Talk:buyback

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

buyback

Sense: The compulsory purchase by the government of most semi-automatic weapons following the introduction of new anti-gun legislation in 1996. — A specific example of the primary sense. — Pingku^dimmi 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. The primary source is - The repurchase of something previously sold, especially of stock by the company that issued it -. Nothing in this definition applies to "the buyback". It applied to all newly banned weapons, and was a purchase by the government who were not the original sellers. It also applied to guns that had not been sold but may have been obtained generations before.--Dmol 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Any specific "buyback" or type thereof would have some kind of specific scope. Would each type need its own sense line? One can find "asset buyback", "real estate buyback", "aircraft buyback", "marine fisheries buyback" (another US government program), "matroid buyback program". Any of these could be referred to without the qualifiers in an appropriate context. I don't see anything particularly entryworthy about this specific one. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, it's a bad definition. google books:gun buyback makes it clear that there's many gun buybacks besides "the government" (presumably the US government) in 1996.--Prosfilaes 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not the IS government, it was the Australian government, as evidence by the Austtralian tag at the start of the defintion. But no-one has addressed the point that it is specific to this one historical event, and is not a buy back in the same sense of the primary sense. The Australian government did not sell the weapons in the first place, therefore they can't buy them back. As for the other entries, I am not familiar with them, but perhaps they can have their own entry.--Dmol 07:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did address the point that it was not specific to this one historical event; [1] shows that the US cities of St. Louis and Seattle had "gun buybacks". I won't say that it should be merged into the main sense--I'm sort of neutral on that--but using it for one particular buyback is too specific.--Prosfilaes 07:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be modified then, removing the {{Australia}} tag along the way. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. User:Dmol's argument suggests that at least one sense of buyback should make it clear that "back" does not necessarily mean "back" to a previous seller, but rather in the opposite direction from the usual flow of the item in question. I believe that (deprecated template usage) back covers the sense at the lexical component level. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we need a new definition, something along the lines of: A government purchase scheme intended to achieve a specific goal such as habitat protection or a reduction in firearm numbers.

This would cover the disputed sense, plus any other similar situations.--Dmol 23:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep per arguments above, but perhaps with a rewrite. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition offered would include any simple purchase of, say, land by the government for, say, a park or a road or a pollution-control plant. Of course, it would exclude anything that was non-governmental.

There is no reason for the definition to be so particularistic. It is particularly pernicious that the original definition - not found in other dictionaries - was created without citations. The proposed definition similarly does not have the benefit of a citations-based reality check. Clearly, the existing definition is unsupported and unsupportable.

Whether a new definition could be found and supported is a separate matter, not part of this RfD. Similarly, whether a particularistic definition should not be subsumed under a more general one is also not properly part of this RfD. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you should RFV it. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps when this is closed. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete I agree with DCDuring. This is the same sense as sense 1; this first definition should be rewritten to include this case more clearly, but this is not another sense. Lmaltier 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

Rfv-sense: (Australian, firearms) The compulsory purchase by the government of most semi-automatic weapons following the introduction of new anti-gun legislation in 1996.

We may as well get this uncited sense right. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still open at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#buyback.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's closed. I see it as silly to RfV in this state; someone needs to at least rewrite it to a general sense, since there have been several gun buybacks across the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I had suggested at the RFD that we alter it to - "A government purchase scheme intended to achieve a specific goal such as habitat protection or a reduction in firearm numbers". This would cover the "too specific" argument and cover the other uses of the term.--Dmol (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And increase the desirability of an RfD on grounds that it is a simple ellipsis for any of several possible programs or practices by governments or businesses. There seems to be a yet more general missing sense which is not limited to guns, relating to the fact that the back morpheme does not convey the sense that the entity doing the buying had any previous relationship to the item being bought back. But that would actually require that we have citations or, at least, find some reference that made this clear. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I've changed to Dmol's broad def. I'm not necessarily opposed to simply removing the sense altogether... - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)