Talk:Oxymoron

Disambiguating wikilinks

In relation to recent edits, I open, with some trepidation and a sense of fatigue, a discussion on a link to a disambiguation (DAB) page (self-contradiction).

To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect Springfield (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "Springfield"

— from WP:HOWTODAB, at WP:DAB

In an effort to be concise, I will briefly note the relevant WP guidance:

1. Links to DAB pages are discouraged: Template:Dablinks/FAQ
2. Where used, they are required to use the format: [[Page title (disambiguation)]]. I.e. Such links must go through a redirect that explicitly includes "(disambiguation)" [which is not visibly rendered]. See WP:INTDAB

In addition:

1. Kent Dominic's first reversion was, I think, based on a misunderstanding of what was meant by disambiguation in the edit summary. In WP terms, it's merely resolving a link to a DAB page. Nevertheless, I was content to comply with the editor's expressed preference
2. Kent Dominic's second reversion is much more difficult to understand, in any kind of "assume good faith" way. My disambiguation made no material difference in any way to where the link pointed, nor to the appearance of the rendered page. What could a good faith reason be for that reversion?
3. As a purely administrative (or, let's say, "behind-the-scenes") change, there is little, if any, need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for an edit of this type, particularly in the absence of any substantive objection - at least as I understand policy
   1. This is especially so, as the link to the DAB page is not of longstanding. The link in question pointed, until recently, to an article page, auto-antonym, through a re-direct. The redirect, with the title of "self-contradiction", was converted to a DAB page on 27 November 2021, a mere 14 days before my disambiguation. Such a situation is specifically covered at WP:FIXDABLINKS

I hope this explains the change clearly. If any editor still seriously feels the need to keep the link as [[self-contradiction]] rather than [[self-contradiction (disambiguation)|]], I would ask that a WP:RFC "request for comment" or WP:3O (third opinion) is sought first, before any further action.

[Did not do so well in attempt to be concise <sigh>, but I hope I have at least been comprehensive, so obviating the need to revisit this relatively minor matter!] Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

AukusRuckus, you seem to be a bit discombobulated here and you're definitely mistaken about construing any misunderstanding on my part. No worries, though. Here's the skinny:

1. Whatever your intention, your first edit changed "self-contradiction" to "self-contradiction." The change in links created a substantial change in meaning. What was there before your edit is what prior editors and I agreed was intended; thus my reversion.
2. Your second edit (essentially the same as the first) undoing my reversion was ill-advised because (a) it similarly mucked up the meaning and (b) it contravened the consensus. With a veteran editor I'd have assumed he or she was instigating an edit war. In your case, however, I gave you the benefit of attempting a good faith effort to do something that not only contravened the sense of the lead sentence but also contravened the consensus and damaged the integrity of the article.
3. There's always a need to obtain consensus in case of conflict. In this instance, your "self-contradiction" edit conflicted with what prior editors and I agreed. In short, my reversions indicated that you were outnumbered and therefore that you had to (a) automatically yield; (b) see if the conflicting editor might concede your point, (c) start a discussion to see if a majority of editors adopt your POV, or otherwise (d) risk being administratively sanctioned for edit warring upon failing to yield.
4. Your third and most recent edit (i.e.[ [ self-contradiction (disambiguation)|self-contradiction] ]) is perhaps what you intended in the first place. Whether that link directs (or directed) to a DAB page or to auto-antonym is a moot point. Either link fairly represents what's intended by "self-contradiction" in the oxymoron article's lead. Personally, however, I think the article, as is - with the atypical link to a DAB page - is better than changing the lead to, say, "... that creates an ostensible auto-antonym, formal fallacy, paradox, or self-refuting idea." All of that verbiage is exactly what the oxymoron article currently says, via concision, per the self-contradiction the link.
5. Perhaps needless to reiterate, "self-contradiction links to an article that relates to oxymoron in only a teensie-weensie itty bitty way that was neither vetted nor even discussed by prior editors.
6. There's a valid argument to be made that the lead should be changed to "... that creates an ostensible auto-antonym" if that's what the original editor(s) agreed. Yet, there's no evidence of that in simply looking at the text before your first edit since "self-contradiction" wasn't encoded as [ [auto-antonym|self-contradiction] ]. My hunch is that someone linked the best sense available for "self-contradiction" at the time. IMHO, the polysemic intent of "self-contradiction" is best served by linking the DAB page.

Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, dear! As mentioned (I fondly thought, cleary), above, I understood and concurred with your first correction. Why keep arguing the toss over that, when I had conceded your point?

DABs still need to be DABbed though! One would perhaps have some expectation that a veteran editor would lend a hand in this direction...

Your point at no. 2 is factually incorrect, and is the nub of the entire misunderstanding. (Notwithsatnding your wish to relitigate the entire sequence, even the points already resolved.) To wit, your second reversion reverted what is there now: My "second edit", the "ill-advised" one, was, indeed, "[[self-contradiction (disambiguation)|self-contradiction]]", in the exact same form as it now stands. You reverted this. If you cannot believe it is so, feel free to actually look at the diff here.

My other points were in no way intended to argue that it should return to the state of my first edit - as you seem to believe I am contending- but merely hoping to explain how I do not believe reversion was warranted, afterwards, on the later occasion, nor that your appeal to policy was valid. I made the point that it was linked to auto-antonym not to suggest it go there, but only to illustrate that the then-current link to a DAB was very recent. An appeal to WP:Consensus may have been relevant if I insisted on pointing the link elsewhere, but not for an edit which is clearly enacting WP:Policy. It was certainly unneeded, as I always discuss substantive changes and prefer to work collaboratively. A point I had believed I made obvious with my second edit, which took your view to heart.

This exchange, and our earlier one, feels - unnecessarily - combative. There is really no need for the heavy-handedness: I am usually quite mild and reasonable; I admitted my error, and chose a different path. You then made an error, which until now, you have failed to recognise or concede. In good faith, I will assume you genuinely overlooked the content of my "ill-advised" second edit when making your second reversion, and will now actually look at the objective record of what you reverted, as a courtesy to a fellow editor. And please, please, please try to understand: I am not now arguing, nor have I ever, that the link should point elsewhere, over and above fixing the DAB link, so if you do reply, Kent Dominic, please do not go over all of your excellent reasons why the link should point to the DAB page. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Redirects (point six above)

Regarding this from Kent Dominic: "Yet, there's no evidence of that in simply looking at the text before your first edit since "self-contradiction" wasn't encoded as [[auto-antonym|self-contradiction]]" There is no evidence of that "in simply looking", because that is not how it was done, as I explained! It was achieved "through a re-direct." - quoting 3.1 above.

I.e., the (now) DAB page was edited, and changed from an automatic re-direction targeting a named article (auto-antonym), to a DAB page. I provided the diff so that you could see ... It pointed to auto-antonym until 27 November 2021. You can easily establish this for yourself by opening an earlier version of the page and clicking on the link there. Please try to understand; how else can I explain it? Would WP:REDIRECT succeed where I have failed? AukusRuckus (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, the point of contention is moot since your most recent edit to the article suffices. Salient point: "self-contradiction" was well-intended but wrong; "[[self-contradiction]]" is right regardless of how it's encoded and where it links or redirects. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It is neither a) "salient", nor b) correct : a) No-one ever tried to keep or return the link to "self-[[contradiction]]", no-one ever disputed your reversion of it; b) Linking as [[Self-contradiction]] contravenes MOS:DAB WP policy. It places the page into a maintenance category for correction. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be "moot", if that were the point of contention. It is not, as you must surely be aware. You refer, time after time, to my "most recent edit" as being acceptable, while studiously avoiding the whole point of contention: WHY did you revert my second edit? (An edit which was exactly the same as my "most recent edit", which you accept?) The point (points?) of contention is, along with your refusal to acknowledge the mistaken second reversion, you make unevidenced assertions about my actions, and are wholly unresponsive to the points I make (rather than the ones that you imagine I proffer).

