Talk:Misnomer/Archives/2009/October

Why free market economy is a disnomer
Why 'free market economy' is put onto list in 'An older name being retained even in the face of newer information'? If one is stating that free market is not free I guess it violates NPOV. If it describes the current economic system I guess it should be explained. Uzytkownik (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. In later section it is explained - but still one may argue that freedom of markets does not refere to lack of scarcity or any limitations in the same way as freedom of people do not involve lack of gravity. I guess it may be too controvertial for an example (however pointing different points of view would not be out-of-place in page about phylosphy of freedom). Uzytkownik (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Brass/Woodwind Instruments
First, taking the following entry as true:


 * "Brass and woodwind musical instruments are distinguished not by the materials of which they are made, but by the way in which the player controls the vibrating column of air."

it would be more appropriately called a misconception and would belong in the List of common misconceptions. The misconception addressed is not contrary to the name (brass or woodwind), thus I believe those not to be misnomers.

Second, if they were misnomers, they would better fit in the section "Ambiguity". Justus R (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what do you believe is the real difference between brass and woodwind instruments? And to which section of the orchestra does the Western concert flute really belong?  Does that article need correction? -- Smjg (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I am not being clear. Assuming your proposed addition as quoted above to be true, then by definition, those are not misnomers.  In fact, the belief that they were misnomers would be a misconception.  What I may or may not believe to be the real difference between brass and woodwind instruments is of no real significance in this matter.Justus R (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't a proposed addition. It's an actual addition that you decided to delete for some reason of which I still can't make head, tail or any other body part.  How, exactly, is what I wrote different from the terms "brass instrument" and "woodwind instrument" being misnomers?  And how, exactly, would you write this issue on List of common misconceptions?  And how can the facts be "of no real significance"? -- Smjg (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let us be clear on the subject of our disagreement. It is not my purpose here to argue with the basic facts that you have stated in the addition you made and which I deleted and which is quoted in full above.  That is why my opinion on the truth value of that addition is of no real significance in this matter. It is not significant because it is not germane.  Neither do I quibble with the wording of your addition.  My objection to the inclusion of that addition is that when taken at face value, it does not describe a misnomer.  Rather, it explains the terms "brass" and "woodwind" in the context of the classification of wind instruments and explains why neither term is a misnomer.  Since your addition explains why neither term is a misnomer, it does not belong in a list of misnomers - which this article has become.
 * I should better have originally written, "A belief that the proper classification of wind instruments as 'brass' or 'woodwind' are distinguished by the materials of which they are made would be more appropriately called a misconception and would belong in the List of common misconceptions." As to how to compose an entry for this issue within that article, that is beyond the scope of the discussion of this article.Justus R (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Since your addition explains why neither term is a misnomer" — what on earth are you on about?
 * Brass instruments are not necessarily made of brass. Therefore, the term "brass instrument" is a misnomer.  You OTOH seem to be claiming that, because brass instruments are not necessarily made of brass, the term "brass instrument" is not a misnomer.  This I don't understand all; nor do I understand why you're singling out my addition over all the rest.
 * "A belief that the proper classification of wind instruments as 'brass' or 'woodwind' are distinguished by the materials of which they are made would be more appropriately called a misconception and would belong in the List of common misconceptions." — My addition didn't mention any such belief. If you've evidence that such a belief is common, by all means add it to List of common misconceptions and cite that evidence.  But it's an entirely separate issue from the inappropriateness of the names, which is the very definition of a misnomer whether you go by my existing vocabulary, the article intro or the vast majority of OneLook hits.  How does your dictionary define it? -- Smjg (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have only an "American Heritage Dictionary" in my house, my Merriam Webster's having worn out. I do not trust American Heritage to supply precise definitions so I will not cite it here.  There seems to be a stable definition on Wiktionary, which defines misnomer as: 1. A use of a term asserted to be misleading. 2. A term asserted to be widely used incorrectly. 3. A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense.


 * My initial reaction to the addition under discussion here was that it contained the implication that the names "brass" and "woodwind" were properly assigned to the instruments "not by the materials of which they are made, but by the way in which the player controls the vibrating column of air." Inasmuch as the instruments were distinguished properly under this scheme - and inasmuch as there was no explanation that certain brass instruments are commonly made of materials other than brass and certain woodwind instruments are commonly made of materials other than wood - the logical conclusion is that the categorization of those instruments as brass or woodwind instruments are not misnomers because when properly understood, they are not misleading.


 * Let me state your position as I infer from the discussion so far:


 * A person unfamiliar with the nomenclature of musical instruments would likely assume that "brass instrument" would refer only to an instrument made predominantly of brass and "woodwind instrument" would refer to a wind instrument only made predominantly of wood. Inasmuch as the materials from which those instruments are made are not necessarily brass or wood, respectively, the terms are misleading and, therefore, are misnomers.


 * Please correct me if am wrong. I do not want to misrepresent your position.  However, if this is close to the mark, then I will concede that it may be appropriate to include these examples on a list of misnomers, but with an exposition that more clearly indicates why the terms can be considered misnomers.


 * As far as other things on the list, well, I really think it would be a service to have a shorter article on misnomers, with only one or two examples of each identified type. The rest could go into a "List of Common Misnomers".  I have not pursued this as yet, however.  Please do not feel like I am picking on you.  It is just that this was new and it got my attention.Justus R (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)