Talk:Oroonoko

Template:V0.5

Great article - however...

This is certainly a magisterial article and as a mere gnome with notions of upperosity I am reluctant to see it tinkered with. However, I venture to question one revert and suggest one change:

"Instead of identifying Oroonoko with physical features that are native to Africa, the speaker associates Oroonoko as a great man who looks and acts like an European-English aristocrat."

Somebody corrected "an European-English aristocrat" to "a European-English aristocrat" and the edit was reverted. I suggest that the revert is incorrect, since the rule that the indefinite article "an" is the only one suitable for preceding a noun beginning with a vowel can be safely ignored if the first sound in the noun is not a vowel sound - e.g., since the word "Europe" begins with a "y" sound, we don't write "an European country" but "a European country". My other point is that we have to associate something "with" something else - we don't associate something "as" something else. I have not read the novel, and so I don't want to suggest an alternative wording for the sentence, because right now I am not sure what it means. Lexo (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow up: I looked up the "a/an" controversy in both Hart's Rules and Fowler and saw that "a" is prescribed for words beginning with vowels or vowel combinations that imply silent consonants such as "y", so I made the edit. After all, we would not describe Geogre as "an uniquely gifted contributor and editor" but as "a uniquely gifted contributor and editor". Lexo (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You have found a soft spot! Fowler is delightful. I do the "an" sometimes in a fussy way. For example, it's entirely hypercorrective, fuddy duddy, and fussy, but I'll do "an historian," nearly as a language joke. H, after all, is not a consonant. It is an aspiration mark (hence the Greeks using a mere aspiration mark to indicate it). The same is true of the /y/ sound created with "European." It's a joke, nearly, and the reversion was probably because of an edit summary that implied that I didn't know what I was doing.

To be serious about it, in both instances (y-sounds and h-aspirant), the "an" is optional. I believe in our allowing options, and I dislike the decreasing freedom of our editors created by -bot generated edits and the sort. Therefore, I usually do the antique usage as a bit of a point. In fact, I will always say "a European," and I will never say "an historical." Geogre (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that New Hart's Rules is silent on the subject (I keep the more up-to-date edition in work, where I need it; last night at home I was looking up an older edition) but the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors yields this (p.16): "an: use a not an before words such as hotel and historical where the initial h is sounded." On the other hand, Fowler 3rd edition, which I have before me (at home I was using Fowler 2) does indeed allow the option of "an historical" (p.2), at least in written English. In case you were wondering, I also have Fowler 1 and indeed the bros. Fowler's The King's English, now definitely out of date but still interesting. I myself would write "a historical" but would pronounce it more like "a 'storical". Lexo (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If we want to be linguistic, and, really, there is no need to have that desire, we'd argue that the aspiration of /h/ is getting hard in contemporary English. Most folks have no ambiguity about "an hour," but they also do not aspirate that /h/. Now me, I love King's English. It was one of the Fowlers, I think, that had the rule that "an exclamation point is to be used only in direct discourse, and then when one of the parties is on fire." If I were to be serious, and, really, there is no need for that, either, my own view is that written English is an artificial language, the it is not dependent upon our speech in most respects, and therefore there is no need to change its conventions because our speech has changed with regard to h's and y's. This thought leads me to appear to be archaic because of a view that is actually somewhat avant garde.

(I can rant for a while on this subject, and I do when I have to teach elementary writers. I tell them that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the dialects they speak, nor with the slang they employ, but written English is an artificial language, that none of us, from the Bahamas to Indonesia, write the way we speak, that the artificiality of written English allows us to understand each other, whether from South Africa or the Orkney Islands, in print, when we would never understand each other in person. For that reason, I rather like consistent rules in written English and pay less attention to how we speak.) Geogre (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was reading King's English last night and reflecting that an inexperienced writer who were to use it as a style guide now would get some very strange and arguably incorrect ideas about acceptable usage in 2008 - for example, the Fowlers' ideas of what constitutes an unacceptable "Americanism" is well out of date. I wouldn't use "muthafucka" in a formal letter, but unlike them I have no problem with "standpoint". I agree with you about consistent rules in written English, though. Everybody needs and deserves the capacity to write a standard version of English. There's a great, bitter joke about it in An Béal Bocht, referring to the Gaeilgeoirí who travelled as linguistic tourists in the west of Ireland: "The gentlemen had fluent English from birth but they never practised this noble tongue in the presence of the Gaels lest, it seemed, the Gaels might pick up an odd word of it as a protection against the difficulties of life." The social point is even stronger in the original - "gentlemen" translates daoine uaisle, lit. "noble folk", and the adjective is repeated in teanga uasal, "noble tongue". Lexo (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Fowlers' ideas...is well out of date." Hmmm. In my defence, I was up early this morning with my infant daughter. Lexo (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR Looming - Citations needed

