Talk:Blackbeard/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Protection

Could we try unprotectng the article for a bit? I see it was subject to persistent vandalism several months ago, but generally the main page featured article is not protected.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And unfortunately, most of the editing to a TFA is vandalism. It would be much less painless to leave it protected. Unregistered editors wishing to make constructive changes can always ask here. Parrot of Doom 00:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Though that's an argument for protecting all TFAs, and usually TFAs are not protected. Is Edward Teach particularly unusual?--A bit iffy (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Judging by how often it gets attacked, I'd say so. I don't know if you've written an FA that's been TFA, but if you have, you'll understand how incredibly frustrating it can be to watch idiots tear it apart. Parrot of Doom 00:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard

From the movie/70.233.150.101 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 November 2011

Under modern view of Blackbeard, there should be a mention of one of One Piece's Anime main characters Marshall D. Teach (Blackbeard's Pirates Captain) which was somehwat based on the real Blackbeard.

Source: http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Teach

Emqudaihi (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be trivia and not worthy of inclusion here. Parrot of Doom 09:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This information is already included in a related article, Blackbeard in popular culture. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly where it ought to stay. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Logical Whazzername

A quartermaster does not have a crew. What did you mean? Captainbeefart (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor picture on main page

"Blackbeard". NOTE: the beard is black

The picture on the main page, which is also included in the text here, has been badly degraded. It looks to me as if either someone has attempted to digitally improve the face, or else, the printed plate itself has degraded. It means that the blavkness of the beard, and the definition of the eyes has been lost. Both are registering as pale grey, while every line of this engraving (because of the printing method) should be dark black. A fresh printing plate will show crips edges and an old plate may lave fuzzy edges, but none ought to be pale grey. The whole point of the man's nickname "Blackbeard" is lost in the present illustration. I recommend its replacement with this version, or one of the hand-coloured prints. Unfortunately, the uploader (or perhaps the source) has cropped the border and inscription (which should not be done when uploading a print or engraving. But it is still a much better image, all round. Take a look under high res and you will see what I mean. Amandajm (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I recall in one of the sources I used mention of these images, and the different hats used. I'll try and dig the relevant sections out, but not tonight, as I'm about to go to bed. Parrot of Doom 00:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading Konstam, he says the image currently used in the article's infobox is early 18th century, used to illustrate the 1726 edition of Johnson's General History. The image you've posted, and which appears in Lee, appears to be based on Henry Bostock's description of the man, who he said wore a brown fur cap. I don't yet have a date for that image. The third image, with the tricorn hat, I don't have any more information for other than what the file already says. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Overuse of "Author says"

