Talk:Apples and oranges

Non-natives have been messing with the article

For example, a Spanish speaker has introduced the 'word' 'Variante' [sic, capitalised in mid-sentence), and a Slav (judging by the typical difficulty with the definite article) is talking about 'Czech language). Can someone PLEASE fix these absurdities and any others that may be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

General comments

This article is really funny, and I enjoyed reading it immensely. However, I don't think it gives the phrase a fair shake. When used properly, it really is a good analogy. The point is not that apples and oranges are completely dissimilar. Apples to apples implies comparing one apple with another apple of the same variety; with no fundamental differences, only particular differences are being compared; hence, you can find one apple in the pile to be simply better than another. Apples to oranges is for individual things that do have a lot of similarities, but that have some fundamental differences that prevent such a simple comparison. Like you could say comparing a blog and nytimes.com is comparing apples and oranges. They can be compared; both are websites, both may report on current events, etc. But because they have fundamental differences, it makes direct comparison less relevant than comparing, say, one blog to another or nytimes.com to washingtonpost.com. You can compare blogs (in general) to newpaper websites (in general); you can't say NYT is a worse blog than X (because it doesn't hyper-link to it's sources).

So when used properly, "apples to oranges" doesn't mean items are incomparable; it means they are instances of different classes of objects and so cannot be evaluated in precisely the same terms.

The use of plural in the phrase is what makes it confusing. When used properly, it means you can't evaluate the quality of a given orange (this is a good orange, this is a bad orange) by comparing it to an apple. A good orange is a bad apple, and vice versa.--ragesoss 09:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You make some good points. Feel free to add a bit, preferably with sources (I don't want to give anyone an excuse to delete this article, and having law profs and NASA researchers hash this out is much funnier than if we were to do it ourselves). Dave (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is mind-boggling that professors and scientists fall into such an obvious error. Doops | talk 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What is obvious to one person is not obvious to another, surely? A quick reading of the article indicates that law professors and scientists are merely trying to bring their skills to bear on the issue - no matter how absurd that may sound, I see no harm in it. -moritheil^Talk 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a film which has a line that goes something like this-" I wouldn't know the difference between a Mateus and a Matisse (in an art gallery) referring to a drink versus the artwork. So too, a dodgy sort of comparison can be used in a comedy such as in a Fawlty Towers episode, where there was a line mentioning a Chablis against a Claret or such. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Go Dutch

I'm not sure about the legitimacy of deriving such conclusions from etymologies - take the word "sinister", for example - but who I am to stand in the way of a good article? Whilst I'm at it, the Dutch for orange is "sinaasappel" [1] - literally "Chinese apple". Soobrickay 00:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

are you going to tell me that left-handed people aren't sinister? :-P Dave (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A few words I was comparing ,apposite and opposite, then, abstruse and obtuse. Actually I should say compared and contrasted them,,, goes to show the value of the A&O idiom, that teachers etc. find useful. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Danish idiom

I added the following:

The equivalent Danish idiom, "What is highest, the Round Tower or a thunderclap?", depending on "highest" (højest) meaning both "tallest" and "loudest" in Danish, compares dissimilar properties of dissimilar items.

Wikipedia is not a dictionnary, so we should not have similar idioms from lots of languages here. However, in connection with Volokh's criticism, I think the Danish one is relevant. I don't know whether I should include the full idiom in Danish, but here it is (if someone else wants to include it):

Hvad er højest, Rundetårn eller et tordenskrald?

Word-by-word translation:

What is highest, Roundtower or a thunderclap?

Does any other language have a similar idiom, not so easily criticized as the apples-and-oranges one?--Niels Ø 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose it would be literally correct to translate that idiom as "Which has more volume, Rundetårn or a thunderclap?", would it? Because that's a pun in English, too. Not a good pun, but a pun. --Quuxplusone 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pun - but alas, you're right, it would not be a correct translation. Applied to a physical object, "højest" refers to height, not to volume. Rundetårn is approx. 42 metres high.--Niels Ø 08:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Last year, the sentence on the Danish idiom read:

For example, the equivalent Danish idiom, "Hvad er højest, Rundetårn eller et tordenskrald?" translates word-by-word as "What is tallest/loudest, the Round Tower or a thunderclap?"

