Talk:Tautology (rhetoric)/Archive 2006

Origin of page

This page was created by cut-and-paste from tautology, followed by editing to cut down to the relevant part. See that article for history, and talk:tautology for prior discussions. --Trovatore 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needlessly degrades tautological tautologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.178.101 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a really great joke. Did you come up with it all by yourself? 71.16.224.178 08:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be so sarcastic with one another, nor waste each other's time with silliness. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Redundant with Pleonasm article

I'd like to suggest that this page stick to a general discussion of rhetorical tautology and then branch to more developed articles on specific types of such tautology, or related concepts. In particular, much of what is discussed on this page is not only covered in more depth over at pleonasm but arguably doesn't quite fit the two almost identical definitions laid out for rhetorical tautology at the top of this article. Not all forms of redundancy are tautological. I'm not a logician by profession, but I think that all pleonasms and tautologies are redundancies (at least in theory), and all tautologies are pleonastic by definition, but not vice versa. What makes a tautology tautological is that it "says the same thing twice". What makes a pleonasm pleonastic is that it says more (sometimes much more, in which case it is logorrheic as well as pleonastic) than it needs to, ergo tautologies in speech and writing a simply a subset of pleonasms. But I'd be happy to entertain other views on this. My main point is that the two articles overlap far too much, and either need to be differenced further or merged. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 02:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cf. the Redundancy (language) article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Circumlocution is also defined similarly. I think an expert is needed, or at least someone who can investigate where these words come from and so on...124.189.98.53 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Constantly deleted pop culture quote (George W. Bush)

The following quote is constantly being deleted without justification by anonymous editor 209.101.224.34. If you feel the quote in question inappropriate, please justify yourself here. If you find that it has again been removed, please revert until a consensus is reached here.

“ United States President George W. Bush, before the Unity Journalists of Color convention on August 6, 2004, is quoted as saying, "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." [1] ”

This is a perfect pop culture example of a tautology. It appears here exactly as transcribed by the U.S. Government, with emphasis added, as hyperlinked above. The hyperlink points to a 2004 press release by the Whitehouse Government website. Winick88 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just simple redundancy of speech; it isn't a tautology. I'm removing this because it obviously stands out as being inappropriate, never mind that it involves George Bush and is thus inherently prone to attracting undue attention around these parts. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush wasn't trying to deceitfully guarantee the truth of the proposition he was just stumbling over his own words. TongueSpeaker (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a simple redundancy of speech. I agree with you on this. That is why it is a tautology. The definition on the page now states that "a tautology is a use of redundant language in speech or writing, or, put simply, 'saying the same thing twice'." The statement stands on its own, and the reader is free to draw conclusions as they may. For example, one might infer that this tautology is intentional, others may not. It isn't "inherently prone to attracting undue attention around these parts." Winick88 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the quote adds anything at all. It is amusing and silly and indicative of something about Dubya's reasoning powers, but it does precisely zero to educate anyone on the meaning of "tautology". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of "Pop Culture Examples of Tautology" is not necessarily to educate anyone on the meaning of tautology, but to merely provide examples of it. Otherwise, I don't see why your argument wouldn't apply to the other examples listed beneath this heading. Winick88

The tribal sovereignty quote was removed without justification by unsigned editor 198.28.129.127 on June 13, 2007. I am restoring the quote. Winick88 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The tribal sovereignty quote was again removed without justification by Moheroy (talk). I am restoring the quote.Winick88 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that five unrelated people spontaneously removed this quote (which is a bad example of a tautology and probably motivated by a desire to mock Bush), and only Winick88 ever adds it back, shows that there is no consensus to keep it. Therefore I am removing it. —Jemmy_tc 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss why you believe the quote is a bad example of a tautology. Winick88 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote was removed by Korny O'Near (User talk:Korny O'Near). If you feel the quote inappropriate, please have the intellectual honesty to discuss it here. Winick88 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming new to this, it strikes me that there are too many cooks involved in this broth with too little objectivity and too much emotional digging in. Perhaps because this is the English page (attracting many visitors from the US), the fact that it was Bush who said this is really glazing some people's judgement. Why doesn't somebody ask a linguist to input on the matter and MOVE ON. BuzzWoof (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I'm open to discussion if someone would actually provide a rationale for removing the quote. All I've seen so far is a preoccupation with who said it rather than why the quote isn't a tautology. Let's try to confine the discussion to whether or not the quote is a tautology. Thank you, BuzzWoof, for your willingness to discuss the issue. Winick88 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is an ideal example of a tautology because the whole concept of tribal sovereignty in the United States is a politically contentious one (see the article), and the term means different things to different people. Thus, it could be argued that Bush was making, in an awkward way, an actual point - that, in his opinion, the phrase "tribal sovereignty" is meant to be taken literally, and confers full rights on tribes. I simply think that there are much clearer real-life examples of tautologies. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bush is making an actual point in the quote. I don't think he was making his point awkwardly, however. I think the statement is consistent with his no-nonsense "tell it like it is" style.

