Talk:List of oxymora

For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of oxymora

---

How did no-one see this page and not delete it before I got here? Anyway I'm glad they didn't. The page was a complete mickey-take, but now it atleast explains itself. Hope you all enjoy anyway, some funny stuff there. SimonMayer 01:47 20 Feb 2004 (GMT/UTC)

Some of the entries here definitely don't belong. There are some which fit the category of "non-oxymorons" as described in oxymoron, and there are some (such as airline food) which it would be a stretch to call an oxymoron in any sense of the term. I suggest listing the actual oxymorons and "non-oxymorons" separately to make this distinction, and completely scratching the garbage like airline food from the list. CyborgTosser 00:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or perhaps keep airline food, etc. and move it to a third category. CyborgTosser 00:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The header for this article says it all:

This is a list of oxymora, phrases commonly mistaken for oxymora, or phrases that are falsely labelled an oxymoron for comic effect.

Perhaps this could be changed to:

This is a list of oxymora (O), phrases commonly mistaken for oxymora (M), or phrases that are falsely labelled an oxymoron for comic effect (C). (The codes could also be spelt out in full.)

And then each entry could have this code appended. Without this the list leaves it up to the reader who has prossibly come to the list because they don't really understand what an oxymoron is. --CloudSurfer 22:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Oxymorons 2 Great Britain 3 Shanedidona edit 4 Lexcorp Edits 5 Revision 6 Reality television 7 Real Oxymorons

Oxymorons

It's the plural of oxymoron in English. "Oxymora" is a preposterous affectation. Wetman 09:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How the times have changed. In the 1965 edition of Fowler's modern English usage "oxymoron" is listed amongs the words that "usually (or invariably)" take "-a" in the plural along with "criterion" and "phenomenon". Today Google returns 4140 hits for "oxymora" and 65,700 for "oxymorons". So it would appear that in 40 years usage has gone from the former to the latter. As to whether you can call it a preposterous affectation, well maybe in another 20 years. --CloudSurfer 10:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interested by this I then looked at Google for "phenomenons" (47,300) and "phenomena" (4,220,000), "criterions" (34,800) and "criteria" (21,800,000). It looks like the more common the word is, the longer the original usage lasts. Which should not be a surprise. However give it time and just like the plural of "you" may some day be "youse" so might we all one day say "criterons" and "phenomenons". --CloudSurfer 10:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure we won't. What's happening with criterion and phenomenon is the opposite, that the -a forms are beginning to be used for the singular. Naturally, since reference to the plural of those concepts is more common than to the singular (not the case with oxymoron). When speakers/writers, especially younger ones, need to refer to the singular, they use the form they've seen, and so we get a criteria, a phenomena. I see that a lot in students' essays, and still correct it as an error, but maybe I won't for much longer. (This is User:Bishonen. I don't seem able to log in right now. :-() --213.238.211.112 11:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Isn't language a wonderful thing! Thanks for that insight. I guess it's like "there's" which now seems to mean "there are" and "there is". I am soon to give up on that one. Or adjectives used as adverbs. I think "whom" has all but disappeared. Perhaps there is no correct version, only one that makes sense. What do youse think? hehehehe. --CloudSurfer 23:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great Britain

Yes its a small country (compared to the US who need more space for the ubiquity of overfed fat arses) but the use of Great comes

• Firstly from the inclusion of all its constituent parts (in comparrsion to Britannia Inferior and Superior during Roman Rule)
• Secondly, and perhaps unneceassarily to distinguish ftom little Britain (Britanny)

The Great may be entirely unncessary, but it use with Britain does not make an oxymoron.