Benjamin Mako Hill changed my "word-by-word" translation so the sentence now reads:

For example, the equivalent Danish idiom, "Hvad er højest, Rundetårn eller et tordenskrald?" translates word-by-word as "What is highest, the Round Tower or the volume of a thunderclap?"

in this diff. But now it is not a word-by-word translation. Either we must change the translation back to my slightly unelegant one, or we must remove "word-by-word". I'd prefer the first; I suspect Benjamin Mako Hill would prefer the latter. What do you think?--Noe (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

When I started this article, I was sort of scared to put it on T:TDYK or WP:UA because I thought it would be good for it to have a low profile so it didn't get deleted by someone that would spoil my fun. User:Petaholmes convinced me to add it to DYK, and you all have been really helpful. This has turned out to be a really good article, thanks to changes added by y'all and other changes I wouldn't have thought of without your input. In a weird way, this offbeat article is Wikipedia at its best--collaboration making something none of us could have done alone. This is really cool. Thank you for your help. Dave (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job!--ragesoss 16:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Hi -- I've re-removed the "Criticisms of criticisms" section, because it is entirely original research. Maybe it makes valid points, but it cites no source to substantiate that these points have been made. I realize that some people think the "criticisms" are right. My personal opinion is that they are a bit over the top and don't really do much to clarify the meaning of the phrase and are kind of silly.

This is precisely why we have the "no original research" rule, so that we don't get into battles over this sort of thing. If the criticisms are valid, then someone must have made them somewhere other than wikipedia. So go out and find/cite them!

"No original research" is one of the five pillars and is very important when we work on much more hot-button issues where it is an important way to defuse flamewars on, e.g., political topics.

Sdedeo (tips) 17:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See the problem with that is that if you hew too cautiously to the "no orginal research" line you'll be compelled to delete the introductory ¶ as well. Heck, you'll be compelled to delete most articles' introductory paragraphs! We don't need a citation to tell us that the sky is blue; we don't need a citation to tell us that shoe polish is polish used for shoes. We trust editors, in writing intro ¶s, to use their personal knowledge. The "no original research" rule, although just as important as you say it is, isn't always black and white.

But even apart from that, I feel that it is irresponsible for you to delete that section from the article. It's a question of the lesser of two evils. With that paragraph gone, the article ACTIVELY PROMOTES FALSEHOOD, which is not the goal of an encyclopedia. If you think there should be a citation then we can look for one (you can help too); but in the meanwhile the article shouldn't be in a dangerous and unencyclopedic state. Doops | talk 17:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doops -- the introduction does not make any points that are not made in sources later in the article. Meanwhile, the section that I removed makes points that are to be found nowhere else (AFAIK) in the sources, and that actively contradict them. This is explicitly a violation of WP:NOR, which states that "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is: ... it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position."

Saying that the "sky is blue" is not OR in this sense, since I very much doubt it is ever being said to refute another theory; in general, I am not a nutcase about WP:CITE, which is a separate issue. WP:NOR just means that wikipedia doesn't "get involved" in debates -- it only reports on them.

I'll keep an eye out for sources. Meanwhile, since you seem to be strongly in favor of including this section, I encourage you to do so as well. As I've said, I think the section is actually silly and wrong, which is why I'm being a bit hardline about NOR here. Sdedeo (tips) 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. What do you think is silly and wrong? The criticisms or the critique of the criticisms?

At any rate, I don't view the "criticisms critiqued" § as making an argument. I view it as presenting a fact. ("The idiom might not mean this; it might mean that.") Actually, I think if you're fair you'll give me credit for how exceptionally delicately-worded it was; I bent over backwards to make sure that no claim was being made by the article. Doops | talk 18:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your rewrite is great and solves all the problems I believed existed earlier. Sdedeo (tips) 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very happy with it myself. But at any rate I wasn't asking you about it; I was asking about my earlier "criticisms critiqued" section. And I really would like to know what you think is silly and wrong. Doops | talk 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The original section claimed, among other things, that the criticisms were based on a "misunderstanding" of the idiom. I think this is incorrect. Volokh, and others, are certaintly entirely aware of what the idiom means and how to use it correctly; they are simply having a little tongue-in-cheek fun with words. It's important to remember that it is, indeed, an idiom -- i.e., its literal meaning is not the question. Idioms may have begun at some point by asserting a literal fact, but by the time they are in fact idioms, those things are lost in the mists of time.

