Talk:Oxymoron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

This figure is in truth a wise saying that seems foolish.

Bullinger point out and quite accuratly that 0xymoron is the greek oxus which is sharp, pointed, and moros dull foolish. This figure is in truth a wise saying that seems foolish.

Bullinger says this is a figure, in which what is said at first sight appears to be foolish, yet when we come to consider it, we find it exceedingly wise.

It is a smart saying, which unites words whose literal meanings appear to be incongruous, if not contradictory; but they are so cleverly and wisely joined together as to enhance the real sense of the words. The Latins called it ACUTIFATUUM (a-cu’-ti-fat’-u-um), from acutus, sharp or pointed (English, acute) and fatuus, foolish, fatuous, or simple.

From Bullingers work good examples are;--

Cicero says to Catiline:--

“Thy country, silent, thus address thee.”

Milton shows to Despair “In the lowest depth a lower depth.”

Examples in common use: e.g., “cruel kindness”; “featina lenta” (hasten slowly) ; “cruel love” ; “powerful weak” “cruel easy.” etc., etc.

See E.W. Bullinger, figures of speech used in the Bible, Messrs. Eyre & Spottiswood, London; Baker Book House Company.

I would add it is not a simple contradiction. If the phrase does not include a true wise ness of the saying cloaked in foolishness it is not an oxymoron.

Also examples such as “Microsoft works” and “corporate ethics” are the figure bigotry and prejudice hiding in a cloak of literature.

J. Rodney McBain

[edit] Catholic

I added the "Roman Catholic Church," because literally it is a contradiction in term, albeit obscure and largely out of use. Other "Catholic" groups are equally valid, like the Liberal Catholic Church and Independent Catholic Churches are. But these are much less well known, and either way, anything that restricts a catholic enitity is denying just that.

I removed "jumbo shrimp" and the comments someone added because this comes down to a US vs British usage dispute. A scan of american dictionaries indicates that they deem "Shrimp" meaning "small" to be informal. A scan of British disctionaries indicates that "shrimp" meaning small is the primary usage, and the usage as a crustacean is a secondary one. Hence it IS an oxymoron to half the English speaking world, and is perfectly sensible to the other half. Rather than get into a protracted and longwinded explanation of trans-atlantic/pacific English issues, it was easier to simply remove it, as losing it doesn't hurt the article at all.

well, *I* think of 'jumbo shrimp' as faintly humorous, and I'm an American. --MichaelTinkler

(I'm American). Whenever someone tells me they're a student teacher, I ask them if they like jumbo shrimp or if they used to work for military intelligence. --justfred

Are you sure this article isn't just a long stub? --The Epopt, defender of large crustaceans

If you don't like the article, rewrite your own damn version, that's what the 'pedia is for. Quit whining about it here. - MMGB

Er, I think you'll find a long stub is an oxymoronic joke, Manning... sjc

[edit] Plural form

Yeah, possibly, but I get so steamed when people write "this article is no good" comments in Talk sections, I'd rather they either improve it, give suggestions for improving it or shut the hell up. And I'm having a bad-sense-of-humour day, so maybe I'm being a weeny bit too terse. And another things, I really hate it when people put in opinions as facts. The plural of "oxymoron" is "oxymora". I checked 6 different dictionaries. Just because something thinks it should be "oxymorons" doesn't make it so. (later - OK, 1 dictionary gives "oxymorons" as an alternate.. The others (OED. Websters etc) only give oxymora)- MMGB

Where in the OED did you find oxymora? Has it been added in the new electronic edition? It's not in the old (20th century) printed edition at all. Dandrake 08:10, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I find American Heritage to be usually the best dictionary made for matters of usage, second only to OED. "Webster's" doesn't specify any particular dictionary because it isn't a trademark, but the one's made by Merriam-Webster company tend to be wimpily descriptivist. As you point out, though, even AH prefers the Latin plural. --LDC (For the record, I think it's actually the Greek plural, since Latin words don't do that.)