This article is currently listed as a featured article, however it now fails the criteria for being one as there are numerous unsourced statements within the article. This is just not acceptable for a featured article. It has been tagged for needing more references to address this. If the article's sourcing issues are not addressed soon, it will be taken to featured article review to be delisted as a featured article. It also is lacking an infobox, the lead does not appear to be properly summarize the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific; what content do you feel is inadequately sourced? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've already noted, there are large numbers of unsourced paragraphs. You cannot just claim that is sourced because it has footnotes, it still needs some kind of actual, real citations. And re your edit summary removing the tag - this article passed FA in 2006. It does not meet the current, far more stringent standards and does need massive reference improvement. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that article tagging is generally a last resort - to be used when you've tried to work with editors and are getting no response. I suggest you be a little more civil and a little less template-happy. Please identify the sections you feel require inline cites, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, templates are not a "last resort" and are perfectly acceptable to put on any article with issues, particularly a supposed featured article that does not meet the featured article criteria. Randomly removing it and trying to pretend there are no issues with the article and just attacking people for pointing out an obvious flaw is what is uncivil. The article has problems. It was tagged as such. If you'd really rather prefer I got tag every last uncited sentence and kill the article with template overload, fine, or you could just actually LOOK at the article. The lack of citations is blatant and damned hard not to see: The first paragraph if Biographical and historical background - entirely unsourced. All but one sentence of "Fact and fiction in the narrator" - unsourced. "Models for Oroonoko" - all but a few sentences, again unsourced. "Slavery and Behn's attitudes" - two sentences cited, the rest not. "Historical significance" not a single citation. "Literary significance" - two cited sentences. Three cited sentences in "The New World setting" - the rest not. "Character analysis" has one whole cited sentence. "Women in Oroonoko" appears to possibly be cited, but with the issues in the rest, I'm inclined to think its only three sentences that have citations. "Adaptation" uncited except one sentence. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We will have to disagree on template usage, and indeed what is civil and not. I am having difficulty understanding your entire approach here, or your intent, from the extremely bizarre phrasing of "FAR Looming" - wth is that supposed to mean? If there are areas where this article formerly met FA criteria, but now the criteria has changed and the article might require some attention, it is a Good Thing to identify and fix those issues. If the article cannot be brought up to FA status in a reasonable amount of time - remembering to try to strike a balance between "the world will not end tomorrow " and "eventually is good enough" - then FAR is in everyone's interest, as I am sure we all want WP to have high standards for FAs and for the FAs to meet those standards. Yet your choice of subject seems to be combative and threatening from the start. I passed that by, and asked a clear simple query - you are the one raising the complaint, ergo presumably you can identify the problems - and you respond, again, aggressively and with hostile phrasing. Why are you being so combative? I'm trying to help here. I don't understand your approach, and I confess you startled me enough with your last post to cause me to almost wash my hands of this article and you. I would very much appreciate you either working with others on this (I sincerely hope I am not the only respondent to your concerns) and cease your treatment of this talk page as a battlefield and your fellow editors as the enemy. You will, I am sure, find people much more willing to try to address your concerns than if you continue to berate and chastise them for daring to ask what your concerns might be, so as to address them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I came across this FA article that no longer fails to meet FA criteria. I tag it as needing ref improving so that it can retain its FA status. Someone removes the tag with the "helpful" edit summary of "this n that". I replace the tag with an edit summary explaining "restore refimprove - FA article should not have any unsourced statements - this one does; tag is indicating this needs fixing - quickly - before film ends up in an FAR" (accidentally saying film instead of article as I was also working on a film issue. Same person removed the tag again, stating "The text is full of attributions, plus the footnoted material. You've looked so closely you're referring to the subject as a film? Maybe leave it to someone else.)". I again restore the tag, and this time leave a note on the talk page more fully explaining that the article currently fails the FA criteria. The purpose in tagging and then this note was to give any interested editors a chance to correct the issues before starting a FAR. In some of these older articles, it is often the case where it is "sourced" just lacking the proper inline citations. Then you popped in and again removed the tag, saying "Please explain what you think is inadequately sourced on talk. Do not re-add this template to an article which has managed to achieve FA; overkill at least" - despite my having already explained the problems above and having left notes at the relevant projects alerting them to the need to give this article some love (particularly when it is one of the few Book FAs out there). Yes, it achieved FA in 2005 - 4 years ago when the FA criteria were, compared to today, laughable at best. It does not meet WP:FAC and honestly, I did not find it very helpful at all that you removed the tag with that note, indeed it was mildly annoying, mildly hostile, and mildly insulting as it seemed that you just presumed I hadn't already done so and had not even bothered to look first. Removing the tag does not help alert people to the problems nor call attention to the need for repairs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd looked. I had read. And I found vague complaints, not the details anyone would need to even begin a productive discussion. You finally did give details in the post you made immediately prior to this, and while you found my request for not slapping tags on articles and my request for useful information to be "annoying" and "hostile" I assure you I find your subject, which echoes tabloid fear-mongering headlines, and your repeated insistence that I have been uncivil, not the behavior I would expect of a civilized person. I am now presuming that you consider your portion "done" by edit warring to keep a top level template on the article, and reluctantly giving a few meagre details after much prodding by me; and that you have no intention of actually attempting to fix this article yourself. Am I correct in that assumption? