Talk:Blackbeard/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

[edit request]

Forgive me if I am requesting an edit in an incorrect manner. I have never edited a wikipedia page before.

I would like to add a map of Blackbeard's travels to the Blackbeard page. I made the map myself in a cartography class using ArcGIS and Adobe Illustrator CS5. I used Charles Johnson's "A Brief History of the Pyrates" (1724) as my data source. I have also converted the file to a pdf. How might I go about getting permission to upload such a file?

Thank you. Rziobro (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)rziobro

Hi, Rziobro. You can upload files to Wikipedia here. If you upload your own work, you'll be irrevocably releasing it under this free license: Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you still want to upload it, then do so, make a note of it here, and participate in the ensuing discussion of whether or not it should be used in this article. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Edward Thatch

Smithsonian magazine says his birth name was actually "Edward Thatch", correcting a long-standing mistake by an early colonial newspaper which gave it as "Teach". Since it's a rather significant change, I'm posting it here for feedback before changing the article. See: The Last Days of Blackbeard: An exclusive account of the final raid and political maneuvers of history’s most notorious pirate First Light (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Smithsonian magazine doesn't appear to correct anything, rather the author of the article believes he's corrected something. Whether he's right or not remains to be seen, but I'm happy for a note to this effect to be placed in the article. For now, I think it's better to go with what the majority of sources say. Parrot of Doom 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Smithsonian isn't correcting anything, but is only repeating what other reliable sources have been reporting for a while, including Encyclopedia Britannica.[1][2][3] I'll add it as an alternate name in the lead, since that much seems to be fairly widely accepted. It's surely one of those things that will likely never be proven, though the "Teach" surname has the power of incumbency. This book,[4] from 2007, has the most thorough investigation of the different names. It leans somewhat towards "Thatch", since "Teach" wasn't found in any census records of the time. Based on that source, our article probably should have some discussion of the names in the body. First Light (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, maybe I should have read the article :-). It's fairly thoroughly discussed already. I think the "Thatch" name should remain in the lead, though, since so many reliable sources are using it as his name or main alternate name. First Light (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Cognomen versus nickname...

