Talk:Prig

Opinions Stated as Facts[edit]

I removed these two paragraphs:

"Priggish-ness can be viewed as a symptom of institutionalisation, whether it be in politics, the armed forces or public school."

"A prig is generally a passive-aggressive, instigating fights rather than participating in them. The prig is a survivor and will unconsciously attach to any group that seems to further his or her prospects."

This is just made-up stuff and doesn't come along with the definition of "priggish." Just completely irrelevant speculation (IMO), and is vague ("can be viewed as"? by whom? The writer?) and unverifiable ("A prig is generally a passive-agressive"--really? how does one come to discover this fact?). Chafe66 (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Through experience? Seriously, though, I think you did the right thing in removing that stuff.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to say that it is discoverable "through experience" presupposes that the person with all the experience already knows who is a prig and who isn't based on some other criterion, and then goes on to discover through empirical processes that indeed, those who are priggish tend to also have these other qualities. It is completely beyond belief that anyone in the world has made some sort of unbiased study of such a thing. Anyway, it's beside the point. The term is well defined in standard dictionaries and never comes with this extra speculative and useless baggage.2600:1702:4380:5FA0:51C:60AA:FC1E:7F38 (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article summary[edit]

A prig is someone who thinks they are more superior than others in moral matters Jokerkick (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and definition[edit]

Several paragraphs of quotations are used and make up a large fraction of the article without developing the definition. Selection and introduction of these quotes appear to reflect subjective opinions on what literary characters exemplify the qualities described in the definition. Additionally, the article itself seems to be centered around defining a word, and therefore is less encyclopedic and more a dictionary entry. RookWeaver (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]