Talk:Black spider memos
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Strange use of present tense
editWhy does the article use constructions like "The letters are sent...", "Charles writes the letters...", etc.? (My emphasis). Is this a strange deferential use, in parallel to "the royal we", the monarchy being ever-present? Is there a good reason for this odd language? If not, "we" shall change it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I used that tense as I assume he still writes letters. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. Do up-to-date sources say that he does? I would have thought that, at least, a construction like "...has written letters..." would be better, if not "...wrote...", given that the term "black spider memos" seems in current usage to refer mainly if not wholly to those that are expected to be published later today. One other point about the article - the heading "2004-05 letters" then has a number of sub-headings that appear to relate to later memos, and perhaps could do with some restructuring. As I haven't edited (or indeed read) this article before today, I'm reluctant to launch myself into such edits myself, if the article's authors have a good justification for its current format. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I like has written. Perhaps the other letters should be spun off. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's a problem in this article in placing these letters in time and characterising them more specifically. When exactly did they begin and what distinguishes them from the other letters he writes? People like this write to the great and the good all the time because that's who they mix with. I think we need to be more specific. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I like has written. Perhaps the other letters should be spun off. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. Do up-to-date sources say that he does? I would have thought that, at least, a construction like "...has written letters..." would be better, if not "...wrote...", given that the term "black spider memos" seems in current usage to refer mainly if not wholly to those that are expected to be published later today. One other point about the article - the heading "2004-05 letters" then has a number of sub-headings that appear to relate to later memos, and perhaps could do with some restructuring. As I haven't edited (or indeed read) this article before today, I'm reluctant to launch myself into such edits myself, if the article's authors have a good justification for its current format. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Fleur-de-lys etc
edit"The letters are adorned with the Prince's fleur-de-lis logo, and have been addressed from his Clarence House residence.[4]" Although this sentence does indeed reflect what the cited source claims ("[Paul] Richards ... said letters came with the Prince of Wales fleur-de-lis logo, or addressed from Clarence House, or from one his many charities, foundations and campaign groups") it is, of course, bollocks. As any fule kno, the Prince of Wales's badge (not logo) is not a fleur-de-lys but, er, the Prince of Wales's feathers (the clue's in the name), and that is indeed what appears on the top of some of his letters: e.g. here. It's really not worth trying to "fix" this misstatement, which really amounts to the totally unremarkable fact that when Prince Charles writes letters, he sometimes uses his own headed paper; so I'm just deleting the sentence. GrindtXX (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)