Shanedidona edit

Shanedidona you have reverted an addition of mine twice without explanation of your edit in the edit summary or the talk page, further more you have enter an addition that does not exist thus compromising the objectivity of wikipedia, This fall into the definition of vandalism. So in the future either argue your edits or refrain from editing the page. --LexCorp 05:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lexcorp Edits

How about a compromise? You will not delete Evolutionary Science and I will not delete Creation Science. Deal?--shanedidona

No there is no compromise. Creation Science falls within the definition of Oxymoron while there is no such thing as Evolutionary Science.If you are not satisfied then maybe is time for albitration. --LexCorp 16:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried Google searches on "Evolutionary Science" and "Creation Science", and indeed, the latter phrase is much more commonly used. Citations of "Evolutionary Science" were often in contexts that weren't even related to biological evolution, such as referring to some form of science (or science fiction) as "evolutionary" in the sense of being an incremental advance over earlier science / science fiction. Thus, "Evolutionary science" probably is not a sufficiently common phrase to be used here, and is not commonly regarded as an oxymoron anyway. (That's the relevant criterion; not whether something actually is an oxymoron, which can be subjective POV, but whether it's widely regarded as such.) "Creation science", on the other hand, is a common phrase which is widely regarded as oxymoronic, so it fits this page's criteria. Dtobias 17:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revision

Google Evolutionary Science and you will see this page: [1] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html)

I see a larger dispute in this edit war. You want to eliminate a remark: "evolutionary science" which conflicts with your belief(s). I am willing to live with creation science on the page as the phrase is used for "comic effect." Please don't delete "evolutionary science" as that will be vandalism.

Well, then for us the less well informed can you define "evolutionary science" as the page you point to fails to do so. I ask so we can make an informed decision as to its fitness as an oxymoron. For my part I consider it to be a meaningless neologism and as such ut does not deserve to be included.--LexCorp 01:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary Science can be considered an oxymoron.--shanedidona

Why can you expain it?--LexCorp 01:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will. Do you have AIM, MSN, or Yahoo?

No mate do it here in public so that anyone can follow the argument.--LexCorp 01:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Good point. Evolutionary science can be considered an oxymoron by some because the modern-day evolution theory is not scientific.

Well my answer is that,

• The term Evolutionary science is a meaningless neologism so it should not be included in the list just because of that.
• The majority of scientist and people do consider the theory of evolution to be scientific and thus the argument that "Evolutionary science" is a oxymoron is false. Fisrt because the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the term "Evolutionary Science" and secondly because even if the term was somewhat related to the theory (somenthing I dispute) the great majority of people do consider it scientific.

--LexCorp 01:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Evolutionary science is a POV neologism. I'm not sure who decided this was an oxymoron, but the theory of evolution and science are about as hand-in-glove as one can get. Far better to try and posit "modern convenience" or "medical doctor" as oxymorons. Denni☯ 02:02, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

My basic premise is this: evolution as a "science" fails the test. The traditional hallmarks of science have always been observation, testability, and falsification. The scientific method has always followed these rules, which are:

• Observe
• Hypothesize
• Test or collect data
• Compare data to hypothesis
• Modify hypothesis as needed

Science has always said that what you were studying had to be observable and measurable. Evolution as a science is neither observable (because it allegedly occurred millions of years in the past), nor testable because you cannot make it occur again as it supposedly happened. The mechanism by which evolution supposedly occurred, that is mutation and survival of the fittest, is considered improbable as a mechanism of evolution by the majority of evolutionists today. In addition, the fossil record which was originally proposed as the "proof" of evolution not only does not show the smooth transition of intermediate steps in the evolutionary continuum, but rather, the abrupt appearance of individual species within relatively short time spans. This fact has lead even die-hard evolutionists to admit that the fossil record is extremely lacking in evidence for evolution and caused them to develop their newer theory, which they refer to as "punctuated equilibrium." I was reading how one anthropologist referred to the lack of a fossil record for evolution as well as the lack a mechanism for evolution as being the "dirty little secret" of evolution. What this basically means is that evolutionists neither know how or why evolution occurred, or how they can make it occur again in the future. They are basically accepting the "fact" that it has occurred on faith. It seems to them that evolution has occurred. This is no different forum the creationist who looks as the world around himself and says "it seems that God has created this." Another main objection to the evolution theory is that out of the millions and millions of fossils studied, no truly transitional fossils have been found. Evolutionists try to act like there are currently species which are intermediate to one another, but no one has been able to show even one example of one species smoothly transitioning into another. If evolutionary theory were correct, every single species currently alive would be distinctly at some point in a smooth transition from another species. I have really enjoyed this discussion, but I have to move on now. Maybe will continue this again on a later date. (unsigned comment by shanedidona)

