionaries is "Floccinaucinihilipilification" or "Flaucipauci..." or variations. It is a nonce Victorian word meaning "The estimation of something as worthless". But "Disestablishment" is a real term, whereas, for example, antidisestablishmentarianism is just a nonse word that happened to have stuck. It has no place squatting as the title of this article, though a redirect would of course be appropriate, I think.
Obviously this is the wrong way round. Suggest more concise, and corrrect, title, as indeed the lead indicates
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No action. The article is now a redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Disestablishment — Obviously the right name for the article. Whoever put it here just wants it for the word antidisestablishmentarianism, a nonce Victorian word (and not by any means the longest in English). Put it where it should be. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
]
- Somewhat regretfully support; IIRC antidisestablishmentarianism (in its one serious usage) derives from antidisestablishmentarian anyway; so this is a joke that has not even been made. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Our article titles are optimized for lay readers, not for specialists. Who is going to write and use "Disestablishmentarianism" in his every day-to-day live?Flamarande (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)]
- Comment. I'm not sure about this. Doesn't disestablishmentarianism refer to a specific political movement in Victorian Britain? "Disestablishment" is already a section in State religion that describes the generic act of disestablishing a church as the state-supported religion. That article also includes tables showing disestablishment of churches worldwide. Also, if this article is changed, Antidisestablishmentarianism should probably also be moved, but "Antidisestablishment" doesn't make sense as a title. Station1 (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is a rare word, disestablishmentarian, meaning someone who favors disestablishment. For other causes, we would place the objective and the supporters into one article, which would cover both. antidisestablishmentarianism exists almost entirely as a example of length;
disestablishmentarianism doesn't exist at all - except in the present article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. As I imagine was well know to the contributors who replied above, my beef is not particularly with "disestablishmentarian" but with that after a couple more affixes it is used as a word simply to make it the longest in English. Without checking the first ed of the OED, which would list it as it was published roughly speaking alphabetically, I could not say, but "disestablishment" has a real meaning whereas the derivative terms are largely used jocularly, as Pmanderson implies. His reluctant support makes me wonder if there is an outside chance the shorter could be a back formation, but Fowler does not list any form in MEU, nor is it in The King's English. (I thought it was under the head "use of the long word" but my memory must fail me.) Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- My reluctance is no more than my perverse sense of humor, to which the present title appeals; but this does not help the reader, so my humor must be "denied and set aside and mortified". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. As I imagine was well know to the contributors who replied above, my beef is not particularly with "disestablishmentarian" but with that after a couple more affixes it is used as a word simply to make it the longest in English. Without checking the first ed of the OED, which would list it as it was published roughly speaking alphabetically, I could not say, but "disestablishment" has a real meaning whereas the derivative terms are largely used jocularly, as Pmanderson implies. His reluctant support makes me wonder if there is an outside chance the shorter could be a back formation, but Fowler does not list any form in MEU, nor is it in The King's English. (I thought it was under the head "use of the long word" but my memory must fail me.) Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is obviously right. There are several grounds for moving the article--(1) It duplicates the more succinct and comprehensive content
WP:SOURCES; (4) The subject is an archaic and arcane one which deserves a scholarly disposition, but in only a single article. If need be, let the pundits develop that one article but not again generate, please, a sequence of illegitimate offspring articles! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.