Talk:Tautology (rhetoric)/Archive 2010

The phrase "there are many different"

Resolved

 – Off-topic - wrong venue.

This has nothing to do with this article, but people, there really needs to be a "there are many different" cleanup project or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=1&search=%22there+are+many+different%22&limit=500&offset=0 Just say "there are many" or omit the whole sentence. 69.118.202.168 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with this article. Try WP:COPYEDITORS. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Protect please

Please protect this page before the xkcd fans get to it. Today's strip was on tautology. 131.191.112.162 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! That's why I'm here. 216.8.121.1 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good, it's been protected. Anyway, I haven't participated in the edit warring, but I'm opposed to adding the xkcd comic. It seems like a misunderstanding of what a tautology is, or at least an oversimplification of it. Based on the first sentence in the article: "In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary or unessential (and sometimes unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing twice." The other examples do, mostly, a good job illustrating that. The comic, however, doesn't use different or dissimilar words to say the same thing twice -- it uses the same words to say the same thing twice. While that might qualify it as a tautology based on a simple dictionary definition, it's not a very good example of a tautology according to this article, and does not aid in understanding the subject. 75.187.54.121 (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter if the XKCD reference is there? It is clearly popular culture, and of interest to large numbers of people? --87.86.242.99 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely the comic, while not necessarily truly tautology, is a reference to it? And xkcd is popular culture. Kommunistische Arbeiter-Internationale 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

XKCD is internet culture, not popular culture. There's a huge difference. Also, don't you XKCD fans remember this? You see how he's making fun of people who do this sort of thing? Gamer 2k4 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of XKCD, but I am nevertheless opposed to adding it here, for the following reasons:

• As the above contributor 75.187.54.121 says (what's with all this anonymous IP discussion, btw??) the XKCD cartoon is NOT an example of rhetorical tautology, which is what this article discusses. The example sentences in XKCD are vacuous rather than tautological. This is done for humorous effect.
• XKCD may be "culturally relevant", but I do not believe it adds to this article to create an exhaustive list of culturally relevant sources that happen to mention or use rhetorical tautology. If such a list is encyclopedically valid, we should create a new page: list of tautologies in popular culture. I do not currently believe that that is justified.
• The current "examples from popular culture" is already rather flabby, and contains several feeble examples that should be excised. I wonder if this section should be dropped altogether. Examples that illuminate one or more of the sections above should be moved into those sections as in-line examples. Examples that do not significantly illuminate can be dropped.

In fact, this whole article needs some substantial work. After starting out by explaining that pleonasms and tautologies are not the same thing, much of the remainder of the article is about pleonasms ("free gift", "added bonus"), and half of it seems to about what ISN'T tautology rather than what is. Once we can unprotect this page, I think it would benefit from some work. Mooncow (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• For clarification, the XKCD comic lists examples of Tautology (logic), so even if the authors above believe it is "culturally relevant" or whatever, it still wouldn't belong here. TheTrueSora 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not really, his examples have nothing to do with logic (see my analysis here).  Grue  19:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jirisan not Tautological

In the examples, the article lists Jiri-san as meaning "Jiri Mountain Mountain." This is incorrect. The "san" in use here is the polite-neutral honorific, as one would use after the name of an associate. The Japanese commonly use that term for mountains, such as Fuji-san. The correct interpretation would be "Mr. Jiri Mountain." As such, it should be removed from the list of examples. The term for mountain is, generally, yama. Izuko (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The -san suffix used for mountains is not the same as the honorific -san used for people. It is in fact the same character as yama, and means "mountain". Azamiryou (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. "Fujisan," as in the mountain, would be written '富士山,' whereas "Fuji-san," as in Mr. Fuji, could be written '富士さん,' where the '-san' suffix would be invariant and only the Chinese characters used to write 'Fuji' could change. You have misunderstood that, in Japanese, Chinese characters, the kanji, usually have two readings, the on-yomi and the kun-yomi. They mean the same thing, but are used in different contexts. Dhicks3 (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Added extra

