Editing Talk:1368: One Of The

There's a set of golden arches at Jefferson and Russell, Arguably more identifiable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.36}}

:If you are talking about the McDonald's arches, then well played, sir, well played. Definitely more identifiable. --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 14:57, 14 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?<!-- 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''"
Seriously???  Maybe once, but not now.  The point of this cartoon is largely that reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact.
When you have prominent reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on TV) saying [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/18/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/|it's "not his job" to report factual information] but merely to repeat what politicians have said, or everyone on Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

: Or maybe it's because of the liability reporters face for reporting even errors made by the police. [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/12/mistaken-identity-tv-show/8989189/ | Keith Todd or Todd Keith]. [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:: "''In the complaint, Todd alleges that Eastpointe Police "incorrectly researched" databases and sent the wrong photo, name and information to the network.''"  Sounds like the blame is really with the police, not the network. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

::: [http://birmingham.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/msnbcs-caught-on-camera-reality-show-snafu-creates-unreal-problems-for-michigan-man In a lawsuit filed last week in Wayne County Circuit Court, Todd said a snafu incorrectly naming him as the suspect in the “Caught on Camera” program has caused him humiliation, loss of employment and other misery. He’s asking NBC Universal, the Eastpointe Police Department and A One Limousine, to pay an unspecified amount of damages.] [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

: That's generalising. How about: "Seriously???  Maybe once, but not now.  The point of this cartoon is largely that US reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact. When you have prominent US reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on US TV) saying [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/18/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/|it's "not his job" to report factual information] but merely to repeat what US politicians have said, or everyone on US branch of Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming US reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.

:: Right.  Because it's only in the US that reporters fail to do their jobs well.  Why, just look at the UK and Australia, for example.  Nope, no reporters covering their asses there.  Oh, wait. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I know it's not really part of the joke, but should the explanation say who the reporter is talking about? Who designed the Gateway arch? I'm curious now.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 02:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

:The Gateway Arch was designed by Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen and German-American structural engineer Hannskarl Bandel in 1947. As stated on the {{w|Gateway Arch|wikipedia page already linked from explanation}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the UK celebrates {{w|Mothering Sunday}} on the fourth Sunday in Lent as if it was Mother's Day. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 10:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The explanation text misses the fact that stating "one of the world's greatest moms" is hardly perceived as an actual compliment by the recipient. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
:Done - also added an explain and a wiki link to pet peeve - something not explained so far. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

: I don't think Randall misunderstands the practice - he's just pretending that to make a joke. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
::That is for sure true. I did not write it like that and have now corrected it acordingly [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Interesting. Do you really think "Randall does not misunderstand anything" (from the history-edit explanation) and so any inaccuracy must be understood as a deliberate part of the joke? Even if the inaccuracy is about a matter outside of his field of expertise and is unnecessary to the joke? Maybe you're right in this case, but I doubt Randall himself would claim to be infallible. [[User:Cs7|Cs7]] ([[User talk:Cs7|talk]]) 20:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

::My mom wasn't insulted by a card that said "One of the two greatest Moms in the world*" (and, below, "* Sorry, Mom, but I don't want to get killed in my sleep"). She found it funny, and so did my wife, and the fact that you can buy this card in shops implies they aren't the only mothers in the world that can take a joke. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 11:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No so much a real discussion item, but this is "One of the most useful Explain XKCDs out there"... {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.121}}

The arch is so large that there are rotating pill-elevators inside the rising legs and a large observation lounge at the top.  You can look down at the busy barge traffic on the Mississippi far below. {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.117}}

The title text bothers me here...the comic says: '''"The world's greatest [whatever]' is subjective, but 'One of the world's greatest [whatever]s' is clearly objective."''' - but is that really true?

If I say '''"Mount Everest is the world's tallest mountain"''' - then this is a fact that can be looked up and examined and is clearly either true or false.  It happens to be true.  So it's clearly an objective fact.   But if I say: '''"Mount Annapurna is one of the world's tallest mountains"''' then that's a completely subjective statement because Annapurna is only the 10th tallest mountain and whether it's to be considered "one of the tallest" depends entirely on whether you cut off the list of "the tallest mountains" at 9th place or 11th place - which is surely a subjective decision.

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)

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? 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)