Talk:Irregardless

message: The Parlor short film has a humorous reference to "irregardless" that I think would be fitting:
Person 1: "Irregardless shes a twat."
Person 2: "Irregardless isn't even a word."
Person 1: "Yes it is, it means without lack of regard."
Cheesy 08:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it mean "without lack of regard" or "not without regard"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.160.134 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither, and both, irregardles, literally by word parts it is no regard without and open to parsing as (no regard) without or no (regard without).  WurmWoodeT 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture References 

message: Aren't there too many references? They all seem to be dictionaries or thesauruses. — Wackymacs 21:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 'Irregardless' appears to be a blending of the words 'irate' and 'regardless' which together indicate a particular or specific form of heedlessness  --  "hot-button" emotional reactions which may exacerbate the effects of ignorance or slough-off behavior.
'Regardless' indicates issues which cause alienation or self-esteem affective states; while 'irregardless' adds a component of censure which might cause disability or death.  beadtot
11/12/2005  21:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  word blending 

message: I believe that this word is more than a barabrous neologism -- it has entered the popular culture, on many people's pet peeves list. And anway, irregardless of all that, WP still has articles on standard English words, right? See here [] for amusing discussion in local alternative weekly. IronDuke 04:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture 

message: Because irregardless is an element of controversy in today's society it shouldn't have to move to Wiktionary.  It would be great to see this word entered there, but it deserves an article here as well do to its place in an on-going debate not between some proffessors or authors of Webster's but because conversations on the correctnes of iregardless pop up in every day culture.  Now the WP article could use some real work, it should include a little more than "not everyone's sure if this is a real word" but is ought not to be deleted. 
Gatherton 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one argues for its deletion, the content is fine but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The author himself says above that he would be fine with including it in a Wiktionary entry under 'usage'. And that's where it belongs. — mark ✎ 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a point of order, it's been a long time and many edits since any one person qualified as "the author" on this article.  There's enough people on either side of this issue to make it clear that there is a lack of consensus.  I'm generally a deletionist myself, but IMHO it needs improvement rather than moving or tossing.  Keep in mind WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia as well.   --KGF0 ( T | C ) 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't need to be moved 

message: It's been suggested to me that irregardless could or actually does mean "regarding X, but despite X." In this sense, the word is somewhere between "regarding" and "regardless", in that the speaker is indicating that they are not entirely dismissive of whatever X is, but their point remains the same. Does anyone else feel that this could be a potential use? QuinnHK 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irregardless of what any of us think about it, unless you can find a reliable source to back up your assertion, that would be original research without doubt.  --KGF0 ( T | C ) 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ascribing a new meaning 

message: Maybe we should call it a term and not a word in the initial sentence of the initial paragraph...just an idea. --207.216.10.77 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a nitpick 

message: Irregardless appears in the NewtonScript apis for the Apple Newton PDA: PlaySoundIrregardless(soundFrameRef)
Plays a sound, independent of the user sound preference settings''
See Newton Programmer's Ref 2.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.169.22 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computing 

message: The summary section was entirely opinion, so I removed it.  Just because it's in the dictionary doesn't make it a grammatically correct word if the source has it to show otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited 

message: If this article keeps appearing in my workspace I'm going to wind up requesting full edit protection while a consensus is hammered out.  As an English minor, I don't have any problems stating that "irregardless" is NOT a word that is in standard usage, and my personal feeling is that it should never come into standard usage, as it is a self-contained double negative.  That's as far as I go for now.Alan (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There haven't been any major edit wars on this article, as far as I can tell, besides revert wars against page blankers and other miscreants. Graham87 00:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No edit wars, please 

message: Language is fluid. Oxford English Dictionary types argue a word in common usage is not a word, because its not in their book, but they can't accept that every other word in their book was completely made up at some time as well. People create words, and bastardize the language, and as such terms enter common usage, they become words and methods of communicating ideas. You know what I mean when I say 'irregardless', don't you?  Why is that? Because it is common widespread usage.  Its a written and verbal method used to communicate an idea... in other words, a word.
If someone wants to argue that irregardless is not a word, then I can argue 'byte' is not a word, as well as 'shampoo', 'airplane', 'refrigerator', 'xerox', 'photocopy', 'telegraph', 'seamonkey', 'interstate', 'cartoon', and on and on and on... as well as every other word in the dictionary... claustrophobia, agoraphobia, eremophobia, stuff... do you think ancient Britains used any of those words... not to mention the whole ||English language|| is nothing but a bastardized form of German, Latin, and Norse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to the differences between the prescriptive and descriptive approaches to the study of language.  This page is for discussing Wikipedia's article about "irregardless", as opposed to the word itself.  If you have any general questions about language you might be interested in the Language reference desk. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

text: It might be a word, but it is just f*cking WRONG. Okay! It's like "misunderestimate". It deserves this wiki article to explain to idiots that use the word that it is an uneducated way of saying "regardless". End of story. 180.92.211.33 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not like "misunderestimate." See my comments above on the prefix "in". Presumably you don't think "incarcerate" is also like "misunderestimate." Fool4jesus (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irregardless is a word 

message: I'd just like to mention that there is a German equivalent "nichtsdestotrotz" built from "trotzdem" and "nichtsdestoweniger". It started as an academic joke but has since found broad usage, although it is still considered nonstandard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.211.63 (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  German equivalent "nichtsdestotrotzr" 

message: When was the word "irregardless" added to each dictionary? And when did each dictionary's notes about it change? I think these details are important. Misty MH (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was it added to each dictionary?  

message: A lot of this article is criticism or rebuttals thereof, and indeed probably the existence of this article is due to the controversy over this word. There is relevant secondary coverage to gather enough of content for a criticism section, or something along those lines. Even with no new content added to the article, it would be good to move the current criticism there for organizational purposes. Graham87 doesn't think so, and I recognize the validity of this opinion even though I disagree. What does everyone else think? Should the criticism its own section, or should it (i.e., the current criticism in the article) be incorporated throughout? I agree with Jimbo's take that "In many cases [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing". However, this is a special case: the reason why this article is notable is the linguistic debate its caused (there's no article for 'regardless'.) I'm not steadfast in my opinion on this. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section