The plural which people used in the article is oxymorons, which is why I tidied it up to reflect reality. I agree that the plural of oxymorons is oxymora. But 99 times out of a hundred if you ever see the plural written down it will be written oxymorons by people otherwise intelligent enough to get their heads around the concept. sjc

Thank you, sjc, for getting my joke. Perhaps I need to use a less subtle sledgehammer.... And, Manning, please get your sense of humor repaired. I'm by no means the most prolific encyclopedist here, but I have written some fairly hefty articles and contributed significantly to others. I think I've earned the right to comment, even when I fail to be humorous. --The Epopt

Epopt - unconditional apology offered. Frankly, there are days when you just shouldn't log on - yesterday was one of them. Regards - MMGB

  • Days when you shouldn't log on to Wikipedia? Now that's and oxymoron. (this was added later, so I put it in as a bullet) HereToHelp

Wow! You are obviously a gentleman as well as a scholar, Manning -- accepted without reservation. Don't give up on proper plurals, though! (I would humorously suggest "oxymononi" if I weren't afraid that sooner or later a humor-impared Mormon would see it and take offence. So I won't.) --The Epopt

"Oxymorons" isn't incorrect, according to both Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary. I'm trying to think of any oxymoronic way of saying "less preferred" instead of "incorrectly."

According to [1]:
"When you have more than one oxymoron, what do you call them? The typical answer, of course, is oxymorons. But, technically, that would be wrong. The correct plural form of the word is oxymora. Over the years, however, so many people have been saying oxymorons that--even though technically incorrect--the term is so widespread that it's now considered an acceptable usage by most language scholars. If you want to be precise, oxymora is the word to use." -Wins oddf 03:25, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fowler, writing 75 years ago and in a much more pedantic time, gives oxymorons as the first plural and oxymora as the second. In his article on the ending -ON, he notes that for some words with that ending, phenomenon, criterion, oxymoron, and several obscure terms, "some may and often do" form the plural in -a, while many other words similarly formed, skeleton, electron, lexicon are never pluralized thus. It seems a coin toss to me, but actually, until I looked it up, I had never heard the -a plural and oxymora reads pretty pedantic to me. Ortolan88

You're not the only one. A pedant so well educated that he doesn't need to look in the OED recently zapped "oxymorons" with the comment that that is not a word. Actually, it's the only plural for oxymoron that I found in the OED, appearing in a citation fron 1677. Let me emphasize that "oxymora" has no later citation, nor any at all. "Teeth" and "aquaria" appear explicitly as plurals in OED entries because they are not formed by regular English rules; "oxymora" does not. Of course, I'd never say that oxymora isn't a word, because that's a generally dopey thing to say; but in the 20th century it was very far from being the recognized plural.

Actually, from the nearly All-American cast of dictionary citations above, I wonder if "oxymora" is another bit of American—what shall we call it? defensive pedantry? overcompensating pedantry?—rather like N. Webster's notion that "kilometer" should be stressed on the antepenultimate syllable, or the antepenult. (My country: May she always be right, but—when she isn't we'll set her straight.)Dandrake 08:10, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

I really think the article should record that the plural oxymorons is in use as well as oxymora. It's not a neologism and it doesn't undermine any other word. It's been in long use by people who use words and understand them, and is in widespread use. It's normal now even formally to allow standard English plurals as well as classical plurals with words of classical origin, where it comes more easily to the user. I'm not going to alter it though because I didn't write the article and I can see there's been a lot of discussion. Bypasser Dec 2005.


[edit] language mutation

It looks like the forces of language mutation are continuing their inexorable progress. When I added a link here from my new article, Organic salt (in which I contribute to this mutation), I reviewed Merriam-Webster Online and American Heritage (2000, via Bartleby.com) and found that neither gave a clear preference for the original meaning of intentional absurdity. MWO doesn't even suggest it. American Heritage (also my favorite printed dictionary) calls it "a rhetorical figure", but a recursive lookup of rhetorical and rhetoric indicates a preference for rhetoric as a general style of speech and writing, with the "bombastic", "pretentious", "vacuous", "insincere", etc., meanings being pushed to second or third place. It might have helped to have a Greek word or neologism that provided the more general meaning, rather than relying on the cumbersome, less stylish "contradiction in terms". -- Jeff Q 08:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Is Rush Limbaugh an oxy-moron? (anon)

[edit] what's the opposite of an oxymoron?

in other words, something that has a qualifier that is already implied by the "something". Ok i don't know how to explain this. i guess "redundancy" or "pleonasm" is the closest idea. - Omegatron 15:17, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