To help the talk page process along, my opinion on the cognomen versus nickname issue... Normally, I'd prefer the simpler version (far more people know what a nickname is than a cognomen), but I'm not sure that the two words are identical in meaning (a cognomen has a slightly wider meaning, I think, including adopted names etc.), and I'm not convinced that Blackbeard is, strictly speaking, a nickname. I'd be interested as to how the cited sources refer to the linkage between Edward Teach and "Blackbeard". Either way, definitely one for the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Cognomen and nickname aren't synonyms; a cognomen is an additional name, not a nickname, so I think it should stay. Eric Corbett 14:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A nickname is a nickname is a nickname; a cognomen has other unrelated meanings (namely Roman family names) and in fact, almost all links incoming to "cognomen" are for Romans. Not for English pirates. When a normal person reads a Wikipedia article, they don't need to be confronted by spurious usages that some Wikipedian thinks are cool but are outside the pale of the general readership. A nickname is also an additional name and is normal English. "Cognomen" is not. This is not a matter of "opinion" or quibbles about what a thesaurus suggests as an alternate for "nickname", it's right in MOS. It's covered in second paragraph, first sentence. "In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult to understand terminology and symbols.". I teach ESL and we were reading this article and I saw the usage and corrected it; for that I got told to "fuck you" and "fuck off". Does Parrot of Doom OWN this page?? Is insulting experienced editors and native speakers of the language who fix unwieldy and obscure language with someone simple and ultra-common par for the course, or is what I'm hearing just equivocation as a way to "decide" matters that shouldn't need such discussion; plain English should prevail, not Wikipedians trading syntatical and procedural games.Skookum1 (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom has told other people to "fuck off", "get fucked", etc. It's an ongoing problem. Those who don't care, please don't comment. --Ben Culture (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss what PoD may or may not have said to you, about which I really couldn't care less, simply to point out that cognomen isn't a synonym of nickname. Which in this context sounds altogether too twee for my taste. Eric Corbett 14:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's not a synonym for nickname, which is why I took it out and why it should stay out. @ Hchc2009 - if Blackbeard isn't a nickname, then what is it? It's not a Roman family name, that's for sure. You say it's not a nickname, but what other common English word is there for such a name? One that was used by some chronicler from centuries ago but is not used in modern English as any kind of common term; look at "what links here" for cognomen and tell me if Blackbeard belongs in that company. What other nicknames-that-aren't-really-nicknames, as you adjudge it, are there? Is Scarface a cognomen? Billy the Kid? Wikipedia English is bloating with such usages and equivocations "justifying" them; meanwhile scores of articles have English problems that nobody fixes.... using "cognomen" for Blackbeard, other than in the quoted source, is totally out of whack with normal English. But then so, increasingly, is Wikipedia and the fields of pretentious illogic that pass for "discussion".Skookum1 (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't it just say "...the source of the name Blackbeard"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, "the name" seems fine in the body, and the lede sentence can easily be rewritten to just use "name" instead. (We could even clarify that he adopted the name himself rather than having it applied by others.) We don't have to search for a single, perfect synonym to avoid a tonally inappropriate noun, we can rewrite sentences as well. --McGeddon (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like the ideal solution to me. --Ben Culture (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's be quite clear Skookum; I'm not arguing for cognomen, I'm arguing against nickname, which seems rather a childish word to me. And please, try to stop ranting. Eric Corbett 18:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree that "cognomen" is better than "nickname"; if we can find an alternative phrasing that avoids either, that could work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't dismiss people's arguments as "ranting". It's rude, unnecessary, and usually untrue. A lot of intelligent people can write with economy, but when they need to make an argument, find that economy of style deserts them. The exact same thing happens to me. I have a snappy prose style until required to argue or defend myself. Then I go on very long and as a result get ignored. It's unproductive. If you don't care enough to read his comments in full, stop participating. --Ben Culture (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nickname is "childish"?? I guess we come from different sides of that Atlantic, nickname is a plain old English word in common use, including by and for and about adults. At least in my part of the world, that is. Why "nickname" is not suitable here, as some people now aver, is quite beyond me, and only so much more wiki pretension/equivocation. That an issue of finding an alternative to "nickname" is even a discussion is just more demonstration to me of the complete failure of common sense in Wikipedia in place of abstruse and concocted arguments to justify bad wording. Rant? Oh, buddy, you don't know the half of it...calling a spade a spade is not "ranting". that's another word that gets too commonly tossed around in wikispace.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me try and clarify something for you. Here is a dictionary definition of nickname: "a familiar, pet, or derisory name given to a person, animal, or place". Which of those, in your opinion, applies in this case? Your appeal to common sense to justify your use of poor English is really quite telling. Eric Corbett 10:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That dictionary definition is lacking if it doesn't take into account "familiar" names for people not "familiar" in the family/close sense. Old Ironsides, what's that? It's a nickname. How many examples of things that are described as nicknames do you need? I already used sobriquet but that was overridden; and it's a fancy pants word, too, but at least more common and recognizable and without other meanings as is the case with cognomen; when is a nickname not a nickname? When some Wikipedian trots out a single dictionary quote that seems to indicate it's not? Hurricane Carter, Boomer Walkem, Boss Johnson.......are you going to suggest that those should not be called nicknames but something else instead? WHAT?? Re-inventing the English language by hair-picking is a tiresome bore but rife in Wikipedia and increasingly so; just use the language and if you need to find another dictionary that does agree with your desired narrow constraints on what "Blackbeard" is. It's not a regular name, to be sure; so "name" is out; it's not a cognomen as per the normal usage of that term. Would sobriquet make you happy? "Tag"? "What is your designation, Captain Teach?" "'Tis Blackbeard they call me, lad". "What Kind of name is that, Captain Blackbeard sir?" And what do you think the good captain, if he were a speaker of 20th Century English, would say? Chances are he'd say nickname, like 19 out of 20 other people; provided those people aren't Wikipedians. Most common use for "designations" of this kind, i.e. how people actually talk, English as she is spoke, is "nickname".Skookum1 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like that dictionary definition what about the one from the OED? " A (usually familiar or humorous) name which is given to a person, place, etc., as a supposedly appropriate replacement for or addition to the proper name." So would you claim that Blackbeard is either familiar or humorous? Perhaps, if you have a dictionary of your own, you may care to share how it defines nickname. And really, your fanciful dialogue is rather unconvincing. If you're so dead set against cognomen then the appropriate course of action is to do what Nikkimaria proposed above, and suggest an appropriate rewrite that avoids cognomen, nickname or any other putative synonyms. I'm quite certain that someone with your evident skill in writing simple English could manage to come up with something acceptable. Eric Corbett 22:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 is right. The name "Blackbeard" certainly implies familiarity, if not humor -- you don't know he has a black beard if you haven't seen him. "Nickname" is not so narrowly-defined that it only applies to friendly, humorous names. Perhaps a good compromise might be to use "nickname" for the text, so casual readers instantly understand, but make it a link to the Cognomen article, so the curious can educate themselves. Even I was unfamiliar with "cognomen", and my vocabulary's extremely good (not that you'd know it from my writing -- My schoolmates tended to punish me for it.)

