Talk:Naivety

Naïve & Naive

Naive (without the dieresis) is actually the standard spelling, while naïve (with the dieresis above the 'i') is the variant form. Below are just some of the sources that give naive as the standard and main entry: Merriam-Webster Dictionary [1], The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition [2], Random House Unabridged Dictionary [3], WordNet® 3.0 [4], Online Etymology Dictionary [5], Encarta World English Dictionary [6]
Here is the entry in Garner's Modern American Usage (by Bryan A. Garner), which is considered an authority on grammar, usage and style of the English language: "naive; naïve; naif; naïf. The standard adjective is naive (without a diaeresis), the standard noun naif (again, no diaeresis). The others are variant forms..."
I have requested to move the article from Naïve to Naive. Kman543210 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Kman543210 Quoting a verifiably rubbish American dictionary lends absolutely no credence to your statement that Naive is the "standard spelling". It's actually quite laughable that anyone would think so. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ???? Hahaha, how respectable. Basically your only defence of naive being the standard spelling is that current American simplicity seems to suggest so. It's a shame that your idiocy has infiltrated the article.

I dunno about the spelling though. Many fo those sources where US english, and while yes they are correct in the US, they may be incorrect in UK/International english. I haven't checked (too lazy) but if they are correct in UK english then they are technically allowed to stay under the wikipedia rules which states that either UK or US english may be used. Maybe it shoudl be investigated and both spellings explained.

EDIT: Ok just checked the Cambridge dictionary, both are acceptable. By wikipedia rules it can stay right, btu I do think some mention of both spellings should be included. I think in Australia the correct spelling is naïve but then again many dictionaries have mixed messages about it. I was always taught to use the ï. Anyway, they probably should be both mentioned121.223.128.48 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like naïve definitely was the standard form but has become a variant as a result of uninformed attempts to Anglicise and modernise as well as the fact that the typewriter and computer keyboards have made it cumbersome to include the diaeresis.--N Vale (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary indicates both spellings were in use in the 17th century. It's unclear in most early contexts whether writers takes themselves to be using a French word in an English sentence, or using an English word that has a French ancestor. 150.135.114.150 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

another use of the word

To be naïve is to be virginal, unaffected, unselfconsciously artless ... in short: ingenuous. Naiveté is a much-maligned word, having the common assumption that it implies gullibility. Nevertheless, to be naïve means to be simple and unsophisticated.

http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/naivete.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.3.114 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I found more direct relevance and assistance in the quote above than in the entirety of the main page. Something is wrong...

- J.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:74E7:4341:D558:A368 (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Naïve → naive – The OED spells this word with no diaeresis; it was the usual spelling when Fowler wrote on it in 1926; isn't it time that we filed this word under the normal (and more accessible) spelling?

• Support as nom. (I also support discussing ï; but that's another question.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Merriam-Webster gives "naive". Here is an ngram. Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Unless they are about works and creations, I'm pretty sure we use the most common versions and spellings for items. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

*Support move - This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME, this article should use the spelling that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Dolovis (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose; article should be at the noun form, naivety or naïvety. Actually, the article as it stands now ought to be deleted as a dictionary entry, but it seems like a decent encyclopedic article could be written on the concept rather than on the word. Powers ^T 12:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Move discussion notification

Please see Talk:Naive (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 for a move discussion that affects this page. Powers ^T 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Expand this page

From the move discussion:

This is a particularly important and subtle cluster of concepts, and therefore the article at naive is an important article that should be expanded. Applications to naive set theory, folk psychology (aka naive psychology), theology in the work of Paul Ricoeur following the work in philosophy of Edmund Husserl and others, all should be mentioned. Andrewa (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Another requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Naive → Naivety – "Naive" is an adjective; the article should properly be about the concept of naivety, not the word "naive". Powers ^T 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The current title really only lends itself to being a dictionary definition. This article should probably be at naif. Except for the short "Science" section, that is the subject of the article. —  AjaxSmack  19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure an article with a scope of "a person who is naive" (the definition of "naif") would be an appropriate encyclopedic topic. Naivety, on the other hand, is. Powers ^T 15:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, that's what the article is about now. Most of the sections deal only with naifs and not naivety. —  AjaxSmack  23:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Per nom. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support: obvious move per WP:NOUN. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

use in medicine: anybody know exact definition

"Naive" (or "naïve," for you diaeresis fans out there) can also be used in reference to drugs or classes of drugs. For example, an individual may be described as "opioid-naive" (or "opioid-naïve"). I'm not sure what the precise meaning is: (1) that the person has never taken opioids (pr whatever type of drug) or (2) that s/he does not have any tolerance to them. Does anybody out there know, and if so, may I suggest adding a section on this use of the word "naïve?" (Pretty please with sugar?) Mia229 (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Naïvité" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Naïvité. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#Naïvité until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)