Yep, dump a bunch of nonsense then cut and run. Shanedidona conveniently forgets =his= "theory" is supported by no facts at all. He also displays a basic misunderstanding of evolution in his comments. Evolution did not happen "millions and millions of years ago". It is a process which is ongoing now. It is laughable to think that the punctuated evolution hypothesis was developed as some sort of conspiracy to pull the rug over the standard hypothesis. In fact, it is an example of science at its best, and follows exactly the schema didona sets out himself. The "no transitional forms" comment is rubbish. First, they exist. Ambulocetus natans is a fossil which is transitional between ancient land mammals and modern whales, but creationists don't want to hear about it because it disturbs their tidy argument. Second, the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is intended to explain why transitional forms are not lying about everywhere. Third, we've only been at it a little over a hundred years. A thousand years from now, the picture will likely be a lot clearer, but the creationist perspetive won't have changed a bit. I suggest shanedidona read the February 2005 edition of Discovery magazine to see how scientists have been able to replicate the process of evolution on a computer. Denni☯ 17:12, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Well I don't have the time nor the will (as I infer you are a creationist) to answer you point by point because there is plenty of info on the net about science and evolution in particular and I fear that if this is your view either you already made a choice of believe or you are confused . As a pointer I will say that the majority of your premises are false (as an example evolution is taking place as we write this). But this is neither here nor there. The fact is that the term Evolutionary science is a meaningless neologism that has nothing to do with evolution nor science. You still have not established the definition of Evolutionary science nor why it should not be considered a neologism nor its relation to the theory of evolution.So my reservations stand and as you can see I am not the only one. --LexCorp 03:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an insult to people's intelligent. Most of the entries on it are in fact jokes. Anybody who actually wanted to find genuine oxymora would have to wade through a mass of cheap gags to find them. I'm going to propose that we at least separate out the 'gag' oxymora from the real ones. Any objections? DJ Clayworth 17:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point aboiut the oxymora. The problem is that there are differing opinions on what is a joke oxymoron. (unsigned, copied from my talk page - DJC).

Good point. But I think we can insist that those that are logical contradictions are classed separately from those that are (essentially) insulting to someone. So "modest extravagance" (from Oxymoron) is clearly in a different class from "military intelligence", which requires the (POV) judgement that all military are stupid to be an oxymoron. What do you think? DJ Clayworth 20:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go for it!

• The problem with this is that it would lead to the removal of a large number of phrases which are generally considered to be oxymora (such as "military intelligence"). I would support your idea if you were able to suggest an article for these. I suspect that when people are looking for oxymora, it is most likely to be the humorous ones. Denni☯ 00:50, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

(entry below copied from my talk page DJ Clayworth)

You deleted several oxymora on 18 March. While maybe some of the ones you deleted indeed aren't oxymora, you otherwise seem to have gone through deleting stuff at random. Would you care to explain your changes? -- Smjg 16:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went through the list splitting them into separate categories. As I did so I removed a few that were clearly not oxymora, nor even perceived or joke oxymora. I can't remember which ones exactly; it was quite a complex cut-and-paste operation. It is also possible that I lost some in the move by accident, in which case I apologise. If you think I omitted an important one please re-insert.