My guess: Tautology. (anon)

Do you mean something like "wise scholar", because a scholar is wise by nature? I get what you mean...but I have no idea what the term is. HereToHelp 20:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Tautology is correct.--Holland Nomen Nescio 08:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The poem is misplaced

It is right after the examples of alternate usage and before comment on alternate usage, while it is an example of regular usage. I'm gonna move it if that is alright with everyone. Blueaster 05:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name Orgins

I always thought that the term arose because an ox was smart, and never a moron. So a moronic ox was an oxymoron. Maybe I'm wrong and this is a coincidence, maybe they're both right, or maybe something else. But if there's any truth to what I'm saying, shouldn't it be put in the article? HereToHelp 20:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

omg this is kewl

[edit] Facts altered

Certain facts in this article seem to have been altered. Can someone please confirm that the altered versions are correct. If not, please revert the changes.
—gorgan_almighty 14:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

The concept "oxymoron" and the example from Romeo and Julia is explicitly referenced in the movie "Renaissance Man" featuring Danny DeVito ( [2] ) - martix

[edit] Question

Does this...

Oxymora can be used as humor, political statements, sarcasm, irony, or ridicule. Since "perception is in the eye of the beholder," oxymora are expressed from the point of view of the ones using and contributing them, and those on the "other side of the fence" may find them objectionable, which may even be the whole point.

...give anyone free-license to use this page to ridicule others and push propaganda with oxymora? I have added my own here as a response to what an anti-chiropractic user has put here. Is that all right? Levine2112 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiteful and spam additions

To deliberately edit an article for the sake of provoking another editor is very dubious behavior. When those edits don't really add anything useful, but are purely added as political statements, then its called spamming and vandalism of the article. Those actions were purely POV political statements (obviously oxymora can be POV, and are thus permissable). If you had thought them out and chosen them more carefully, you might at another time added some of them as useful additions.
Unlike your purely spiteful and spam additions (referenced below), I found all of mine from actual usage. I have collected many of them over a long time, and I also searched for and found some of them on websites and discussion groups. Since I frequent anti-quackery, scientific, and medical groups and lists, those are the types one finds there. The majority scientific (and thus skeptical) viewpoints regarding chiropractic, sCAM (so-Called "Alternative" Medicine), and quackery are revealed in the types of oxymora they use. As such they are perfect examples of what that "side of the fence" thinks about those on the "other side."
Therefore my additions were not purely political statements, but were meant as contributions of examples of that type of oxymora. I also added other - totally unrelated - types.
Here are your purely spiteful and spam additions: first ones, second set.
Here is your motivation, and thus admission of guilt: "two can play at that game, Fyslee", found here.
Here are more of your additions.
I find your choices of spam additions to be quite insightful into your thinking processes:
  • credible quackwatch -- You don't think Quackwatch is credible, but have not provided evidence for your case. Only the fringe (chiropractic and quacks) share your opinion.
  • fair chiropractic skepticism -- You don't think chiropractic deserves any skepticism, in spite of its position as flagship of the sCAM fleet, where outright quackery is the norm, and, as you demonstrate, skepticism and critical thinking are unwelcome.
  • fair skeptic -- You don't think skeptics can be fair, and still be skeptical.
  • great dane -- I don't know what you have against Danes. I'm an American living in Denmark, but actually come from Loma Linda, which isn't far from where you live, which is a nice area. You're lucky!
  • honest chiropractic skeptic -- You don't believe that skeptics of chiropractic can be honest when criticizing and exposing the quackery within the profession. Plenty of chiropractors would vigorously disagree with you, including a chiropractic professor and the profession's foremost historian, Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD [3] He sums up the problems quite well in a Letter to the Editor from 1991, entitled "Quackery in Chiropractic:", as well as here, where he uses stronger denunciations of chiropractic than I usually indulge in.
  • honest quackbuster -- So exposing quackery isn't an honest enterprise? What about quackery do you consider honest? Why do you continually defend it? You can't have it both ways! (It would appear that you have inspired another oxymoron - honest quack ! Aren't you proud of yourself?!?
  • honest quackwatch -- You don't think Quackwatch is honest, but have not provided evidence for your case. Only the fringe (chiropractic and quacks) share your opinion.
  • medical ethics -- While certainly some practitioners in the medical system can be unethical, and thus guilty of the quackery that you seem to love, such things are the exception, unlike the norm in alternative medicine, where there are no ethical standards, no quality research, no dropping of disproven and dangerous methods, no controls, no sanctions, no reporting of side effects, no disapproval of unethical advertising, etc.
  • rational skepticism -- So now skepticism is irrational? You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one, since skepticism is more or less defined by its use of critical thinking, examination of claims, not believing exceptional claims without good evidence, etc. Now just who is being irrational here? I think the answer is self-evident.
If you have any credibility left at all, you'll go back and remove most of those spam additions. -- Fyslee 09:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
After you remove yours which are guilty of everything you have so meticulously listed above. If you'd just take a moment to step back (take a deep breath) and see the hypocrisy of everything you've written above. When you've done that, you may remove all of my additions while you remove yours. Thank you. Levine2112 17:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try and be civil. Maybe Levine2112 can explain why the above mentioned examples are correct and should be included. Personally, I think they are ludicrous, but I am always willing to listen to valid arguments. Please, state your case.

