Talk:privacy
Etymology( from wikipedia)[edit]
from Latin: privatus "separated from the rest, deprived of something, esp. office, participation in the government", from privo "to deprive Enfwm (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
Rfv-sense: "A society's rules on what topics are suitable for disclosure." I'm actually having a hard time understanding what this sense added by an anon is trying to convey. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I assume he's referring to the idea of professional/legal/Internet privacy (i.e. personal information should not be disclosed or made public, except in certain circumstances). For instance, laws protecting the laws of minors who are victims of crimes to prevent their names from being reported in the media. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, but the current sense needs a lot of work including sources and citations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Rules is not a hypernym of any plausible sense of privacy. Privacy is something protected by rules. Rules define limits on privacy. Maybe that questioned "definition" would work in sociological discourse where metonomy and synecdoche run rampant. DCDuring (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wiktionary now has two senses for the word. Century had 6; RHU has 6; MW 1913 had 5; MWOnine has 5; WNW has 3; Collins has 2-3; Oxford, AHD, Cambridge have 2 each.
- If we intend to cover the historical uses we probably need at least 5 definitions, none of which should be the challenged one. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, but the current sense needs a lot of work including sources and citations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have added several definitions, four obsolete (archaic?), two current. I think the two current ones are distinct and can be cited. The obsolete ones are from our usual out-of-copyright sources. Please take a look and take whatever action you deem appropriate. The current ones in particular would benefit from improved wording. DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)