However, the statement is a tautology whether it was intentional or not. "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign." Please explain how this isn't a tautology-- I mean, if you're right, and Bush believes "sovereignty" is meant to be taken literally, then his statement that "sovereignty means that, it's sovereign" is a literal repetition of meaning.

I suggest a compromise-- since you simply think there are clearer real-life examples of tautologies, just add those to the list. I personally find tautologies fascinating and would welcome your additions. Winick88 (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually did add a few more examples, at the same time that I removed the Bush quote - I don't know if you saw that. But, according to this article, "tautology" only describes an unnecessary repetition, i.e. one that adds no new information, and here it seems that the statement does hold information; translated out of Bush-speak, it could be stated as, "Unlike some people, I believe that the phrase 'tribal sovereignty' indicates that tribes truly have sovereign rights." He's making a connection between a phrase and a legal status, which seems to me hardly the same as saying "A is A". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is beyond our purview to "translate" any of these quotes or attempt to infer intentions or subtext. The quote itself is a tautology and Bush did not formulate his statement in the way you did above. The repetition of the word "sovereign" is unnecessary-- It would be different if another word had been used, but using a cognate of the very word he is attempting to define isn't probative-- it's redundant. Winick88 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems like your definition of a tautology is different from the one currently in the article - it defines it as a repetition of meaning, whereas you're talking about a repetition of specific words. If it's a repetition of meaning, then inferring intentions is important. By your standard, would something like "Sahara Desert" (mentioned in the article) count as a tautology, since the two words are different? Conversely, imagine a phrase like "the red herring is a red herring" - the first mention refers to a fish, while the second refers to its role in some puzzle being solved. It would seem, if I understand it correctly, that by your standard this is a tautology, while by the article's standard it isn't. Is that correct? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. "Red herring" has two distinct meanings. One is a bird, the other a literary technique. I agree that the statement "the red herring is a red herring" can be probative and therefore not a tautology when used in that sense. However, your red herring example differs from the President's quote in an important aspect. In the President's statement, "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign," he literally means the same thing (you conceded this above). He isn't referring to different ideas that happen to have the same name. Again, it is not within our purview to infer intentions from this statement. And even if it were, neither of us is qualified to speak for the President. Better to let the statement speak for itself. Winick88 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood what I said before - I don't think the two "sovereign"s are the same thing. The first "tribal sovereignty" refers to a legal phrase, while the second refers to what could be called "facts on the ground". And of course, putting the statement in this article in the first place is not letting it speak for itself - it's making a claim that the statement is a tautology. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, you can't just assert what you think the President means without providing some justification. "Facts on the ground?" The president is fully capable of speaking for himself, and he never said anything like that. Please find where the president makes the distinction between two meanings of "sovereign," or concede this point. I am reverting the article for now. Winick88 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia would you find such a long and obnoxious discussion regarding such a menial topic. Winston Spencer (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Please, when requesting an opinion from Wikipedia:Third opinion, take care that the dispute involves only two editors. The above dispute doesn't, although most recently I suppose it does.

• I don't see this as a "pop culture" quote. It's a political quote about foreign policy, apparently. In that sense, it doesn't belong.
• This doesn't seem to be an illuminating example either. There is no need for this article to list every tautology under the sun that has been spoken by someone famous. If the quotation causes contention, I say remove it and find something else.
• Neither of you know exactly what Bush was thinking, therefore neither of you can make a case whether this is, or isn't, a tautology, given the different meanings and usages of the "sovereign" in the quotation.

In other words, this quotation isn't a good example of a tautology. That's my opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Some given examples of RAS syndrome aren't tautologies or even redundant acronyms

"Gigaflops per second", "RPMs per minute" and "RPMs per second" are not tautologies, they are rates of accelaration, so I think they should be removed. Also I don't see how RPMs per second is an oxymoron, it's just different units of acceleration from RPMs per minute. If a user of these wasn't refering to acceleration, that would be just gibberish, not redundant acronym expansion, because each expansion of "per second" changes the meaning, ie. from (angular) velocity -> acceleration -> acceleration of acceleration etc. On second thoughts, this section could just be changed to a single link to RAS_Syndrome...

86.14.228.238 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the second solution better. Make the article lean and link to other topics as needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did so. I noticed my own tautology: "tautologies or even redundant acronyms" is one because redundant acronyms are a subset of tautologies. ah well... 86.14.228.238 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

- The sentence in this paragraph of the article starting "In Washington..." is not well tied in, and could do with some basic editing... in my opinion it's an unnecessary and complex example. The syndrome has already been well explained and backed up at this point. K^rowe 10:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)