The section claimed to know the "true" literal meaning of the idiom (and I believe the asserted "true" meaning is incorrect -- what it originally arose from is probably some weird historical quirk and a matter for etymologists), and it claimed that knowing this true meaning allowed one to better understand the idiom and "reject" criticisms of it (which is silly -- nobody is seriously saying that using the idiom as a shorthand for describing someone as comparing incomparables is wrong.) Sdedeo (tips) 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Two things. 1) Here was my paragraph's text:

Note that both criticisms, as outlined above, attack the suggestion that apples and oranges are, as classes, incomparable. However, these may be seen to be straw man arguments based on a misunderstanding of the idiom. If the idiom is understood as to suggest that particular apples and oranges are incomparable — that is to say, that it is impossible to compare this apple to that orange insofar as there are different standards of quality in apples and oranges — then the objections fall away. To make this clearer, the original idiom could be rephrased as "comparing an apple to an orange." Although it is certainly possible to compare an individual apple to an individual orange on a personal and visceral level, an attempt to put the preference into words will tend to rest on a combination of comparisons of the fruits as classes (I prefer this apple to that orange; but to be honest, I usually do) and comparisons of the individual fruits against their respective ideals (I usually like apples and oranges equally; but this apple is juicy as apples go while that orange is dry as oranges go; so given today's choice I choose the apple).

I just want to point out that it did not "claim...that the criticisms were based on a misunderstnading"; it suggested that that they might be. It did not "claim to know the 'true' literal meaning"; it pointed out that Volokh et al. were assuming one literal meaning and offered the possibility of another. In short, it went out of its way to be encyclopedic and neutral.

2) But, yes, on a personal level, and here on the talk page, I can say: both Volokh and the scientific "studies" are based on a misinterpretation and a misrepresentation of the phrase. It's like arguing that the common idiom "woe is me" is grammatically incorrect; and that it should be "woe is I." It might be a fun way to show off your knowledge of the predicate nominative; but it's ultimately meaningless. The predicate nominative is just a red herring.

Consider how we use the "comparing apples with oranges" idiom. We use it when somebody tries to compare two things from different categories, to point out that he/she is making an invalid comparison. We don't use it when somebody tries to compare two categories. If somebody says "I prefer fancy restaurants to diners" we don't invoke it; but if somebody eating at a diner complains that his mayonnaise came from a jar ("at Henri's it's made from scratch!") we do. So why not apply the phrase to itself the same way we apply it to the world around it? That is to say, the phrase has two possible interpretations. One makes sense, the other doesn't. Which shall we assume? (It OBVIOUSLY doesn't make sense; the scientists jokingly used their advanced equipment to prove how similar apples and oranges are but you and I know that it's a lot simpler than that -- both are round; both are sweet; both grow on trees; etc. A child could do it.)

Now you argue that I can't possibly know the true meaning of the idiom. I happen to disagree (I mean, we all know what the true meaning of "my kingdom for a horse" is, just by common sense); but for the sake of argument I'll pretend to agree for a sec. I don't know the true meaning, OK. Neither do you. And given two possible interpretations, it is uncharitable arguing to pick and choose the weaker one and argue against it. Neither Volokh nor the scientists trouble to note that they've just invested time and effort into disproving something which might actually not need disproving. This is a straw man argument; and especially unfair insofar as the phrase is not here to defend itself. If they overlooked the other interpretation (in my view the correct one), then they were being lazy. If they didn't overlook it but still failed to mention it, then they were being less than frank. Either way they should be ashamed of themselves.

Now obviously I wouldn't dream of putting any of this into an actual article. But maybe if I can convince you of my point of view (or at least its reasonableness) you'll help figure out a way to improve the article. Doops | talk

Definitely high amounts of caution are important in dealing with etymology, there are so many pitfalls and in the absence of a source, it's bad to speculate. Saying that an etymology X is "possible" in the absence of sources is thus a dangerous thing to do; it may, in fact, be impossible given the prior development of the phrase. "Suggesting" argument X is, for the purposes of WP:NOR, the same as arguing X.

Again, you miss the important point that this is an idiom -- i.e., the literal meaning has no bearing on the actual meaning. "Bringing coals to Newcastle" is unaffected by the strong possbility that Newcastle is no longer a net exporter of coal.