It's also an ongoing problem that Parrot of Doom is article-owning, rude and foul-mouthed, refuses to change his incivil ways, and is generally anti-change. Notice he isn't participating in this discussion -- and mark my words, he won't -- because he is using WP:BRD (Be Bold, Revert, Discuss) to game the system: If he refuses to Discuss, and not enough other people get involved, no consensus can happen, so he gets to revert to his own favorite version of the article. It's cheating. BRD, which is not policy, is a disaster. But he has been allowed to exist in his own little niche where the rules don't apply to him. He, too, is a disaster. I hope that's not too incivil.

--Ben Culture (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Skookum isn't right, and neither are you. Eric Corbett 14:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly convinced me with that articulate and compelling argument! Thanks for adding value to this already-long discussion!

Seriously, Mr. Corbett? No comment on my suggested compromise?

[post-edit conflict] He IS right, and you are not, nor is Nikkimaria or others who think "cogonmen" is appropriate/right, and/or that "nickname" is inappropriate based on a loosey-goosey-meets-narrow reading of the OED. "Familiar" doesn't mean, or have to mean, a name for someone you are personally familiar with; it is a familiar name for a very widely-known individual. Other than rank objectionism "Skookum isn't right, and neither are you" (the name is Skookum1, by the way, not Skookum), all I'm hearing here is pure sophistry and gabble about justifying a completely useless usage (cognomen) and even more useless and not-in-connection-with-reality objections/definitions about "nickname". I field [[sobriquet], that has been ignored. Ask joe-blow on the street what a name like Blackbeard is, and they'll say "nickname". Ask a Wikipedian armed with a thesaurus and a dictionary and they'll chew up space arguing for the imposition of something-other-than-the-obvious. The uncivil nature of the reversions, as noted by Ben Culture above, is part of the issue here; Parrot does not OWN this article, and should be blocked/punished for his nastiness. As for "Skookum(1) is right", he damn sure is......but as on my talkpage, a consensus of fools is only foolishness. Reverting, as Nikkimaria did, back to a version which is allegedly "better" per her own interpretation of "nickname" as wrong flies in the face of actual REALITY. Something that Wikipedians seem all too immune to, when not being completely arrogant and pompous to boot.Skookum1 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion of course, even when you're wrong. As are we all. Eric Corbett 15:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"A consensus of fools is still foolishness" ... I think we have our take-away point here! --Ben Culture (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ben, while it's good to try to compromise, that suggestion wouldn't work: per WP:EASTEREGG, we shouldn't link one term to a different term in that manner. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Right. As I later posted, McGeddon's suggestion actually sounds like the ideal solution to me. Or maybe you said it first: Re-write the damn thing. But using "cognomen" is sheer pompousness. --Ben Culture (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

NB, I quite liked Ghmyrtle's suggestion above.Hchc2009 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As Nikkimaria said, the resolution to this issue is to reword the sentence to avoid both cognomen and nickname, the one being unfamiliar to many readers and the other inappropriate. I'm not sure that Ghmyrtle's suggestion quite cuts it for me though, although it's along the right lines. Eric Corbett 14:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would omit the naming from the lead entirely by amending it to "He became a renowned pirate and was reported to have tied lit fuses under his hat to frighten his enemies"; after all, "better known as Blackbeard" already appears a paragraph earlier. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with that, but nickname is bollocks. Parrot of Doom 16:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)