Talk:barefaced liar

RFD discussion: October 2021–February 2022

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

barefaced liar

SOP. PUC – 23:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Isn't a barefaced liar someone who tells barefaced lies, and not a liar who is barefaced?  --Lambiam 19:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

They are barefaced sense 2: "open, undisguised". Equinox ◑ 19:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Lambiam's point is that this term is a hypallage: "barefaced" grammatically modifies "liar" even though it semantically modifies the lies spouted by said liar. I think I agree with Lambian's assessment (because it's the lies that are undisguised, not the liar) but the question remains whether a simple hypallage saves a term from being SOP. Fytcha (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone who openly tells lies is an undisguised liar though. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone hiding behind a fake social-media account can introduce blatant falsehoods in the conversation as if they are indisputable truths (such as, “COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths now exceed 6,000”). They themselves are disguised; the fact that they are lying is open to all that wish to see.  --Lambiam 03:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone tells obvious lies but the person themselves is not obvious (e.g. they are concealed) they are still an obvious liar, because it is obvious that they are a liar (and not because their lies are obvious). Lambiam seems to be arguing against this, I think erroneously. Equinox ◑ 22:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep per Lambiam's argument. DAVilla 07:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete; agree with Eq. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted (delete: PUC, myself; keep: DAVilla; note: if Lambiam's vote without '''Keep''' is counted, so should be Eq's arguments in favour of deletion -- the consensus >= 3/5 nonetheless) —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would personally vote to Keep the entry per Lambiam. Also it feels just a bit scummy to vote and then delete the entry less than 10 minutes later when your delete vote would make the difference (as it would have been no consensus before then). I would've personally waited at the very least a week, if not a month, before closing @Svartava2. AG202 (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AG202 One example I could get was diff and I have seen many such others although rn dont remember. Also, note that this request was started on 30 Oct, i.e. I closed it in > 2 months, which seems more than enough time to let people vote, its double the usual time of 1 month. Feel free to start an undeletion request if you like. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Svartava2 The difference with that one was that Imetsia was not the deciding vote. If you had closed it without voting and/or it wasn't on the line, then it would've been less of a question of voting just so that it can be deleted. Also, I think that it could just be reopened now with an objection. AG202 (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AG202 I think what really matters is the total time period given for this RFD: 2 months. What if I had voted earlier and closed it when I had? The time period would be the same and the opportunity for anyone to vote would be the same. Pinging Imetsia, who is uninvolved here. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I spoke with @Metaknowledge about it afterwards (if they so choose to share their opinion here), and also, if you had voted earlier and closed it a month later, there'd be no issue. AG202 (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AG202 What is the issue, then, if I voted and closed it at the same time after sufficient time? Talking about your keep vote, you could have done that earlier; 2 months ain't a jiffy. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 07:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Reopened. I agree with AG202. It's true that I often vote on an RFD and then close it immediately after. But I only do that to pad a preexisting consensus rather than change the consensus. For what it's worth, I'm going to vote Keep due to the hypallage and maybe that it's a common and fixed expression. Imetsia (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed too. Maybe we should write into Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Header that some time has to pass between the last outcome-altering vote and the closure. Fytcha (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-kept —Svārtava ^[t•u•r] 08:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)