It would also be a non-issue if we were only discussing this one tiny, very minor, edit. That is not what is occurring here, though. I do not appreciate your continued deprecation of my actions, based on a real or feigned misunderstanding of the pertinent WP policy, of the sequence of events, and of what I am trying to say in discussion with you. You continue to misrepresent my actions, by insisting that my second edit repeated my first. I will not allow that to go unchallenged: Apart from anything else, it is demonstrably false. Rather heavy-handed remarks, darkly referring to "edit-warring" and hinting at "reporting", were very readily resorted to [albeit backtracked with "In your case". (... !)] So, despite this being a disproportionate effort and a complete waste of time, since we just keep talking across each other, I feel it incumbent upon me to persist, and also justified, in pointing out the misconceptions implicit in the above:

1. Linking "[[self-contradiction]]" without "(disambiguation)" is not correct as it violates WP:INTDAB. It is incorrect, no matter how much you repeat that it is not (or, alternatively, ignore it). The change of the target described above is what caused the page to be listed in "Category: Pages with links needing disambiguation". If it had not been on the maintenance list, it would never have come to any disambiguator's attention
2. Your second reversion, after I took your advice, was an illegitimate reversion of a needed correction, a point I would have let go if you did not keep simply - falsely - insisting your second reversion was warranted, and imply that I, either ignorantly or disruptively, repeated the first edit over your objections. (It was also the catalyst for this pointless back-and-forth, as if you had not performed the second, unwarranted reversion, no further need for discussion would have arisen. I note you do not address the specific point of your second reversion in any of your remarks, but continue to fall back to your first reversion.)
3. Please stop referring to my first edit. It is the epitome of "flogging a dead horse", since I conceded the point immediately following your first reversion and edit summary remarks. Seriously, what does it have to do with anything since that point? How can it be salient? Because it takes the discussion back to the point where you last stood on firm ground? I mean to say, who has disputed or queried this?

I understand you are a valued editor of longstanding, highly knowledgeable, and expert in many fields. While I am a relative novice, I do have an excellent grasp of disambiguation on WP pages. (And other WP policies, too, such as WP:OR, btw, which is always strictly disallowed and inappropriate on WP, contrary to your kindly meant, but erroneous, advice on my Talk page.) I try to work collaboratively, make an effort to understand what other users are attempting to communicate, and believe that others may also have valid points of view. I do not take kindly to attempts to cow or talk me to a standstill. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

AukusRuckus: WHY did you revert my second edit:

Kent: Short answer: It doesn't matter since we're both satisfied with what's there now. Long answer: I hadn't actually read the second edit until moments ago. I'd reverted it upon seeing the Wiki reversion notice re my reversion of your first edit. Clicking the reversion notice links to the affected edits. I read no further than "Undid revision 1059655478 by Kent Dominic (talk)..." in your edit summary. Never saw the " Disambiguated self-contradiction → intentional link to DAB page" part nor did I read that second edit of yours itself. Stuff happens. Recommendation: When editing, DON'T click the "undo" tab when you're intending a subsequent edit that differs from the first. Instead, merely edit what's there. Otherwise, editors - incl. yours truly, who is typically methodical and considerate when it comes to his own edits as well as the edits of others - will likely get a little testy. And I really do mean it when I say all of this talk page stuff is moot. Other editors who've read it are asking, "What does any of this have to do with oxymoron?" Sorry, folks. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Jello Biafra

This refers to the stagename of the former main vocalist of the Dead Kennedys. (The bulk of this text also appears on the Talk page of this recording artist.) Given that Jello (what in the UK would be called jelly) is an effete dessert food, typically eaten at children's parties; and Biafra, which owing to its being blockaded by Nigeria became in the 1970s almost a by-word for starvation: might not Jello Biafra be in effect an oxymoron? Uniting two mutually opposite values (abundance and famine) into a single, absurd but at the same time poetic protest. Nuttyskin (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"Act naturally"

Why is this listed as a comical oxymoron? The essence of comical oxymora, as described in the section, is that a judgement/stereotype is being made on one of the constituents of the phrase (claiming that all policitians are dishonest, that Microsoft software never works, etc.), and the other constituent contradicts this. So the phrase is not literally oxymoronic, but it's been humorously claimed to be.

