Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-contradicting words in English

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. None of the deletion arguments appear to me to have merit. Compiling a list from multiple sources is not original research. Reliable sources are available and several have been added during this discussion. I don't have access to the Lederer source, but this doesn't appear to be a wholesale copyright violation of it, and over-quotation from a single source should be dealt with by editing and addition of alternative sources, not deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-contradicting words in English

edit
List of self-contradicting words in English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is entirely original research. These entries require someone to interpret the definition, and conclude that it has contradicting meanings. This is the definition of original research: an editor making a conclusion, rather than a source. seresin ( ¡? )  21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yeah, I read Crazy English as well, and Richard Lederer had a whole list like this. To his/her credit, the author acknowledges Lederer as a source, and not all of these are on that list, but Lederer presented this so much better, using examples. Even Lederer's list was faulty, implying that "bound for" and "bound to", or "clipped from" and "clipped to" are the same thing. If you want to make your own article rather than something that looks like it's copied heavily from another man's work, then refer to dictionary definitions. Mandsford (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:OR claim is very weak since this can be sourced to Lederer and most likely several other books. As far as being arbitrary and confusing, can you explain yourself a bit more? Thanks!  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  15:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been fond of the "needs improvement, so delete" line of thinking. AFD shouldn't be used where e.g. a {{cleanup}} tag is more appropriate. - Keith D. Tyler 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Since some of the reasons given above are invalid, would you be so kind as to list your reasons for deletion? Thank you.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I'm just not seeing how this is original research. This is a list of words that have contradictory definitions. Each one of those definitions is easily sourced and requires no interpretation on the part of the editor. If you consider sourcing the definitions, but stating (in this article) that they are contradictory as original research, then each of these contradictory words can be sourced to books or articles that state they are self-contradictory words or auto-antonyms. The article is sloppy and lacks sources, but it is not original research nor is it arbitrary.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  06:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source would be the Lederer book, at pages 224-226. What I have a problem with is that this is very unoriginal research, practically a copy of Lederer. It's an example of the self-contradictory word "took"-- 1. To have removed something ("They took this straight out of someone else's book"); 2. To have placed something ("They took a crap on Wikipedia"). Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see the problem with using Lederer (and other books) as sources. Why exactly do you think this article is akin to "taking a crap on Wikipedia"? Is it a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or do you truly think it's unencyclopedic?  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can appreciate that you want to save the article, and that you're even adding sources to it, but it's never been encyclopedic. For the encyclopedic treatment, see Auto-antonym. This is the fun-but-inaccurate version, a bulletin board for people to stop by and add their own contributions about what they think is a word that's like the one on Lederer's list. Even the original list, part of which can be seen here [1] was debatable. The form of the add-ons has been unencyclopedic-- instead of citing two dictonary definitions, the form has been a Noah Webster wannabe saying "well, the word 'cool' can mean this and it can mean that". If it looks like this article will "go" (whether forward or away), I think that you should edit the hell out of it, dispense with whatever entries strike you as inaccurate, and put some more meat in the definitions that are used for proof. Bear in mind that if this article goes away, you can incorporate a list to Auto-antonym. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list of this size shouldn't be subsumed into a topical article. It would dominate the content of Auto-antonym. The next move would then be to spin it off as a standalone list. I think we should avoid that unnecessary thrashing. - Keith D. Tyler 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Since some of the reasons "given above" are invalid, would you be so kind as to list your reasons for deletion? Thank you.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certain can refer either to an indeterminate quality ("she has a certain air about her") as well as to an established fact (a certainty).
Continue The verb continue means "to keep doing"; however the noun form continuation, in legal usage, means "to pick up later", particularly in the form continuance.

And the list goes on and on. Who says that these are "self-contradicting words"? An editor? If so, that would be an editor making a conclusion and therefore original research. Is it a source? What kind of source? Is it reliable? Is it relevant? For example, the reference provided at the entry for comprise is simply a dictionary definition. Does this reference say that comprise is a self-contradicting word? No, it doesn't. The reference is irrelevant and therefore invalid, which makes the inclusion of comprise arbitrary. Last but not least, is the subject matter notable? Just because it was featured in Richard Lederer's Crazy English? I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this reference say that comprise is a self-contradicting word? It sure does. #2 and #3 are opposite definitions. - Keith D. Tyler 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no. That's according to your personal interpretation of the definition, as well as your own definition of "self-contradictory." To me, a polysemous word is not necessarily "self-contradictory." What we need is a source to explicitly state that that word is self-contradictory. Without that, it's up to the reader to "interpret the definition, and conclude that it has contradicting meanings" as per nom. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that a well-thought out list would be noticeably shorter, and small enough to be included in the article about contronyms (I hate the word "auto-antonym", and especially hate the phrase "self-contradicting word"). There are a lot of words on this list that, standing alone, don't really have two opposite meanings. I don't see how "expressive of awe" is the opposite of "inspiring awe", or going against a wall is somehow different than going against the wind. I disagree that there should be as strict a definition of original reearch as proposed here -- one doesn't have to find a source to prove that a red, white and blue flag has three colors, nor do I think most of the words would have been on here had they not been in a book where the author said, "this is a list of ______ words". To me, sourcing cures OR, and there are conclusions where the word "duh" applies. Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the fact that sources are being added by Linguist. The list definitely needs improvements, but I conclude that there are enough capable people (Linguist, Tyler, Tavix) who want to see that as well. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are far more reliable sources than Lederer that can be used for this article. This is a subject of scholarly research (See "On Contronymy") so examples can easily be found from reliable sources. Trim out the original research by ensuring there is a reliable source describing each word as a "self-contradictory" or an "auto-antonym", "contronym", "contranym", "antagonym", "enantiodrome", "Janus word", "antilogy", "amphibolous word", "fence-sitter", "opposonym", "pseudo-opposite", or "self-antonym" (all of these words are found in the "On Contronymy" paper). Here is a source calling the phenomenon "antonymous polysemy" and gives examples such as "peruse", "weather", and "handicap". If what is left after removing the OR is small enough, this list could be merged into Auto-antonym, but I suspect a good number of these words could be sourced. DHowell (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Insufficient reason to delete, content is interesting if not useful - not unencyclopedic. --Carbon Rodney 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_self-contradicting_words_in_English&oldid=1146391825"