Talk:1368: One Of The - Revision history

81.179.199.253: "Unsigned" thingy, and restored prior signing.

2026-02-06T21:21:52Z

"Unsigned" thingy, and restored prior signing.

163.120.64.56: added comment

2026-02-06T14:51:56Z

added comment

172.71.103.207 at 02:07, 15 March 2024

2024-03-15T02:07:08Z

172.70.90.245 at 20:27, 20 September 2022

2022-09-20T20:27:35Z

Tsumikiminiwa: add comment

2022-09-20T16:34:06Z

add comment

NoriMori at 19:03, 13 July 2021

2021-07-13T19:03:41Z

NoriMori at 19:01, 13 July 2021

2021-07-13T19:01:23Z

172.68.58.59 at 09:01, 16 December 2018

2018-12-16T09:01:44Z

Dgbrt at 19:46, 3 November 2018

2018-11-03T19:46:21Z

172.68.110.34 at 06:42, 3 November 2018

2018-11-03T06:42:40Z

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 :The gripe I have with this kind of phrasing is that they're trying to disguise the fact that they don't know by saying something that's less likely to be questioned but is a similarly strong claim, which is a manipulative practice that should ideally have no place in reporting. If it's important that you know something, research it. If it's not, don't pretend to know it.
 :As for what they ''should'' say, that's very simple. There are many things they could say that don't have this effect, or have it to a lesser degree. Things like "...and he went on to design the widely recognized Gateway Arch in St. Louis" (which is a more transparently weaker claim, and is implicitly phrased as a matter of opinion), "...almost certainly the most recognizable arch in St. Louis" (explicitly includes a disclaimer that it could be wrong), or perhaps even, "...as far as we're concerned, the most recognizable arch in St. Louis" (explicitly frames it as an opinion).
-:I think the most important thing to note here is that "one of the most recognizable" is something that hinges on the opinion of what the majority of people find recognisable, whereas "widely recognized" or even "widely considered the most recognizable" hinges primarily on what the speaker classifies as "widely", which inherently comes across as less objective and is therefore more appropriate to the context. The context here doesn't really require the arch to be one of the most recognisable ones, since the topic is linked to the Gateway Arch directly rather than to its recognisability, and so it's understandable not to explicitly research this. Being a bit subjective in your supplementary descriptions is fine, so long as you don't pretend to say something objective when you're not.
+:I think the most important thing to note here is that "one of the most recognizable" is something that hinges on the opinion of what the majority of people find recognisable, whereas "widely recognized" or even "widely considered the most recognizable" hinges primarily on what the speaker classifies as "widely", which inherently comes across as less objective and is therefore more appropriate to the context. The context here doesn't really require the arch to be one of the most recognisable ones, since the topic is linked to the Gateway Arch directly rather than to its recognisability, and so it's understandable not to explicitly research this. Being a bit subjective in your supplementary descriptions is fine, so long as you don't pretend to say something objective when you're not. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.207|172.71.103.207]] 02:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
-the bot thingy for the comic "Groundhog Day Meaning" points to the day this comic was released.
+the bot thingy for the comic "Groundhog Day Meaning" points to the day this comic was released. {{unsigned ip|163.120.64.56|14:51, 6 February 2026}}