Droops, I think you are kind of flipping out over something rather silly. All of the "criticisms" here are jokes! The joke is that they are doing a laborious analysis of the literal meaning of an idiom! It's like someone making a video documentary on homemade mayo to demonstrate that at no point is there any "scratching". I don't think there's any need for Volokh or whoever to feel "ashamed", except for possiblity beating a rather annoyingly dead horse.

Sdedeo (tips) 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Although both the Volokh and scientific studies are humorous, I'm not convinced that either one is "joking" in a sense that would satisfy me. Volokh and his commentators appear to legitimately prefer replacement of the idiom with an alternative. The scientists are, more in line with your description above, satirizing mallet-to-mosquito overkill; but I think they would believe (as you do) that "the idiom is stupid; but that's OK because it's just an idiom." (I contend, however, that the idiom isn't stupid.)

Although you're right that it's unfair to expect idioms to make literal sense all the time, I think that Volokh and the scientists are much more guilty of failing to see this distinction than I am.

As far as the "suggesting is the same as arguing" point, I guess here's my question -- at what point does plucking a relatively obscure blogger from the ether and giving him two full paragraphs in a short article qualify as arguing? Because I persist in my belief that the article, even with my short little disclaimer, will tend to influence readers towards a position that is arguably a misconception.

Am I taking a humorous issue too seriously? Yeah, probably. But this is an encyclopedia, not a humor magazine. Doops | talk 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that Volokh does find the idiom kind of annoying and doesn't want to use it. In any case, contending that the idiom isn't "stupid" is definitely a matter of opinion, and thus needs to be sourced. It's really impossible to get a self-evident (i.e., WP:NOR exempt) argument for or against it going. If you want to point out that the criticisms are doubly silly because idioms don't depend on their literal meaning, go ahead (I just assumed it was implicit.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the horns of a dilemma, aren't I? I do think that the alternative interpretation is self-evident (and therefore NOR-exempt); but if I argue that too strongly you'll ask why something so obvious needs to be explained at length. And I do think that many people are mindless sheep and won't spot the flaw for themselves (given only a brief and cryptic disclaimer) and will come away from the present article with a misconception; but if I argue that too strongly you'll say that that proves my interpretation is non-self-evident. I happen to believe both things. What can be done?

[And, by the way, I'm gloomily afraid that we won't find any sources to express my interpretation. See, it's a commonsense one and the only reason why somebody would espouse it is in response to criticisms like the scientists' or Volokh's -- but the former is unlikely to inspire responses (for fear of being found a humorless spoilsport) and the latter's "comments" field didn't yield any quotable responses. (There were two good comments espressing and/or using my view, but neither one of them is very quotable.)] Doops | talk 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize this would be such a big deal. I believe I have fixed the situation. The note at the top of the criticism section was misleading, since the scientific study by the Annals of Improbable Research compared particular fruits. The argument that the idiom should apply to individual fruits is now sourced, though poorly, and relates only to Volokh's criticism, which is as I think it should be. Does this fix anything? Dave (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view, it has made the situation worse, insofar as the disclaimer is now even more miniscule and apt-to-be-overlooked. Furthermore, the "scientific" studies are now completely unchallenged. However, I have thought of a much simpler way of expressing the flaws in both objections and I marvel at my own blindness for not noticing it sooner; I'll add it now. Doops | talk 22:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'no original research' rule is one of the silliest in Wikipedia, against a crowded field, and has caused far more problems than it has solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First use

Can anyone come up with the first use of this phrase? Crazekid 02:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Alleged British usage

The article states: ‘In British English, the phrase chalk and cheese means the same thing as apples and oranges.’ This is not true, as far as I am aware (as a native speaker of British English). We don’t often actually use the expression ‘apples and oranges’ as such – but we do use expressions such as: ‘that’s like comparing apples with oranges’ (to stress that one should compare like with like). To say that two things are ‘like chalk and cheese’ or ‘as different as chalk and cheese’, on the other hand, is to say that they are fundamentally opposite, having little or nothing in common. As far as I’m aware, there is no overlap between the contexts in which the two phrases would be used.

Axnicho 18:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This is a complete misunderstanding of the phrase 'chalk and cheese'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Latin

A minor point: the Latin "pomum" is sometimes translated as "apple", but it actually refers to any fruit. The word for the apple specifically is "malum" (although this, too, can refer to some other fruits).