I carefully excised some instances of using the names of authors in the body of the text, since they do not have articles and the facts/speculations/opinions they made aren't particularly controversial. These authors are named in the references/footnotes, so if any reader needs to know who said what they are a click away. But putting so many names inline wrecks the flow. Speciate (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And I've equally carefully put them back. You cannot in all honesty change, for instance, "X suggests that ..." to "It is probable that ...", or "Current opinion is that ...". Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If these opinions are so sketchy, should they be in the article at all? Conversely, if they are supported by more than one source, then they should not be attributed to one lone researcher. Speciate (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that the opinion of one academic is unimportant or sketchy? You might as well argue that the opinion of one reviewer in a film or book article is equally specious. I suggest that you go and spend some time at WP:FAC to learn the ropes about writing good articles. Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just now I have surveyed quite a few Featured Articles, and the usage seen in this one is rare. It seems to me that this article is rather reliant on a pseudo-scholarly tone. For example, the use of quotes of modern/recent scholars is sloppy. (Quotes are acceptable for Blackbeard's contemporaries, of course.) Encyclopedic writing is a bit different from articles written for journals. By the way, I have some experience writing here on Wikipedia, perhaps you should check my contribs? Speciate (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So which of these articles is an FA? Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, none of them are FAs, because I didn't feel like working that hard. Each person contributes to Wikipedia in his/her own way. My purpose in pointing out I have some experience here was an attempt to get you to listen to me a bit less dismissively. Has it worked? Speciate (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is uncollegial. Speciate (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased you agree with me. Speciate (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Things like "Current opinion is..." and "It [is] probable that..." sound way too much like weasel words to me. It's the kind of thing that I've seen get that [who?] tag in other articles. I'd say leave the author's names in. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Think carefully. All knowledge is uncertain to one degree or another. Whether one says the name of the author who holds an opinion or not, the effect is the same. What is different is the flow of the article. A reader of an encycylopedia does not need to have the flow of the article interrupted by proper names to the degree that this one does. Are these researchers' names important? Or only their conclusions? Speciate (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The effect is most assuredly not the same. In this diff, for example, there is a huge difference between "...though author Angus Konstam suspects..." and "...but current opnion[sic] is..." One is talking about what one person says, the other is talking about what many people say. It doesn't get more different than that. Therefore, I would say that both the researchers' names and their conclusions are important. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One could make a case that that particular bit is too speculative to include in the article at all. Speciate (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Then make that case. Don't make the article worse by putting in weasel words. If you think it should be removed, then remove it, or (preferably) start a discussion here about removing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have to do a considerable amount of in-depth research. Is the topic of Blackbeard so sparsely researched that only Konstam, Lee, Pendered, Perry, Whedbee, Woodard, and Woodbury have written about him in the last 70 years? Is it really true that only Konstam said x? What about WP:UNDUE? Are those 7 modern authors unable to reach a consensus? Speciate (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't already know, then perhaps you ought to do that research before pontificating further. And you seem to be remarkably unaware of the way that academia works; nobody makes a name for themselves by agreeing, they make it by disagreeing. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you wind your neck in. "Nonsense" is not an insult, and these opinions aren't sketchy. They're opinions, which is why the article says they're opinions. Not facts, as you implied. Parrot of Doom 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you think that calling somebody's good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia "nonsense", and that my questioning your authority means that I should be told to stop or have my head chopped off, but I assure you that I do not. Speciate (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I tell thing as they are. Your edits were nonsense. As for your claims of ownership, that just highlights what an ignorant hypocrite you are. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You sound WP:UNCIVIL. Take a fresh look at all your edit summaries and you will see what appears to be a consistent tone of contempt for your fellow editors. Speciate (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just the stupid ones. Parrot of Doom 09:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made my point for me. Speciate (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're more than adept at doing that yourself, Mr Hypocrite. Parrot of Doom 23:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously both the authors' names and their opinions are important. I won't duplicate the correct arguments for this made above, but I want to note my agreement since claims of ownership are being attributed to other editors. It seems that not only is it important to put the authors' names in, but that there's fairly strong consensus that there is. What makes the tone "pseudo-scholarly," by the way? For god's sake, this article is quite well-written, and much more so than many actually scholarly articles I've had the misfortune to have been forced to read.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is a rough consensus here. But look at other articles and one can see that people don't use researchers' names to such a degree. Wikipedia-wide, consensus is that reliance on names of researchers to impart shadings of probablity to statements is the wrong way to proceed. Instead, scholarly consensus must be ascertained and then reported as what it is; scholarly consensus. Opinions of individual researchers are weaker, and should be used with care. Speciate (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So far you've cited WP:OWN and WP:UNCIVIL in support of your position, both wrongly applied in my opinion. Do you have any policies that actually cover content that might apply to this situation? You might want to have a look at WP:INTEXT, where the use of authors' names is specifically recommended, and at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, where your proposed wordings are specifically discouraged.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If I am correct that these opinions are too speculative, WP:INTEXT supports my position. See the Dawkins example. Are the POVs really properly weighted, important and worth reporting at all? Then WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV supports my position, which is that there isn't really so much controversy about Blackbeard as callouts of researchers' names might lead people to believe. Speciate (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I know that you think Parrot and Malleus are being uncivil with you, and perhaps they are (at least Parrot; Malleus isn't uncivil here in my book at all). But you're also breaking the (ideal) collegiality of Wikipedia by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I didn't hear that." You have yet to link to a policy, guideline, MOS entry, or even essay that supports your assertions, despite claiming a "Wikipedia-wide" consensus that the "Author x says" formulation is undesirable. Read the articles Alf and I have linked. Find ones (if there are any) that support your opinion. Link them here, and then an actual discussion can start. You have to realize that Parrot has put a lot of work into making this article a featured article (one on the main page, no less). I know he doesn't "own" the article, but to see someone else walk in and add weasel words without any policy justification to an article that, largely through his effort, has already passed the FA review must be frustrating infuriating. His behavior is not strictly correct, but it is very understandable. So please, if you'll excuse the succinct phrase, "put up or shut up." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See my comments above about various guidelines and policies. And thank you for agreeing with me about Parrot of Doom's attitude. Speciate (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And maybe have a look at WP:OAS for a better description than ownership of the attitude that editors who disagree with you here are displaying.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I know everybody here is acting in good faith as far as the article is concerned. Speciate (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bristol born?

I have recently read a book entitled "The Last Days of Blackbeard the Pirate," that challenges the notion that Blackbeard was born in Bristol because the only source that confirms that is Charles Johnson's "Pyrate," book. Historians have largely disowned Johnson's pseudo-history. The author, Kevin Duffus, suggests the pirate Blackbeard was born in Goose Creek, in the colony of Carolina. I think it's worth mentioning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.178.249 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Which historians exactly have disowned Johnson's work? Because that statement contradicts the sources I have. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki article also states that "little is known" of Blackbeard's early life, etc etc...This implies some facts have been acertained. So what, exactly, is known and why isn't it in the article? Every resource I've seen has been purely speculative, including those referring to Johnson's dubious book....we have no evidence of his real name, date & place of birth, parentage, etc etc. I think it should say "nothing is known" of BB's early years. Engr105th (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing" does not mean the same as "almost nothing". And who is claiming that Johnson's book is dubious? Parrot of Doom 19:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnson's book is dubious only in my own opinion (and I freely admit that - I don't intend that my opinion go into the article itself)...But my question remains: if 'little is known' about BB's early life, what is that 'little' info? Do we know anything at all? Engr105th (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know what little is known of his life before he became a pirate then perhaps you should read the article. I'm not going to summarise it here. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@Parrot - no, I didn't want you to summarise it here. But I did read the Wiki article, and it says nothing of his early life. The sources also have nothing definitive. I propose we adjust the article to reflect that nothing is known. Engr105th (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

But that would not be true. We don't know a lot, but we certainly don't know nothing. Parrot of Doom 22:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm with you...so what do we indeed know ?

More than nothing, and less than a lot. In other words, "little". Ok? Parrot of Doom 01:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)