Talk:clean coal

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

clean coal

"Coal which has been cleaned up to make it environmentally acceptable".
This is a very vague and dubious definition. Is it coal that has been washed etc, and by what standard is it environmentally acceptable. The Wikipedia article give a lot more meaning, and seems to cover the entire industry and not just a specific supply of the stuff. Is the term US specific. Is there more than one definition needed. --Dmol (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it to be more of a process than a tangible thing. It's not that someone sits down with coal and a scrubbing brush, more that the coal is prepared before being burned in specially designed furnaces with fume extractors to recover soot and pollutant gasses from the exhaust, &c &c. It's a noun in the same mould as "Democracy". ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology.

A cousin of mine who works in the field of environmental engineering has remarked to me that "clean coal" is, charitably, only relative to the normal process, and uncharitably, a contradiction in terms. But that's opinion, not etymology or definition.

– Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 01:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Failed. Since only the first definition existed when the term was RFVed, and the nominator specifically mentioned it’s the definition that is dubious, only that definition has been deleted. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

clean coal

Clean (“which doesn’t damage the environment”) + coal. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It does damage the environment, though. (OTOH, I'm not sure all misnomers should have entries. I'll stay on the fence for now.) - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In an Orwellian sense like the Clean Air Act cleans the air of birds. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is listed for deleted, when the term clearly exists. The reason I listed it at RFV was that the definition is vague and dubious. Feel free to put in a more accurate definition, then I'm sure we can get rid of this sense only.--Dmol (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it’s SOP. Clean is used for anything which (whether true or not, as -sche noted) doesn’t damage the environment. There’s clean energy, clean oil, clean technology, clean mining, etc. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Delete per nom. The Orwellian magic is right in the word clean, like organic, gluten-free, democracy, etc. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added a second definition, taken from Wikipedia, that seems to cover the term. As I have said, I wanted verification of the dubious and vague first definition. --Dmol (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The nominated sense has been deleted. bd2412 T 17:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)