French

mélanger les torchons et les serviettes (to mix the dusting cloths with the napkins). According to my Robert-Collins Fr-En dictionary, "il ne faut pas mélanger les torchons et les serviettes": we must separate the sheep from the goats.

Jerome Potts 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In French, you can also say comparer des choux et des carottes, while mélanger les torchons et les serviettes introduces a judgment about superiority of serviettes compared to torchons.

--93.5.227.49 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Argentinian idiom

An Argentinian idiom was recently added:

In Argentina, a common question is "En qué se parecen el amor y elojo del hacha?" which translates into "What do love and axe eye have in common?" and emphasizes dissimilarity between two subjects.

In the translation, what does "axe eye" mean? Is it the whole in an axe head where the shaft passes through, or what? Does it need clarification? Should it be "an axe eye", perhaps "the eye of an axe head"? I'm not a native English speaker; perhaps it's just me having problems with this.--Niels Ø (noe) 08:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC) No, you're not the only one who that confuses. I am a native speaker, and have never heard the phrase "axe eye" before. Probably, the translation needs improvement. 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:2C47:395C:2ED:C0C5 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if this is just a hoax. The phrase cannot be found in a Google search except about 5 or 10 hits that are talking about proverbs, and probably just got it from Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 13:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Another relevant idiom?

Isn't the saying about shit and shinola similar as well? Steve (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

They are very different. The saying about "not knowing shit from shinola" indicates symbolic confusion (usually due to unfamiliarity with the brand name shinola) whereas the saying about apples and oranges is about comparing the objects themselves. -moritheil^Talk 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Teaching finance, comparing expenses

The new section on teaching finance looks nice; the Celemi homepage seems to confirm it. Still, it's hard to tell if this is really a commercial edit; an independent source would be good.--Noe (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have often wondered at the lack of understanding displayed by people making statements like:

We should always prioritize environment above economy.

Whlie I'm perhaps more environmentally concerned than most, it's just rubbish. I strongly disagree with what seems to be the hidden agenda of Bjørn Lomborg when he ends up concluding we shouldn't spend money on preventing global warming - or perhaps I just disagree with his premise that we should trust technology to solve all problems that are still some years in the future. But he is right in pointing out that we need to compare apples and oranges (not a direct quote!!!) to make sound decisions about where to spend our money.

Does this have anything to do with our article? Only if someone finds a source connecting them, I'm afraid.--Noe (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Chalk and cheese

While I understand that "chalk and cheese" may have the same or similar meaning or usage as "apples and oranges" and that it is mentioned briefly in this article, given the fact that about 90% of the article very specifically talks about apples and oranges, and not comparison idioms in general, should "chalk and cheese" really redirect here? _ɹəəpıɔnı 09:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A very good point, and as an earlier commenter stated above on this very page, "chalk and cheese" indicates complete fundamental dissimilarity, whereas "apples and oranges" indicates some broad similarities but also fundamental differences. Someone should make a stub for "chalk and cheese." -moritheil^Talk 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There was an article on Chalk and cheese but editors decided to merge it into this article and make it a redirect. Then editors of this article cleaned it out as being too different. QuentinUK (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Fruit in season

Ye olde apples and oranges could not be compared because they came into season at different times of the year. They did not exist at the same time of the year to make a comparison in spite of whatever similarities or dissimilarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happykite (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek? Suspect absolute rubbish

<<In many languages, oranges are, implicitly or explicitly, referred to as a type of apple, specifically a "golden apple" or a "Chinese apple". For example, the Greek χρυσομηλιά (chrysomelia) >> Can someone who knows Greek confirm this because I have a suspicion that the Greek word Xrusomhlia means Apricot, and that the only Greek word for orange is Portokali Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okey. Let's see. In Greek the world for orange is indeed portokali. I cannot recall if chrysomelia (pron: chrisomilia) reffers specifically to to the appricot or which specific fruit but sounds familiar, I personally have not met the use of that term specifically for oranges or any other citrus sp. There is connection though but not with that word. The greek collective term for the genus Citrus and related Rutaceae plants with similar fruit(oranges, lemons, mandarin oranges, grape fruit, kum-kuats) is 'Εσπεριδοειδή (Esperidhoidhi) that could translate as 'Hesperoids' and the term reffers to the mythological "Μήλα των Εσπερίδων" (mila ton esperidhon) apples of Hesperides (plural for "Hesperis" or "Hesperida"), the golden apples that Hercules stole from the garden of Hesperides (after defeating the hundred-headed dragon Ladon). I'll make the links with the related articles.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[2] [3]