On the examples, isnt 'added extra' a sort of tautology as well? I mean, it so seems to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.46.33 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Added extra" is more of a pleonasm than a tautology. 75.50.88.223 (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite for clarification

Can someone change this? [text added and removed]

Tautology and pleonasm are not the same thing. Pleonasm is the use of an unnecessary word that is implicit in the word it describes: A round circle. A big giant. Tautology is a repetition of the same idea in different words: A huge great big man. Say it over again once more. (Say it over. Say it again. Say it once more.) While "Say it over again once more" is a tautology, something like "Repeat it again" is a pleonasm. The crucial difference is that in "Repeat it again" is a pleonasm, because again is inherent to "repeat". Repeat and again do not simply mean the same thing, which means that this is not a tautological repetition of the same thing in a different word – just as tuna and fish are not the same thing.

[signed] darkfeline 04:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

XKCD link does not belong

Wikipedia:XKCD summarises policy nicely. Snied (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When the article has an "In popular culture" section, then it does belong. For example see the Dr. Who item, which per WP:XKCD would be prohibited by sentences 2-3:

The best way to treat "in popular culture" sections of articles is to use them to cover examples which have actually influenced the way that the public looks at the subject. Just adding in any random time that a subject is mentioned in your favourite TV show or comic leads to these sections quickly becoming unmanageable cruft which would be far better placed on TV Tropes or the like.

Therefore precedent exists in the article to include the xkcd link. -Zeus-^u|c 22:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For starters, the comic has been out for less than a week. It is not part of culture outside of xkcd's readership; "the public" doesn't care. Let's quote some more from WP:POPCULTURE:

Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject.

passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference.

Can this criteria be satisfied at all? I find it very unlikely that this comic has had any influence on studies involving tautologies at all. A reader unfamiliar with xkcd is not going to get anything out knowing that there was a comic about the subject. The only benefit here is to fans who can enjoy seeing their favourite comic mentioned in the article.

The edit history here shows that the link is controversial (you will see similar issues in the any article with subject matter that has been the focus of an xkcd comic). Creative interpretations of Wikipedia's policies are not going to result in a convincing excuse for keeping the reference or link in this article.

As an aside, the Doctor Who reference doesn't belong either, so let's work on all of the items in this article, and consider if the popular culture section is valid at all.