Here's my case. I don't believe that my entries are any more ludicrous than the one's that Fyslee has added which include:
chiropractic ethics
chiropractic medicine
chiropractic profession
scientific chiropractic
scientific vertebral subluxation
Basically these were added to promote his anti-chiropractic agenda and to provoke pro-chiropractic users as myself (Fyslee is the webmaster/moderator of several anti-chiropratic sites and has consistently added attacks to the chiropractic article - not that this is wrong, I'm just making you aware of his agenda). But as his addition to this article states: Oxymora can be used as humor, political statements, sarcasm, irony, or ridicule. Since "perception is in the eye of the beholder," oxymora are expressed from the point of view of the ones using and contributing them, and those on the "other side of the fence" may find them objectionable, which may even be the whole point.
The oxymora that I have presented here are purely political statements. They are also humorous and ironic in the eye of this beholder (me). Clearly, Fyslee finds them objectionable as he is on the other side of the fence. But know that I find his additions equally objectionable. However, if the rules of this article are going to apply to his versions of oxymora, then they must apply to mine.
That being said, I would be more than satisfied to have my additions deleted if Fyslee agrees to have his removed. I offer this in the interest of civility. I am not trying to censor anyone's opinions. I am not criticizing anyone's edits or ideas of what constitutes a legitimate oxymoron. I am only trying to keep this fair. If someone is going to use this page as a platform for no other reason than to insult a belief that I hold dear, then (if Wikipedia is truly democratic) I should be able to do the same in response. Anything else would be hypocrisy. Right? But as I said, I would be more than willing to have both of our entries stricken from this article in the interest of maintaining civility. Levine2112 09:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
My response to Levine2112's additions focused solely on his motivation for doing so, not whether our additions were ludicrous in each other's eyes or not. Of course they were! No objection there, and therefore they are - in principle - allowable. I only objected to his quickly trumped up additions, because they were added by his own admission as "purely political statements" to spite me.
They weren't even well thought out:
"If you had thought them out and chosen them more carefully, you might at another time added some of them as useful additions."
Mine, by contrast, were from other sources collected over a long period of time and in use by groups of people (mostly scientists, doctors, consumer protection advocates, and even chiropractors). They represent those viewpoints, and are not originated by myself. Some of the strongest chiropractic ones originated from chiropractors themselves. They do have humor and self-irony, unlike some of their followers....;-)
I'm willing to remove the following more rarely used ones (most of my contributions had nothing to do with chiropractic):
  • chiropractic ethics -- Even though the chiropractic profession is notorious for violations of medical and legal ethics on many levels.
  • chiropractic medicine -- Even though most chiropractors do all they can to distance themselves from the term "medicine" and the medical profession.
  • chiropractic profession -- Even though BJ Palmer ran it like a business. (quotes easily provided.)
  • scientific chiropractic -- In spite of a long history of anti-scientific attitudes and statements by chiropractic leaders, up until this day.
While these deletions will leave the list poorer, and even contribute to a whitewashing of chiropractic, I hope that is satisfactory.
I trust that Levine2112 will reciprocate. -- Fyslee 21:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I reciprocated. What was your motivation in adding the ones that you added? They were not very good example of oxymora as they all need explaining to understand them. And even then, they still don't make much sense. I believe that you added them to push your anti-chiropractic agenda; not to provide valuable examples of oxymora. They weren't all that clever, which I think is a quality of a good example of oxymora. There are still others that you left behind that I believe should also be expunged including "evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine". That's way to long to be a good example of oxymora. It's not all that clever, and I don't think the average person would get your point. "Military Intelligence" - now that's clever. "Jumbo Shrimp" - that's funny - everyone understands that. Those are good examples. "Objectively measuring quackery"? What the heck is that? "Homeopathic active ingredients"? Huh? "Microsoft Works" - hilarious! "Civil War" - perfect! For the the sake of oxymora researchers who are coming to Wikipedia to learn about oxymora, I would think that this article should present them with the best examples of the clearest cases of oxymora. Levine2112 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I assume a compromise has been reached? Or do I speak too soon?--Holland Nomen Nescio 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Just tired of getting nowhere in these discussions. If you check out the ones at Talk:Chiropractic, you'll see what I mean. -- Fyslee 13:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the interest of compromise I have previously removed all of my edits that had to do with quackery and quackbusting. Though Fyslee has removed some of his anti-chiropractic, pro-quackbuster oxymora, he's left several behind (scientific vertebral subluxation, evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine, homeopathic active ingredients, objectively measuring quackery). I believe he's even gone back and added one since we reached this supposed accord. The thing is, his additions don't necessarily offend me as a chiropractic advocate; rather, they offend me as a writer. They are poor examples of oxymora. Someone coming here for good examples of oxymora shouldn't be presented with "objectively measuring quackery" or "evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine". At the same time, I believe Fyslee was also responsible for adding "placebo effect". That's great! That's clever! That's a good solid example of an oxymorn. Everyone has heard that term used and might never have considered its oxymoronic quality. I have no problem with that one. I think the article is made stronger due with its inclusion here. But the other ones that he added were clearly soapboxing for his anti-chiropractic, anti-alternative medicne agenda. They are poor examples of oxymora and the article is made weaker by their presence.
Fyslee claims that he's "just tired of getting nowhere in these discussions". Well, when you are unwilling to compromise (or even agree to a compromise and then break it), I guess that would be considered getting nowhere. My question for him is: What would he consider getting somewhere in these discussions? I think the answer would be for him to get his way all the time. Levine2112 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You guys absolutely have to keep your chiropractic debate off of this page. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. TomTheHand 18:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Levine2112 18:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me. -- Fyslee 20:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor examples

