Talk:Anglo-Saxon Attitudes

Untitled

What does zaftig mean?

This is very well written and would make the foundations of an insightful essay, but it seems hopelessly POV to me - it does not attribute opinions to the persons or groups that hold them. What should be done with it?--Robert Merkel 13:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't even figure out what it's talking about...What are "anglo-saxon atitudes"? Who, for that matter, are the Anglo-Saxons here? Is this something about how the french were the rulers of england for a while so the Anglo-sazons were considered inferior or what? uh, in short, I think it could be a valid article, but this seems to make sense only if you already knows what on earth is being discussed. Datepalm17 13:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I havn't got a clue what this is all about, does anyone else know? G-Man 12:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VfD

On April 22, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anglo-Saxon Attitudes for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Needs More Investigation

The key problem is that it isn't clear what are "Anglo-Saxon Attitudes" in the first place!

The current article says that this is a complaint against Anglo-Saxons - but there is no evidence for this given.

The discernable facts are that this phrase was popularised by Lewis Carroll and then by Angus Wilson's novel (as hits in Google show). But though Carroll does seem to be making a pun, it isn't clear from the context what this pun is. I suspect it relates to Victorian antiquarianism rather than foreign resentment of the English.

Of course, the other point is that the use of the phrase does not necessarily refer back to Carroll, but several of those turned up by Google do.--Jack Upland 03:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Total BS

The phrase is simply a combination of words that appears in Carroll and then as the title of several unconnected literary works. It isn't verifiably a catch-phrase (like "WASP") and I'm deleting any reference to it, as such, until at least one or two sources can be cited. I don't know why the article wasn't deleted in its entirety -- I think because everyone was focused on the POV issue rather than the question of whether it exists at all as a catch phrase or somesuch -- but I feel obligated to respect the vote. Apollo 22:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've completely rewritten the page -- obviously -- leading with the Angus Wilson novel and the movie made from it, both of which deserve inclusion in the WikiPed. I've kept it all together, since the movie would be a stub and anyone interested in it will find it here. I've kept the interesting Lewis Carroll quote and put the other references to the phrase in footnotes (rather than simply deleting them, which would have been my preference). I tried to find evidence that Wilson had the Carroll quote in mind, but could not find any; there is a good article by him on writing the book, referenced in the footnotes. Best I can tell, he simply made up the title out of whole cloth.

References

I see that references 3-5 are not really references at all. A reference must be verifiable, this means that a source must be given. Stating something as a fact in the references section without giving a source does not constitute a reference. I also note that much of the article was written as if it were a review, and contained much opinion, wikipedia should only contain verifiable material from previously published reliable sources which are fully referenced, this means that if one wants to claim that One expects to run into Bertie Wooster's aunt at any minute it needs to be a published POV, and it needs to be fully sourced. Editors should not write reviews of films or books and should not include their own opinion. Please see the following policies: verifiability, NPOV|neutral point of view and no original research. Alun 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed one of the footnotes, and not only because it was unsourced: it was a completely irrelevant aside about Kate Winslet's weight as a schoolgirl. I can't believe that it was allowed to sit at the bottom of the article for over two years. R Lowry (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Certain plot points mentioned in the summary of Angus Wilson's novel come, in fact, from the movie version. This oversight needs to be rectified. Also, the language in the article does not befit an encyclopedia entry. Bold text

The picture of Kate Winslet

Putting a picture of Kate Winslet on this article gives a deeply misleading impression. A reader could be forgiven for thinking that she has an important connection with the subject, when really she has little or nothing to do with it -- she just happened to play a very minor role in a (rather obscure) film adaptation of the novel. Ideally, it would be nice to replace the picture of Winslet with a more appropriate one, but since I don't have one I'll just go ahead and delete. R Lowry (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglo-Saxon Attitudes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530145032/http://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/bai/anglo.html to http://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/bai/anglo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)