(Incidentally, Denni, "Military intelligence" is not a real oxymoron. Think about it) DJ Clayworth 16:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If you reread my comment, you will see I used the term "generally considered to be", not "I believe it to be". What I =do= believe is that, if asked to provide an example of an oxymoron, more people would offer this one than any other. I am perfectly aware it is not a true oxymoron in the classical sense of the word. What is also true, however, is that the definition of "oxymoron" appears to be shifting away from pairs of words which are exact opposites (such as 'sweet sorrow' or 'black light') to pairs of words which are opposite in idea. As I recall, the article oxymoron also makes this hypothesis. Denni☯ 20:51, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

One must tread lightly in assigning oxymoron status to phrases. As it currently stands, "common difference" and "definite maybe" are two examples of phrases which have been shifted to 'perceived oxymora'; in my estimation, the literal meanings of the components are retained in their pairing. On the other hand 'poor little rich girl' is =not= an oxymoron; 'poor' refers not to financial status but to pity. I would posit that the majority of the terms reclassified as "perceived oxymora" are in fact genuine oxymora. Denni☯ 21:15, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

One of the functions of an encyclopedia is to provide correct facts. Many people don't understand what an oxymoron really is, and it's our job to give them correct examples. I have no problem with "military intelligence" being listed as a 'joke' oxymoron, but it is not a real one, and we should make sure that that fact is clear.

Having said that I do believe that there is a grey area between the 'perceived' oxymora and the real ones. I made a stab at separating them out, but I'm not absolutely certain that I got them all right. I'll give you my reasoning in a few cases.

One of my prime reasonings was that if there was an interpretation that really made sense then I classed it as 'perceived' "Common difference" caused me a lot of thought, but in the end end I came up with a sentence like "the families share a common difference - both parents are liberal and their children conservative". Here the difference is within the families, and the 'common' part is between them. "definite maybe" is similar. "I've definitely decided that my answer is neither yes nor no at this time" makes sense, and carries the same meaning as 'definite maybe'. "Poor little rich girl" - yes, you may be right there. I was a little hurried. Feel free to fix. DJ Clayworth 14:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"No comment" is not an oxymoron because it is not a comment about the subject you have been asked about, it's a comment about what you are saying about the subject. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reality television

Vote to move to Real oxymorons. Television is not reality. Lee M 01:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Real Oxymorons

(I moved this from my talk page - DJ Clayworth)

What isn't genuine about "awfuly good" (besides the spelling mistake) and "good grief"? Maybe "awfully" has another meaning, but "good grief"? -- Smjg 10:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

We need to be quire precise about this. Oxymoron does not just mean a contradiction. The article Oxymoron explains. I removed "awfully good" and "good grief" from genuine oxymora to perceived. This is because while they sound like a contradiction they are not. Awfully can mean 'very badly' but in modern usage it can also mean just 'very'. That's the sense it is being used in when it's in awfully good. As for 'good grief': firstly grief can in fact be good; it can be therapeutic, liberating and healthy. People not given a chance to grieve can suffer psychological problems. But secondly and more importantly 'good grief' is just an expression. It sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about "awfully good". But as for "good grief", you don't offer any real explanation. Firstly, any conception that an inherent contradiction has an element of sense in it doesn't stop it from being an inherent contradiction. Many oxymora have inherent contradictions, and yet they make sense by some interpretation. Without them, this list would be practically empty. Secondly, the essence of an oxymoron is that the component words are contradictory - the fact of something being "just an expression" doesn't alter this at all. Sorry, but you haven't convinced me. Indeed, your statements could be used to claim almost any oxymoron isn't really so. -- Smjg 15:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Good grief', when it is usually used, just means 'oh dear'. Neither of the words men what they normally mean. (Though it was originally referring to Jesus' death, I think). I don't think it's a contradiction any more than 'Holy cow' is a religious statement. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, what meanings are the individual words "good" and "grief" put to in the phrase? -- Smjg 12:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They don't mean anything. That's what I meant. As an expression they mean "oh dear" which doesn't carry any sense of contradiction. DJ Clayworth 13:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"completely destroyed" is absolutely not an oxymoron. It's not even a contradiction.If it's anything it's a tautology. 'completely' and 'destroyed' mean similar things not opposite things.

I know of no similar meanings that these two words have, and a quick search on OneLook reveals nothing to this effect. So what are you talking about? -- Smjg 09:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also 'countless numbers' is not a contradiction. There are an infinite (i.e. countless) number of numbers, so it's easy to have a countless number of them. DJ Clayworth 13:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember being taught that infinity is not a number. -- Smjg 09:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)