Talk:The pot calling the kettle black/Archive 1

This article

i love it that this article was created for name-calling purposes, not understanding WP:WIN. now we have shakespeare and cervantes linked. LOL. it shows that keeping articles is great, deleting stupid...-- ExpImp^talkcon 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! original version (linked for reference)

Nbarth (email) (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Note: this is not actually an example of hypocracy. but more an example of a double standard (according to the wikipedia definition of hypocrisy.) Contradiction clarity needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.92.228 (talk • contribs)

"Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic." Xiner (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Racist connotation

The article mentions that the term is considered racist, and the reason given is that the phrase usually refers to a negative aspect of character. A phrase isn't be racist because just it refers to a negative aspect of character.

There is no racist connotation, any more than everything the color of black is an analog for people whose origin is of the African diaspora. The phrase simply comes from a cooking pot and a tea kettle. In the 1600s, both cooking utensils would have been cast and black in color. The phrase means that an attribute is being pointed out by someone who has a similar attribute. This can range from mean spirited hypocrisy to good-natured kidding.

There has never been any overt or covert racism inherent in this phrase.

When Karl Linne created the analogies between/ among colors and people of diverse countries of origin the association with color and human origin/ pigmentation became more widespread as literacy spread ever so slightly throughout Europe. Later in the 19 the century so called scientific racisim sought to substantiate claims that the color of human pigmentation was not only rooted in environmental circumstances but also related to social and intellectual development thus furthering the association of color with inherent human capacities, intelligence and ambition. Racism with regard to this phrase has indeed never been overt. It is rather covert, under the radar and the very means through which phrases and their persistence throughout history to maintain racist ideology from completely vanishing. Origins aside, words and semiological attributions to the word "black" or " red" or "white" over time outweigh the notion that intent of the founders of the phrase trump the accumulated and present tense of that phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.190.8 (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good... but I would not advise using this phrase around people of African descent. It may not go well.

Real pots and real kettles

I have retired from the US to a village in remote province in Thailand, where we use pots and kettles over open fires every day. A pot goes on a fire as soon as the wood is kindled, and the pot gathers layers and layers of soot. It must be handled with care and set down someplace apart, for everything that comes in contact with the outside of the pot gets sooty, too. A kettle, on the other hand, is only set over glowing coals and gathers no appreciable amount of soot, so it may be set anywhere safe, but without worry about getting sooty. Inevitably, however, a kettle will become sooty, too, and a sooty kettle is valued even less than a sooty pot. Furthermore, the wide-open mouth of a pot makes it easy to keep the inside clean, however sooty the outside. The narrow-mouthed kettle, however, makes it most difficult to clean if it gets fouled inside. So there is more than meets the eye of two black objects. Unfortunately, there I have no knowledge of a similar saying in rural Thailand, though pots and kettles of markedly different status abound. Pawyilee 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. wâa dtàe kăo ì-năo bpen eng (Thai: ว่าแต่เขาอิเหนาเป้นเอง) Enau (อิเหฺนา) is the hero of a story in verse of the same name, adapted by Siam's King Lertla from the Javanese, which gave rise to the metaphor, "As for Enau, he is the same," with the meaning of The pot calls the kettle black. word-for-word translation Pawyilee (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pawyilee!

Your interpretation (about kettles not blackening, or not much) is shared by a number of references, and I’ve added it to the page.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In contrast to this, Norwegian coffee kettles for outdoor use (kaffelars) are normally very sooty. We don't have this particular idiom in our language, though; we use the "throwing stones in a glass house" variant instead. - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Teapot interpretation

It seems to me, although I have no knowledge of any documentation regarding the origin of this phrase, that whoever originated it must have been quite familiar with tea pots, which have existed as ornamental china for many centuries. Thus I suspect that the pot in the instance is in fact a teapot, and offer this interpretation:

The teapot, in calling the kettle black, engages in a subtle form of hypocrisy--the subtlety of the expression having been lost through the ages. The teapot says only what is true, indeed what is obvious; but she forgets to acknowledge that it is only the kettle's direct absorption of the flame (the kettle's "doing the dirty work") which permits her to avoid the soot, and thus maintain her aesthetic appeal. The kettle sacrifices his cleanliness, and indeed his very visibility, solely that the teapot should keep hers, and both remain essential participants in the tea ritual as a whole. Thus, even as the teapot receives all the glory of ceremony, she nevertheless is in no moral position to criticize the kettle. —Jemmy_tc 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Old Old Revision

The last revision I contributed ([1]) has two parts omitted from the current version. Any reasons why? I think both Shakespeare and Mencius are notable.-- ExpImp^talkcon 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1- Shakespeare

• Shakespeare in Troilus and Cressida — "The raven chides blackness."

Mencius

Chinese philosopher Mencius relates a similar story about a soldier laughing at another soldier retreating 100 steps, while retreating 50 steps himself.