I removed some examples of oxymorons that I considered poor, and Fyslee characterized my changes in the edit comment as "vandalism", and left the following message on my Talk page:

Your wrote [in the edit summary]:
An oxymoron must be *internally* contradictory; removing tendentious examples
Maybe that's one definition, but by no means the only one. Besides - to some people - those examples you removed may well have been *internally* contradictory, but just not to you. Just because you didn't understand them in the *intended* way simply means you're not *in the loop* with their way of thinking. Oxymoron are definitely POV, and therefore are allowed, including those that don't coincide with your POV.
Please respect other's views and contributions to the same degree you expect others to respect yours. If you really feel an example is really that terribly "unoxymoronic," at least ask the contributor what it means. You might be surprised to learn that it's a common oxymoron within a large community of people, or in another culture than your own. -- Fyslee 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, I certainly respect a variety of POVs; indeed, I agree with you that North Korea is not democratic, that Microsoft products often don't work very well, that "complementary and alternative medicine" is rarely evidence-based, etc. However, I do believe that "oxymoron" has a specific meaning, which does not apply in the deleted examples.

To quote the OED: "1. A figure of speech in which a pair of opposed or markedly contradictory terms are placed in conjunction for emphasis. 2. a contradiction in terms." That is, the terms themselves need to be contradictory. Simply describing something incorrectly does not constitute an oxymoron. For example, the various "people's democratic republics" are not considered "people's", "democratic", or "republics" by most reasonable people, but there is no internal contradiction. The Roman Catholic Church may or may not be "holy", "catholic" (i.e. universal), and "apostolic" (i.e. directly descended from the apostles), as it calls itself, but even if you consider it unholy, parochial, and unapostolic, "the holy, catholic, and apostolic church" is not an oxymoron. What is oxymoronic about the phrase "Roman Catholic" is the internal contradiction between "Roman" (a specific place) and "Catholic" (meaning universal).