The second link (which is of encyclopedic content) states that:

"Δεν υπάρχουν πληροφορίες πως οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες ήξεραν τα εσπεριδοειδή. Τα γνώριζαν ίσως μόνο όσοι ταξίδευαν σε μακρινούς τόπους και ο μύθος των Εσπερίδων φαίνεται πως συμβολίζει την επιθυμία των Ελλήνων ν' αποκτήσουν τους γλυκόχυμους και νόστιμους αυτούς καρπούς, που καλλιεργούνταν στην Ασία."

I'll try to translate as accurately as I can: "There is no information about how did the Ancient Greeks know about Hesperidoidi. Maybe there were only known to those who journeyed to distant places and the myth of the Hesperides seems that symbolizes the desire of Greeks to gain the sweetjuices (glikochimous - γλυκοχυμούς) and those tasty fruits, that had been cultivated in Asia.

I know the translation sounds a bit silly and not appealing as encyclopedic content but was word-to-word and I tried to leave the series of the content unchanged.

--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm Surprised

I always thought the idiom meant along the lines "While Similar, huge difference between the two , thus apples and oranges" Like for example let's say you are talking about executions of a fighting techniques, however someone responds to you about the pose of the fighting technique. It would be apples and oranges because while execution of the technique, would be similar to the pose of the fighting technique, it's still different because the execution would be something like Punching Hard to Punching soft, while the Pose has no additional effect to the technique other than in appearance. They're similar because they both deal with appearances but one is purely aesthetic while the other has additional properties beyond appearance. The same with apples and oranges, they look similar, they're both round (to a point), they're both fruits, they both grow on trees, and yet they are different fruits altogether. That's what I thought "Apples and Oranges" meant. If I'm thinking of a different Idiom, I would like to know what it is. If that is what "apples and oranges" means then why the criticism of the idiom? --174.19.230.53 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Serbia and Romanian analogies are straight otta Borat.

Keenshwee! Yes! I think that the Serbian analogy for A&O (comparing grandmothers and toads) and the Romanian analogy (the cow and the longjohns) are fake as hell! They seem like some crap that Sasha Baron-Cohen wrote. Does these be for reals??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In Polish we ask what the gingerbread has to do with the windmill Striepan (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

nonsensical nature of the expression

You can, of course, compare apples with oranges. Both are types of fruit but they differ so they can be compared. It's difficult, but not impossible, to compare apples with the planet Jupiter. It's much harder to compare apples with gravity, and pretty well impossible to compare them with justice. The phrase thus conveys a meaning, less by what it signifies than by what it's thought to signify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comment, though its aim is unclear. These articles appear to provide readers with explanatory content, and they succeed at that aim. (E.g., the variations of the expression, with their subtle differences, are intriguing and useful.) Is it your suggestion that this article is not useful or noteworthy? (Disagree.) Is it that further content making your point should be added? (Agree, but you fail to provide the necessary sourcing for others to make the edit; your "deconstructive" ideas as an editor, while also intriguing, are not fodder for content change.) Is there a source where this is argued? Cheers. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Blog reference moved here to talk

…because, as a bare URL and blog/forum posting, it is not reliable, authoritative secondary content, and so not acceptable as a source here:

• REF [4] "Apples-to-apples comparison"

The place where it was removed is indicated by a tag. Because this was the only source in the entire section, the "refimprove" section tag was changed to "unreferenced". 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Blog reference moved here to talk

…because, as a bare URL and blog/forum posting, it is not reliable, authoritative secondary content, and so not acceptable as a source here:

• REF [5] "Apples-to-apples comparison"

The place where it was removed is indicated by a tag. Because this was the only source in the entire section, the "refimprove" section tag was changed to "unreferenced". 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

References Found for section In teaching the use of units

Added two references to the section In teaching the use of units. I propose removing the {{unreferenced-section}}. Are there additional references needed? Any concerns about removing the warning template? - DutchTreat (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

unreferenced removed by DGG - DutchTreat (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)