References

Maybe Mention that "Pot calling the kettle black" is often an ad-hominem

A "Pot calling the kettle black" argument can often be an Ad hominem attack. For example:

1. Sophie posted an off-topic post to a mailing list, and many people didn't like it.
2. Some time afterwards, Jack posts a political post to his otherwise technical blog.
3. Sophie criticises Jack for posting a political post.
4. David posts a reply to Sophie's comment saying that Sophie is accusing Jack of posting an off-topic message on his blog, while she did the same. ("Pot calling the kettle black.")
5. However, Sophie's criticism was about the post's political nature and in the case of the mailing list, it may have been more justified, or she had learnt from her mistakes.

Of course, we need to find citations for this, etc. but that may be doable, but I think we should mention it here. Shlomif (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Idioms list

This list does not belong here. It should be transferred into wikt:pot calling the kettle black. Keφr (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tense agreement

In English grammar the rule is that there should be agreement of tenses within a sentence. "When writing a sentence, it is important to think about when the action in your statement occurred. You should keep the tense uniform throughout the sentence when discussing things that happened at the same time." In the opening sentence of the lede, what is being discussed is how a proverb was introduced into English in the past, so "seems to have been" is required to agree with "began to appear". The opinionated User:Joefromrandb has already been blocked once this month for battleground conduct. His recent edit here has again been reversed. Perhaps he should confine himself as he suggests to the Simple English Wikipedia. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you're mixing past tense and past perfect tense in the same sentence. Second, something is either of Spanish origin or it isn't; "seems to have been of Spanish origin" implies that it was previously of Spanish origin but is now of a different origin. "Discussing things that happened at the same time"; so you're asserting that the term originated in the Spanish language at the same time it entered the English language? You're making quite the fool of yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The grammatical rule is that past tense goes with past tense, not that they should always be the same. What is being asserted is that a proverb (not a 'term') that is first found in English in the 17th century may probably have been of Spanish origin; however, all that can be said with certainty is that it appeared in Spanish texts before English and is attested in a Spanish collection of proverbs at that period. To go further and say that it is definity of Spanish origin, as you wish the sentence to read, counts as WP:OR without a valid reference.

I notice that your recent block has still not taught you to moderate you combative and abusive behaviour. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You are aware that you're making these statements on a page about "the pot calling the kettle black", right? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Smart Alec comments in both your previous responses evade the question at issue. We are discussing tense agreement. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir Alec Guiness commented in both of my responses? He's the only smart Alec of whom I can think at the moment. You want to discuss tense agreement, but with statements like, "...is first found in English in the 17th century may probably have been of Spanish origin" lead me to believe you have a misunderstanding of verb tenses in general. Do you understand what the past perfect tense is and where it is indicated? You are not using it correctly. I'd also like to know where you got the idea that I want "to go further and say that it is definity (sic) of Spanish origin". Joefromrandb (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it is indeed a "term". It's an idiom as well. It is not, however, a proverb. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

I don't care where it appears on this article, but the word "hypocrisy" should appear on this article. Over the past several years I've brain farted the word hypocrisy many times and needed to look it up - so I used the idiom "pot calling the kettle black" to reference the search and was infuriated that no one on the internet seemed to have the single word definition of the phrase listed on the same page as the idiom itself. I'm a native English speaker and a professional writer.

"Pot calling the kettle black" = "hypocrisy"

They mean the same thing and they simply must be paired together in a reference article, whether it be in disambiguation or whatever. I'm fully prepared to go to war over this and keep changing the article over and over until whomever doesn't like it goes insane, or I never forget the word hypocrisy ever again - whichever comes first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.194.86 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pot calling kettle black.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

preamble

The proposition in the preamble that it is psychological projection is just a possibility. A more general classification would be to grasp it as hypocrisy or ignored analogy.--2A02:120B:C3C7:87E0:6843:22BA:8AE5:B13C (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you know better than those who originally used the expression. The statement is referenced; where is yours? Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The referenced versions of original use in the 17th century (and also later) in the article obiously do not refer to "psychological projection" (at that time they didn't even know any such psychlogical interpretations). Or could you please explain your claim, and indicate, which the reference is where "the statement is referenced"? ... I just wanted to indicate that the interpretation of this proverb as "psychological projection" is incomplete or fragmentary.--2A02:120B:C3C7:87E0:8839:14AB:6960:75F1 (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, reference provided. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Idioms list redux

I am referencing this earlier discussion: Talk:The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black/Archives/Archive_1#Idioms_list.

A few years ago, @Kephir: removed the In other languages section. It has reappeared. I'm going to add the whole thing back. --evrik ^(talk) 17:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Earlier posts

Before I clicked the "Add topic" button "Start a discussion ..." appeared at the foot of this page as if there'd not been previous posts, despite the Archives box indicating the contrary. Why were they archived anyway? Mcljlm (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Cat

Google searches indicate an alternative form - cat calling/calls ... - at least as far back as the mid 1950's. Perhaps something about that could be added. Mcljlm (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Proverb of pot and kettle.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Proverb of pot and kettle.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)