I have abjured edit-warring (well, at least most of the time), so I will not make my edits again; I will let other editors do so if they agree with them. But let me just say that I find it unwikipedian to characterize other editors' good-faith edits as "vandalism". --Macrakis 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing good explanations for your thinking on this matter. That I can respect.....;-) My use of the description "vandalism" may have been misplaced. I consider such large scale deletions of other's work to be in that category. Maybe that's an improper use of the term, and from your explanation I can see it was done in good faith. My apologies. You have my respect -- Fyslee 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Macrakis that his deletions were of "poor examples" of oxymora and have deleted them. I also agree that it is unwikipedian to characterize other editors' good-faith edits as "vandalism". Levine2112 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As a followup to this discussion: even now that some of the most nonsensical examples have been deleted, I find the rest to still not make much sense at all. Except for two or three ("accidental propaganda", "truthful propaganda"; "credible liar" perhaps), none of these can be called oxymoron under any meaningful interpretation of the term, IMHO. (Rather than giving my reasons for every single case now, let anybody challenge me over whatever item in the list they think is a fine example of an oxymoron, and I'll gladly explain why I think it's not.) I'd really say the whole list should go. Lukas (T.|@) 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to your POV, but that itself isn't reason enough to judge or remove contributions. "Nonsensical" and "not make much sense at all" are your descriptions based on your POV. So what? They mean something to others, and thus have their own form for legitimacy. No one is demanding that you use those examples. I'm sure you can contribute some others that you find interesting. -- Fyslee 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to fight about this, but yes, of course, thinking as I do that these examples are factually incorrect is reason enough to "judge" them, i.e. to try to persuade other editors that they shouldn't be here. Since when has it been against Wikipedia policy to argue about the factual correctness of things on talk pages? I have no doubts that they "mean" something to those who contributed them, but I am of the opinion that whatever they may mean to anybody cannot legitimately be described as an oxymoron. Or would you like to explain to me in what sense it is part of the inherent meaning of the term "corporate" that it cannot possibly be "ethical"? Or in what sense it is part of the inherent meaning of the term "military" that it cannot possibly go together with "intelligence"? (Not even talking about the fact that this is playing with two unrelated senses of "intelligence" in a rather misleading way.) Sure, I am not obliged to "use those examples" - but I dread the day when I'll find my students happily quoting them to me in their termpapers. Sorry, but I really really do think that these are just factually wrong. Lukas (T.|@) 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the problem here is the concept of "perceived" oxymora. That's the heading, although real oxymora have crept into the list. (We've been a bit careless....;-) If you will read the article itself, maybe it will help you to understand why some of those contributions are there. They don't have to always be contradictory, and the creative use of alternate meanings of words is precisely what makes them "oxymoronic." That's what makes them humorous to those who understand their normal use, because only they can then "read between the lines." That's what also makes some oxymora esoteric. -- Fyslee 19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so let's separate the list into classic oxymorons, and the joke-type oxymorons a la "military music". Remember, WP is supposed to document, not judge. --Macrakis 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's separate the list, clarify the structure (currently the list is not, as Fyslee said, technically under the heading of "perceived" as opposed to real oxymora!), and also clarify the section about those "perceived oxymora" itself. Lukas (T.|@) 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Let's still try to keep the perceived example as good solid examples; not completely esoteric ones. If an oxymoron requires explanation for the average user then I don't think it is a good example to have on this article. Levine2112 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying "perceived oxymora"

Coming back to our discussion the other day: I think what makes the section intro on "perceived oxymora" so misleading is an ambiguity about the term "speaker" as used in the text. Are we referring to:

(1) the speaker who actually uses the expression claimed to be an oxymoron, or to
(2) the speaker who talks about the expression, claiming it to be an oxymoron?