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 :The gripe I have with this kind of phrasing is that they're trying to disguise the fact that they don't know by saying something that's less likely to be questioned but is a similarly strong claim, which is a manipulative practice that should ideally have no place in reporting. If it's important that you know something, research it. If it's not, don't pretend to know it.
 :As for what they ''should'' say, that's very simple. There are many things they could say that don't have this effect, or have it to a lesser degree. Things like "...and he went on to design the widely recognized Gateway Arch in St. Louis" (which is a more transparently weaker claim, and is implicitly phrased as a matter of opinion), "...almost certainly the most recognizable arch in St. Louis" (explicitly includes a disclaimer that it could be wrong), or perhaps even, "...as far as we're concerned, the most recognizable arch in St. Louis" (explicitly frames it as an opinion).
-:I think the most important thing to note here is that "one of the most recognizable" is something that hinges on the opinion of what the majority of people find recognisable, whereas "widely recognized" or even "widely considered the most recognizable" hinges primarily on what the speaker classifies as "widely", which inherently comes across as less objective and is therefore more appropriate to the context. The context here doesn't really require the arch to be one of the most recognisable ones, since the topic is linked to the Gateway Arch directly rather than to its recognisability, and so it's understandable not to explicitly research this. Being a bit subjective in your supplementary descriptions is fine, so long as you don't pretend to say something objective when you're not.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.207|172.71.103.207]] 02:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+:I think the most important thing to note here is that "one of the most recognizable" is something that hinges on the opinion of what the majority of people find recognisable, whereas "widely recognized" or even "widely considered the most recognizable" hinges primarily on what the speaker classifies as "widely", which inherently comes across as less objective and is therefore more appropriate to the context. The context here doesn't really require the arch to be one of the most recognisable ones, since the topic is linked to the Gateway Arch directly rather than to its recognisability, and so it's understandable not to explicitly research this. Being a bit subjective in your supplementary descriptions is fine, so long as you don't pretend to say something objective when you're not.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:07, 15 March 2024
Line 52:		Line 52:

	This one has always struck me as unfair. Maybe they simply ''don't know'' whether it's the most recognizable arch in St. Louis. So what else are they supposed to say that wouldn't be dishonest (claiming to know something they don't) and possibly inaccurate? Besides, even if they ''did'' know whether it's the most recognizable arch — what if it's not? In that case, in order to avoid saying "one of the", they now have to determine its exact ranking, which would probably be even harder. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)		This one has always struck me as unfair. Maybe they simply ''don't know'' whether it's the most recognizable arch in St. Louis. So what else are they supposed to say that wouldn't be dishonest (claiming to know something they don't) and possibly inaccurate? Besides, even if they ''did'' know whether it's the most recognizable arch — what if it's not? In that case, in order to avoid saying "one of the", they now have to determine its exact ranking, which would probably be even harder. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	:If they don't know the facts, they shouldn't claim to know the facts. Saying that it's "one of the" most recognisable arches is ''safer'' than the alternative, but you have to do at minimum an equal amount of research to find out whether it's actually ''true''. Let's consider the hypothetical that it's ''not'' the most recognisable arch. That would be simple to find out. But if you want to know for sure that the claim that it's "one of the" most recognisable arches is false, you'd also have to research what's considered a recognisable arch in St. Louis, which takes more effort to confirm, the opposite of what you suggest.
		+	:The gripe I have with this kind of phrasing is that they're trying to disguise the fact that they don't know by saying something that's less likely to be questioned but is a similarly strong claim, which is a manipulative practice that should ideally have no place in reporting. If it's important that you know something, research it. If it's not, don't pretend to know it.
		+	:As for what they ''should'' say, that's very simple. There are many things they could say that don't have this effect, or have it to a lesser degree. Things like "...and he went on to design the widely recognized Gateway Arch in St. Louis" (which is a more transparently weaker claim, and is implicitly phrased as a matter of opinion), "...almost certainly the most recognizable arch in St. Louis" (explicitly includes a disclaimer that it could be wrong), or perhaps even, "...as far as we're concerned, the most recognizable arch in St. Louis" (explicitly frames it as an opinion).
		+	:I think the most important thing to note here is that "one of the most recognizable" is something that hinges on the opinion of what the majority of people find recognisable, whereas "widely recognized" or even "widely considered the most recognizable" hinges primarily on what the speaker classifies as "widely", which inherently comes across as less objective and is therefore more appropriate to the context. The context here doesn't really require the arch to be one of the most recognisable ones, since the topic is linked to the Gateway Arch directly rather than to its recognisability, and so it's understandable not to explicitly research this. Being a bit subjective in your supplementary descriptions is fine, so long as you don't pretend to say something objective when you're not.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.207\|172.71.103.207]] 02:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ::On the other hand, any ''specific set'' of McDonald's arches isn't very identifiable.  One tends to look like any other. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
-:::Posting eight years later (is it a necro post if you aren't pinged? And who checks the recent changes page?) but I'd say the light blue McDonalds arches do not look like any other McDonalds arches. I'd link it, but I don't know how to link URLs, unless this is markdown and [this](https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-arches-bright-blue-2017-12) works. [[User:Tsumikiminiwa|Tsumikiminiwa]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiminiwa|talk]]) 16:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
+:::Posting eight years later (is it a necro post if you aren't pinged? And who checks the recent changes page?<!-- Well, I do, but I'm not Aaron of Mpls... Just some random IP person who knows that ~~~~ won't usefully work here in this interjection but is only writing for fellow readers of Recent Changes here, anyway... ;p -->) but I'd say the light blue McDonalds arches do not look like any other McDonalds arches. I'd link it, but I don't know how to link URLs, unless this is markdown and [this](https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-arches-bright-blue-2017-12) works. [[User:Tsumikiminiwa|Tsumikiminiwa]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiminiwa|talk]]) 16:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 "''Reporters on television and in other media try to only make statements they can verify in fact''"