Finally: xkcd: In Popular Culture Snied (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good find on the link, hats off (I was thinking of that earlier :P). As far as the section, I'm OK with not having xkcd as long as we are consistent (eg no Dr. who). The only reason I got involved here was because I saw a big edit war going on, and nothing on the talk page, so I decided maybe I should get things going. -Zeus-^u|c 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. To be honest, I just saw the last IP editor adding the xkcd reference and assumed it was the beginning of the influx. I didn't realise the battle was already raging! Yes, it would be great if we could formulate some sort of agreement on the popular culture section here. I think the Hamlet quote is a good one to keep; it's the sort of thing you'd be given as an example in an English class covering tautologies in literature. Hamlet is often spoken about when tautologies are; xkcd and Doctor Who are not! Snied (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It even looks like the page was semi-protected yesterday. I feel like there are a few sections that should go - "digital download" should be up in the table of examples or not there at all. I think we should completely remove Hamilton Tiger-Cats, Richard B. Frank's history, and Dr. Who. The remaining examples are notable, and directly involved as opposed to referring in passing. -Zeus-^u|c 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although of course I'd include the xkcd link in that list should it return. Snied (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've applied the changes, and removed digital download completely as it's not a very good entry (download hasn't always been used in terms of digital data transfer). The xkcd link will undoubtedly be added again, so I don't really know how to handle that. Snied (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, should it return, XKCD would also be on that list. If someone adds it, I'm watching this page, so I may revert it, or you may also. Just keep in mind WP:3RR, and if you hit 3 reverts, then leave me a message or something and I'll be sure to take care of it. Cheers, -Zeus-^u|c 19:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Errr, no, it absolutely should not return unless it has some genuine real-world impact on popular perception of the subject. Try reading the criteria given in WP:XKCD to evaluate whether a given link has impacted popular perception of the subject. I'm actually planning on moving that checklist to WP:POPCULTURE in time, as it applies equally to all such references; they should all be evaluated on those criteria, and most of the examples previously given fail anyway. I've removed all but the Tenth Amendment reference as none of the rest justified inclusion based on real-world impact of the reference's treatment of the matter of tautology. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you blind? My reference of "should it return" was in response to Sneid's comment of "of course I'd include the xkcd link in that list should it return.". In addition, we spent time on WP:CONSENSUS as to which reference should stay and if you feel that we came to the wrong consensus then your comments here would be appreciated. I have rollbacked your edits, please discuss any further changes and WP:Assume good faith. -Zeus-^u|c 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't rattle off policy links to experienced editors; it's patronising and doesn't move conversations forward. Only two editors have commented here, and a "consensus" formed by two editors agreeing with each other in isolation is not really a rock-solid ruling for the future. Given that the project as a whole has already decided whether popular culture sections which simply list random fictional shout-outs are appropriate or not (they aren't), it doesn't seem to be particularly productive to go about agreeing to predicate the return of certain links on that decision 9as it won't be getting changed). As for the edits I made, which had nothing to do with xkcd, the only discussion I've seen of it above is Sneid's comment about the Hamlet reference being appropriate because Hamlet is a famous and well-studied work. But that says nothing of Hamlet's treatment of tautology, which is the only thing that should matter here. If there are no references to suggest that there is something in particular about the tautology in Hamlet having impacted on popular perception of the subject then so be it, but I didn't see any references. And lastly, you aren't privileged with rollback to help you edit war faster. Use it again for something other than reverting blatant vandalism and I'll ask to get it taken off of you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Two editors is more consensus than one coming in here and blasting that work away. The fact that your edits had nothing to do with xkcd is immaterial, as this discussion was not limited to that scope, as you can see above. While I probably should have used undo instead, I'm sure we're both big enough to see over petty issues like that and concentrate on the issue at hand. Do you have a source for guidelines on inclusion in popular culture sections? -Zeus-^u|c 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:POPCULTURE. I finally proposed yesterday that the criteria given in WP:XKCD be moved to that guideline, which should hopefully make this even clearer in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Multi-lingual tautology issue

Using the "Pont Champlain Bridge" as an example of a bilingual tautology is not a good idea. Being from Montreal, nobody refers to the bridge as the 'Pont Champlain Bridge'. People call it the 'Pont Champlain' or the 'Champlain Bridge'. I have never heard a combination of the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarun.chari (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarke's third law

I contend that Clarke's Third Law is a tautology: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." There is an implicit clause hidden within the use of the word "sufficiently," making it logically equivalent to the proposition "any technology which is sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic, is indistinguishable from magic." (Of course, what Clarke meant was "depending on one's level of scientific knowledge, there exist technologies which are sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic," but that's not strictly what he said. The third law confuses there exist with for all, and the latter does not necessarily imply the former.)

Is this suitable for inclusion in the Examples section of the Tautology (rhetoric) article or would it count as WP:OR? (And if it does count as original research, shouldn't you go find some reliable sources for the other entries in the Examples section?) Oktal (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not

Would you consider "whether or not" for inclusion? the "or not" is entirely redundant, as its meaning is included in the word "whether". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.22.5 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Further examples

How about "can be able to"? Tom Something (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed "It ain't over till it's over" from the Yogi Bera quotes, as though this sounds like a tautology, I don't believe it is. What it means is (essentially) don't give up until it actually is over (as opposed to giving up when it merely seems to be over). So, whilst there is certainly a repetition of words, I don't believe there is a repetition of meaning.

I also removed: "* Avenue Road is tautological since in most cases, an avenue is also a road." As it contradicts itself. It's only a tautology if an avenus is always a road, not just in most cases

Some of the others seem a bit weak too - more a random selection of vaguely tautologous phrases than a well constructed list. (a Dr Who story arc title? Que?)86.31.48.120 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)