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as "fear-mongering" but reality. It does not meet the featured article criteria. As an attempt at courtesy, I was alerting any active editors that it needed work or it would be taken to FAR. Removing a maintenance template without fixing the problems is just as bad, IMHO. Nor should I have to give a line by line summary of everything wrong. As noted above, the lack of sourcing is glaringly obviously by the lack of citations throughout the article. It is not my job nor responsibility to fix the massive sourcing problems. I didn't write the article nor do I edit it. I gave appropriate notice and if you want to complain about the "edit warring" go ahead. If there are any active editors, they have been alerted to the issue. If no one seems interested in actually fixing the article rather than complaining about its being tagged, then it will be sent to FAR for appropriate review and delisting to a more appropriate classification. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes really; as the one adding the tag, you do indeed have to give a line by line summary of what you think is wrong. Otherwise, you are merely vandalizing the page by adding what amounts to graffiti. Please either list your concerns so someone can address them, or cease this. You seem to feel its perfectly ok for you to do a drive-by templating and say "fix it" and then have us play a guessing game about what precisely you want fixed. That, not to be too terribly indelicate, is bullshit. You put the tag on; you're the only one who seems to think its needed, ergo the onus is on you to explain. If you are too damn lazy to do anything but make vague hostile threats and add tags to articles, then perhaps you could go troll Usenet, or something similarly suited to your attitude. If you actually think this article needs improvement, then rather than spending all your time insulting other editors and edit warring to add tags, you might want to actually, as Outriggr suggest below, read the damn thing and make and post a list. You might even, if it would not be too terribly difficult for your abilities, attempt to fix some of the issues yourself. Good day, ma'am. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith of me in removing the tag. The edit summary "This n that" meant that I made some minor edits to wording that I thought improved the article a tiny bit—that "tiny bit" is a hell of a lot more than adding a tag, revert warring over it, and otherwise making no substantive comment about the article. I have found your approach extraordinarily hostile (towards want entity?—I have no idea—I, for example, have no stake in this article, and yet you bloviate at me, or KillerChihuahua, as if we are somehow the enemy—WTF?). You are stating as fact that this does not meet your idea of a featured article. That is your opinion; please stop stating it as fact. Like KillerChihuahua, I considered washing my hands of this, and I actually am, except that I saw my edit summaries brought up here. I'll be honest, sir or ma'am: your approach is strangely aggressive, threatening ("far looming"?), passive ("it will be sent to FAR"?--no buddy, have the guts to REFER TO YOURSELF--YOU are going to send it to FAR, right? Is that so hard to say?) You have yet to make a substantive criticism of the article, beyond the usual citation-counting crap. Do you not understand what it means for attributions to references to be incorporated into a sentence? Here's an example: "Also, as Ernest Bernbaum argues in "Mrs. Behn's 'Oroonoko'", everything substantive in Oroonoko could have come from accounts by William Byam and George Warren that were circulating in London in the 1660s. However, as J.A. Ramsaran and Bernard Dhuiq catalog, Behn provides a great deal of precise local color and physical description of the colony." To draw conclusions about an article, you have to read it. Goodbye. Outriggr (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, are you going to help make the article meet the current FA criteria? I'd be willing to work with you on that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Collectonian

Hi, question for you here in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the way these things are meant to work. Rather than tagging an article, a person should ideally try to fix it first, and particularly if you've started a FAR, you shouldn't just move on and force others to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When I last checked the guideline on tagging, drive-by tagging was not allowed—because it's basically like spraying graffiti on a page—and drive-by FAR-ing is not appreciated for the same reason. Otherwise, what you're setting up is two classes of editor: one that goes around adding tags and trying to have FA's delisted, and another that's expected to do the actual work. That kind of division would be very much against the spirit of Wikipedia.

I ask that you reconsider your position on this, and help Oroonoko keep its FA status. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Best practice has always been not to engage in drive-by tagging. The NPOV tag page says, for example: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies ..."

Imagine: I am driving past your home, and I see you've painted your front door a dreadful colour. I knock on it, and I say, "Hey, do you realize the colour of your door isn't the lovely chocolate brown you probably thought it was in the store, but a kind of nasty shit colour?" You thank me for the input, and reply that you might change the colour when you have time and money, or you'd welcome my help in changing it. I say, "Sorry, I don't care enough to help," and as I leave, I throw a bucket of red paint at your house, just to make sure you've got something else to fix. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)