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 20 September 2022
Line 4:		Line 4:

	::On the other hand, any ''specific set'' of McDonald's arches isn't very identifiable. One tends to look like any other. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls\|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls\|talk]]) 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)		::On the other hand, any ''specific set'' of McDonald's arches isn't very identifiable. One tends to look like any other. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls\|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls\|talk]]) 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::Posting eight years later (is it a necro post if you aren't pinged? And who checks the recent changes page?) but I'd say the light blue McDonalds arches do not look like any other McDonalds arches. I'd link it, but I don't know how to link URLs, unless this is markdown and [this](https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-arches-bright-blue-2017-12) works. [[User:Tsumikiminiwa\|Tsumikiminiwa]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiminiwa\|talk]]) 16:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

	"''Reporters on television and in other media try to only make statements they can verify in fact''"		"''Reporters on television and in other media try to only make statements they can verify in fact''"

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, 13 July 2021
Line 49:		Line 49:
	In this Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/most-notorious-criminals-in-u-s-history-1831099154 it states that John Wilkes Booth was one of the most famous Americans to ever kill Abraham Lincoln.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.59\|172.68.58.59]] 09:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)		In this Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/most-notorious-criminals-in-u-s-history-1831099154 it states that John Wilkes Booth was one of the most famous Americans to ever kill Abraham Lincoln.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.59\|172.68.58.59]] 09:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

−	This one has always struck me as unfair. Maybe they simply ''don't know'' whether it's the most recognizable arch in St. Louis. So what else are they supposed to say that wouldn't be dishonest (claiming to know something they don't) and possibly inaccurate? [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)	+	This one has always struck me as unfair. Maybe they simply ''don't know'' whether it's the most recognizable arch in St. Louis. So what else are they supposed to say that wouldn't be dishonest (claiming to know something they don't) and possibly inaccurate? Besides, even if they ''did'' know whether it's the most recognizable arch — what if it's not? In that case, in order to avoid saying "one of the", they now have to determine its exact ranking, which would probably be even harder. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:01, 13 July 2021
Line 48:		Line 48:

	In this Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/most-notorious-criminals-in-u-s-history-1831099154 it states that John Wilkes Booth was one of the most famous Americans to ever kill Abraham Lincoln.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.59\|172.68.58.59]] 09:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)		In this Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/most-notorious-criminals-in-u-s-history-1831099154 it states that John Wilkes Booth was one of the most famous Americans to ever kill Abraham Lincoln.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.59\|172.68.58.59]] 09:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	This one has always struck me as unfair. Maybe they simply ''don't know'' whether it's the most recognizable arch in St. Louis. So what else are they supposed to say that wouldn't be dishonest (claiming to know something they don't) and possibly inaccurate? [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 16 December 2018
Line 46:		Line 46:

	:Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is actually (slightly) controversial: The peak of the {{w\|Chimborazo\|Chimborazo}} is further from earth's center. {{w\|Mauna Kea\|Mauna Kea}} is taller when measured from base to peak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.34\|172.68.110.34]] 06:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)		:Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is actually (slightly) controversial: The peak of the {{w\|Chimborazo\|Chimborazo}} is further from earth's center. {{w\|Mauna Kea\|Mauna Kea}} is taller when measured from base to peak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.34\|172.68.110.34]] 06:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	In this Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/most-notorious-criminals-in-u-s-history-1831099154 it states that John Wilkes Booth was one of the most famous Americans to ever kill Abraham Lincoln.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.59\|172.68.58.59]] 09:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:46, 3 November 2018
Line 45:		Line 45:
	It's a tougher call for concepts like "greatest Mom" because "greatest" is a fuzzy term in the case of Mom's - is she "greatest" because she did a better job of teaching you right from wrong - or is she greatest because she bought you more Lego's? In that case, both "greatest" and "one of the greatest" are subjective because there is no universally agreed standard by which we measure greatness in mothers. The reason "world's greatest Mom" mugs work is because they express the sentiment that "My personal definition of the term ''greatest'' is what you are to me." - which is more profound than some unrealistic statement about whether there are or are not better mothers. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)		It's a tougher call for concepts like "greatest Mom" because "greatest" is a fuzzy term in the case of Mom's - is she "greatest" because she did a better job of teaching you right from wrong - or is she greatest because she bought you more Lego's? In that case, both "greatest" and "one of the greatest" are subjective because there is no universally agreed standard by which we measure greatness in mothers. The reason "world's greatest Mom" mugs work is because they express the sentiment that "My personal definition of the term ''greatest'' is what you are to me." - which is more profound than some unrealistic statement about whether there are or are not better mothers. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

−	:Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is actually (slightly) controversial: The peak of the {{w\|Chimborazo\|Chimborazo}} is further from earth's center. {{w\|Mauna Kea\|Mauna Kea}} is taller when measured from base to peak.	+	:Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is actually (slightly) controversial: The peak of the {{w\|Chimborazo\|Chimborazo}} is further from earth's center. {{w\|Mauna Kea\|Mauna Kea}} is taller when measured from base to peak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.34\|172.68.110.34]] 06:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
−	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.34\|172.68.110.34]] 06:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:42, 3 November 2018
Line 44:		Line 44:

	It's a tougher call for concepts like "greatest Mom" because "greatest" is a fuzzy term in the case of Mom's - is she "greatest" because she did a better job of teaching you right from wrong - or is she greatest because she bought you more Lego's? In that case, both "greatest" and "one of the greatest" are subjective because there is no universally agreed standard by which we measure greatness in mothers. The reason "world's greatest Mom" mugs work is because they express the sentiment that "My personal definition of the term ''greatest'' is what you are to me." - which is more profound than some unrealistic statement about whether there are or are not better mothers. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)		It's a tougher call for concepts like "greatest Mom" because "greatest" is a fuzzy term in the case of Mom's - is she "greatest" because she did a better job of teaching you right from wrong - or is she greatest because she bought you more Lego's? In that case, both "greatest" and "one of the greatest" are subjective because there is no universally agreed standard by which we measure greatness in mothers. The reason "world's greatest Mom" mugs work is because they express the sentiment that "My personal definition of the term ''greatest'' is what you are to me." - which is more profound than some unrealistic statement about whether there are or are not better mothers. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is actually (slightly) controversial: The peak of the {{w\|Chimborazo\|Chimborazo}} is further from earth's center. {{w\|Mauna Kea\|Mauna Kea}} is taller when measured from base to peak.
		+	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.34\|172.68.110.34]] 06:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)