On the other hand, the claimed oxymoronicity of "act naturally" is based on definitions of words. The claim is that "naturally" is contradictory with the meaning of the word "act", not any opinion, judgement or stereotype of acting.

OK, so maybe such oxymora may be humorous in that they play on multiple meanings/interpretations of a word or that they can be used for humorous effect. But that isn't what the bulk of the section is talking about. I say we should carefully distinguish between

• literal oxymora, whose oxymoronicity is based on actual meanings of words, whether a word has multiple meanings or not
• joke/opinion oxymora, whose oxymoronicity is based on opinions, judgements or stereotypes

— Smjg (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that define and "carefully distinguish" between these two alleged classes, then that would be reasonable, but we're not likely to be in a position, per WP:NOR policy, to just invent such a distinction ourselves. Going over the article as it stands now, our sources used so far describe more than two classes, and we're addressing all of them in considerable detail. One of these classes, a very general/broad one, is comical or opinion oxymorons, which have their own section. Why "act naturally" is in that section is because the sources cited for that and the other examples suggest it is this type of oxymoron. [Edit: Actually, that one didn't have a source, so I don't object to it being removed as an example.] They're comedic for muliple reasons, word-play about definitions (equivocation) being a common form. "Act naturally" is in the same class as "military intelligence" and "Microsoft Works", where a different sense of a word than the one intended by the coiners of the term is what generates the humor ('military information-gathering' versus 'military smarts'; 'Microsoft's comprehensive package, "the works"' vs. 'Microsoft functions properly'). In "act naturally" the equivocation is double; "act" is being humorously reinterpreted in the sense of 'put on a fictive persona; engage in the pastime or vocation of acting', when the originally intended meaning was 'behave; present as'; and "naturally" is jokingly taken mean 'in accordance with one's nature; congruent with one's in-born tendencies or personality', when the original implied something more like 'normally, casually'. But unless some sources get into disinctions as narrow as you'd like, it's not our WP-editor job to invent them by ourselves on a talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 16:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: "Why 'act naturally' is in that section is because the sources cited for that and the other examples suggest it is this type of oxymoron."

Which particular sources are you referring to here? And how do these particular sources define the term "comical oxymoron" or "opinion oxymoron" or whichever term they use? I can't see it in any of the sources cited in the section, or at least the portions thereof that are freely available online. In any case, it isn't research, let alone OR, to not conflate two distinct concepts. As such, we can avoid the issue simply by not mentioning "act naturally" in the section at all, and indeed somebody has taken the liberty to do this.

It's true that the oxymoronicity of "Microsoft Works" relies on a pun on "works", but so what? It also relies on a judgement of Microsoft, and that is the reason it meets the definition of a comical/opinion oxymoron as given here. — Smjg (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Relation cure

The theory of binary relations has been able to defuse a pair of oxymorons that arise in the calculus of functions. A source set A and a target set B are linked by a relation R, designated by certain $xRy,\quad x\in A,\quad y\in B.$ The source set A contains the domain of R which is $\{x:\exists y\in B\ \land \ xRy\}.$ When the domain is all of A, then it is a total relation.

A relation R is called univalent when $xRy\ \land \ xRz\implies y=z.$ The algebraic logic of relations, begun in the 19th century, has been widely disseminated in the textbooks of Gunther Schmidt. In these books a function is a total, univalent relation. The mathematical oxymorons are partial function, contradicting totality, and multivalued function, contradicting univalence. Usage of the oxymorons can be replaced with better described binary relations. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Queers for Palestine

I'm going to go ahead and remove the section about the "Queers for Palestine" slogan. Queer and Palestine are not inherently contradictory terms, in fact there are queer Palestinians. I feel that keeping it as an example confuses the reader as it doesn't match any definition or example in the article.

Note: @124.150.67.252, this is the second article I've found where you needlessly insert content about the Israel-Palestine conflict into unrelated articles based on loose associations. Please stop doing this, as it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Much appreciated, friend! -Avery Trashmouth 22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)