Talk:And/or

Whoever wrote this article is a moron with a chip on the shoulder

As anyone with half a brain cell should be able to tell, it is not "and/or" which is ambiguous or a "lazy construct"; it's the English language itself that's fucking sloppy and ambiguous! English does not make a distinction between OR (i.e. inclusive or) and XOR (i.e. exclusive or). In fact "or" in English sometimes means XOR, and sometimes means OR. So basically, "or" means "OR or XOR, depending on how well you can read the author's mind"! How messed up is that?

If such a logical quagmire doesn't meet your needs, you should be able to specify whether you are referring to OR or XOR. In the case of XOR, you can use "either" instead of "or", but what about when you really mean OR? Well, the _only_ concise way of expressing OR that English allows is by means of "and/or". Try avoiding using "and/or" without compromising the explicitness of its meaning and you end up with convoluted constructions, such as the ones Helvetica already pointed out below.

TL;DR: this article sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.197.224.224 (talk) 20:42, February 19, 2012

Just a question:

Jim will not eat cake and pie.----Does it suggest that Jim will not eat 2 things, but he may eat cake, or pie (one of the two options)?

Jim will not eat cake or pie.----Can I interpret it as, Jim will not eat any of the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha2006 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just an answer:

Does it matter in this context? The point is that neither is resolved by using "Jim will not eat cake and/or pie". English already provides for avoiding ambiguity without introducing the unhelpful "and or or" construction. You could say "Jim may eat either cake or pie" or "Jim may eat neither cake nor pie".

mouse 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHudson00 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This article makes me want cake, pie, and brownies. I hate dieting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.145.19.66 (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Either

After the 2nd paragraph establishes that "and/or" is problematic, and the 3rd paragraph states an argument for using it, the 4th paragraph counters that argument by saying two things: (a) that either, as a conjunction, appropriately indicates that the choices are mutually exclusive; and (b) that it is not necessary to use either as a conjunction when the function of "or" is clear from the context. So far, so good.

However, don't we still need to suggest how to indicate that the choices are not mutually exclusive for cases in which the function of "or" is not clear from the context? In other words, the absence of either does not tell us that the writer would invariably have used either (or some similar indicator) if the choices had been mutually exclusive.

I'm not suggesting that this article needs to be a complete grammar lesson on this subject. I simply think that we've left one logical part of the argument unsettled.

--rich<Rich Janis 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)>

Does the other need to indicate that the choices are mutually exclusive? I put together a quick comparison/explanation here:

http://www.geocities.com/thorin.geo/and_or_invalid.html

It's not as if we can expect authors to write "and/exclusive or". 198.103.96.11 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge

Do not merge it. It's an outstanding linguistic phenomenon not directly related to logic and mathematics. --ssr 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

XOR

I've heard the term XOR used, like the Logic Gate 86.42.137.48 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) XOR is short for eXclusive OR is obscure enough and lacking clarity, that the first thing you would need to do would be to expand and explain it anyhow. one would be better to say "one or the other or both" as it is a very simple and very clear construction unlikely to confuse even those who don't have English as their first language. And/or simply doesn't read well, the excessive punctuation can be considered to read as "and or or" and it flows poorly when you try to read it aloud. -- 86.47.161.201 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

delete this sentence?!

It is particularly damaging in legal writing, in addition to being generally sloppy writing, because a bad faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits him, the "and" or the "or." [2]

To me, this sounds like a (referenced, yes, thank you :o)) very poor argument because it assumes without any rational basis that "pick[ing] whatever suits him" should be contrary to the contracting parties. Given that the case for and against "and/or" is clear without it, I'd suggest to simply delete the sentence. Quite apart from the fact that the sentence portrays a contended opinion ("damaging", "sloppy") as referenced fact.

And please don't argue with me about whether or not the sentence is right in condemning "and/or"... because I don't really care. In Wikipedia, I care more about bad arguments than about the opinions they may [try to] support... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words! Gah!

"Others argue that in a very legalistic society, the word "or" is no longer sufficiently clear, because it may indicate choices that are mutually exclusive"

This is the very thing that people mock Wikipedia for, especially those on Encyclopedia Dramatica. This sentence needs to be changed to avoid weasel words. Zell65 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Uses of 'and/or' on wikipedia

Should it be allowed? Or change it to just 'or'? Lightblade (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think they should all be changed. Wikipedia's Grading Scheme and Copy Edit templates used to include an "and/or" I got them to change :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Grading_scheme#Grading_Template_Needs_Copy_Editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Copyedit#Copyedit_Tag_needs_copy_editing

206.47.249.251 (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they should all be change, and preferably there should be automated systems that help users conform to this and other simple elements of style. and/or is a weasel word, or at least a terribly indecisive and inarticulate grammatical construction. the sooner it goes the better, it is just one of those terribly pretentious phrases some people like to "utilize" to make themselves seems smarter. "Keep it simple stupid" is a much harder principle to apply. Ideally there would be a lot more overlap between "Simple English" wikipedia, the divergence is a testament to just how convoluted and unclear most of the writing in wikipedia can be. -- 86.47.161.201 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

History??

When did it first start appearing? I mysteriously found it in Hesse's Glass Bead Game. I'm curious of coinage, and what was thought about it when it emerged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.14.227 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary has a quotation from 1855. However, that doesn't mean it was common at that time. 217.140.96.21 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to have a definite bias against and/or. Many people though are quite happy with using it.

The article says "Some grammarians have pointed out that the phrase is redundant, since the word or logically and grammatically encompasses the same meaning."

I don't know that this is true. The article uses examples with lists of three, but let's simplify with just two items.

If I say "Fred will eat an orange or an apple," I think that would generally be understood by most English speakers (or at least most American English speakers) to mean that Fred will eat either an orange or an apple, but not both. To get the and/or meaning without using "and/or," I would have to say "Fred will eat an orange or an apple, or both," which is longer.

With lists of three or more, it becomes even more complicated. There I can't use "both," since "both" is just for two. I could say "Fred will eat an orange, an apple, or a melon, or all three." But technically, that would mean that he will either have one of the fruits or all three of them, but excludes the possibility of having two out of the three. Then to be clear I would have to use a really cumbersome construction like "Fred will eat one or more of the following fruits:"

So all and all, even if "and/or" isn't the prettiest, it's often a lot better than the alternative!

-Helvetica (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, the tone of the article is POV. I have tried to correct some of the excesses and provide some citations. Any opinions should be backed by citations - including yours, Helvetica. The onus is on you to find them. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)