It's a use-vs.-mention thing. With real oxymora, it's speaker (1) who is operating consciously with the rhetorical effects of paradox. With the perceived oxymora, speaker (1) typically uses the expressions without any thoughts of paradox; the rhetorical effect, employed more or less seriously, is purely on the side of (2) - who is often not himself a user of the expression but rather wants to disparage its use in its common meaning. I'll try to reword and clarify the section along these lines. Lukas (T.|@) 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a stab at a restructured text section there. I'd suggest that editors who have contributed examples sort them into the sections where they find they fit best (possibly with an explanation - there are some items in the list I find hard to understand how they are intended). - I'm afraid the lists are going to remain some problem, as they are obvious vandalism targets. Lukas (T.|@) 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we remove a couple of the "examples"?

I think the purported examples "evolutionary morality", "creation science", "magical thinking", "safe sex", "smart bomb", and maybe "treat wellness" should all be removed.

I've never heard of the term "evolutionary morality" in my life, and I don't think that the words are contradictory in any way.
Though the concept of Creationism is not science, the two terms are not inherently contradictory.
"Magical thinking"... I don't understand. Perhaps it was vandalism...?
Sex can indeed be safe. It's inaccurate, deceitful and pushing someone's agenda to, in an encyclopedia, pretend that the two words contradict eachother.
I don't think that the terms "smart bomb" or "treat wellness" are oxymorons either.

--Berserk798 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well since no one seems to care... --Berserk798 05:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
We should remove the entire list from this article... since it's redundent to List_of_oxymora. I'll do it in an a few days if noone objects.---J.Smith 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Err, you want to remove all the examples from the article? I think some obvious and famous ones should be kept just so the article could be understood better. I think many of the Popular Oxymorons aren't really popular and those should be deleted. --Guruparan 16:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. --Berserk798 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointed Foolishness

In order to support the previous Wiktionary definition of an oxymoron as "pointedly foolish," this article asserted that the word meant that two contradictory terms were combined to make a point. This was done instead of simply showing the origin of oxymoron from "sharp dull" as an example of two opposing adjectives being predicated of one subject. Can anyone stretch their minds and give examples of being "pointedly foolish"?Lestrade 12:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Microsoft Works

This is a joke. Microsoft software doesn't work!! See the Win98 World Premier. Bill Gates shows it to the world and it crashes!!!

[edit] Military Intelligence

Military intelligence is not an oxymoron, which is the opposition between two predicates or attributes that are said to belong to one subject. Also, the concept of Intelligence does not mean, in this case, understanding the causes of perceived changes, or understanding. It is suppposed to mean Intelligence (information gathering).Lestrade 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

That's why it's been removed 400+ times. ---J.S (t|c) 21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if the phrase was "Military Smart" it wouldn't be an oxymoron because the word "military" doesnt mean stupid. (except, perhaps in the context of a discussing a particular military that has a certified low-IQ) But...err... anyway. We don't' need to document every oxymoron here anyway. ---J.S (t|c) 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty Ugly

Pretty ugly is not an oxymoron, which is the opposition between two predicates or attributes that are said to belong to one subject. Pretty is here used to mean "very" and it is mistakenly thought to mean "having an attractive appearance."152.163.101.13 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Often oxymoron's are based on the literal meaning of the word and not the contextual meaning. ---J.S (t|c) 23:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the adjective "pretty," in "pretty ugly," has a contextual meaning of "very." Ambiguous and equivocal words, of which there are a great multitude, have more than one literal meaning.Lestrade 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Right, but the oxymoron is a way to play with words and create ironic contraditions in literature. The implied meaning and the literal meaning are both to be considered in this regard. ---J.S (t|c) 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well the implied and literal meaning are both the same. I do think that it is an oxymoron. In literary terms it is but the meaning doesn't necessary contrast but simply emphasizes the degree of ugliness.--Guruparan 15:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Pretty ugly is not an oxymoron. Anyone can see that. As someone has stated pretty here means 'very'. Something can be pretty nasty or pretty big and not have anything to do with how pleasing it is to the eye. It's coming off the list! Cls14 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Pretty" can mean good looking as well. Whatever, we don't need more then a few examples anyway. ---J.S (T/C) 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Rodney McBain

Editor J. Rodney McBain claims that a necessary attribute of an oxymoron is that it be wise. This is false. It need only consist of contradictory predicates being declared as characteristics of one grammatical subject. An example is: "The knife is sharp dull (oxy moron)."Lestrade 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/x/y/Talk%7EOxymoron_5da8.html"