Talk:Blackbeard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

1

From article, not a direct quote from sited book: "Teach's flag depicted a skeleton spearing a heart, while toasting the devil. Flying such a flag was designed to intimidate one's enemies.[106]"

The flag is not a depiction of a skeleton "toasting" the devil, but the devil (as a skeleton, see horns) with an hourglass. It is not a challis or goblet. An hourglass was a symbol of death, much like skeletons, skulls, bleeding hearts, etc. and meant 'your time is up' to those who saw it.

I know I've read this somewhere, and it is a common conception about other pirate's flags also, I just don't have specific siting for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeirvin (talk • contribs) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuses, beards, hats, etc

Recent edits have suggested that Teach tied fuses to his beard, but this is not what is claimed by the sources used for the majority of this article, which use Johnson's description of the man. Johnson never said that Teach tied fuses to his beard, he said, and I quote - "So our Heroe, Captain Thatch, assumed the Cognomen of Black-beard, from that large Quantity of Hair, which covered his whole Face, and frightn'd America, more than any Comet that has appeare'd there a long Time", and "This Beard was Black, which he suffered to grow of an extravagant Length; as to Breadth, it came up to his Eyes; he was accustomed to twist it with Ribbons, in small Tails, after the Manner of our Remellies Wigs, and turn them about his Ears; In Time of Action, he wore a Sling over his Shoulders, with three brace of Pistols, hanging in Holsters like Bandaliers; and stuck lighted Matches under his Hat, which appearing on each Side of his Face, his Eyes naturally looking fierce and wild, made him altogether such a Figure, that Imagination cannot form an Idea of a Fury, from Hell, to look more frightful."

Now can we please stop this nonsense of "reliably sourcing" statements to the effect that Teach tied fuses to his beard? Whom do you think is the more reliable source, Charles Johnson's original description of the man, or a newspaper journalist doing a quick google? Parrot of Doom 15:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you not noticed the other sources used? I believe those sources are impeccable. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You believe that a newspaper journalist or two will know more about this subject than the acclaimed historian Angus Konstam? He tied ribbons to his beard, and fuses under his hat. Parrot of Doom 16:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No but I do believe that the other two sources which I had added and which you appear to be ignoring are impeccable, please explain how they are not. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Impeccable? One is described as "A story of rediscovery - of two North Carolinian's returning to their roots in the state's Eastern provinces", and another is a children's book which contains a whopping five sentences on Blackbeard". The third is a short newspaper report by a journalist who probably spent 20 minutes writing it. Parrot of Doom 16:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes impeccable, the two books used are from academic publishers, one being a university press. You cannot say they are not reliable sources. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I can, and I am. Deal with it. Parrot of Doom 19:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• RSN Ths topic is being discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard.[1] TFD (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

The sources used were found to be fine at the RSN board. The removal of at alternative description is a breach of WP:NPOV hence the pov tag. I fail to see how this alternate description can cause such a fuss. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources, they may strictly speaking fit the definition of "reliable" but are they really good enough for what is a high-quality article? Jasper Copping of The Telegraph is a "general news reporter", hardly an expert on the subject. Into the Sound Country was published by The University of North Carolina Press, but it seems to be a travel guide of sorts and not specifically about Blackbeard; Gotcha for guys! has similar problems. The article as it stands currently uses sources written specifically about Blackbeard by experts in the subject area, not a couple of travel writers or a journalist. If you want to claim that Blackbeard put fuses in his beard you are going to need to provide a high-quality source along the lines of Pendered or Perry. Nev1 (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that the above is pretty much what WP:RSN concluded, with Betty Logan pointing out that the authors are not experts on Blackbeard and that "the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context", Keraunoscopia believing changes are unnecessary, and Andrew Dalby seeming to more or less agree that the sources are not reliable for what they were being used to say. Only WhatamIdoing supported the sources without question, and frankly their blind faith in reputable publishers being reliable in all fields is naive at best. Nev1 (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources are fine as was pointed out by more that one editor at the RSN board. They are certainly good enough to support the view that he has been also described as having tied fuses to his beard. Your removal of the tag is a breach of WP guidelines, please do not remove it again until this dispute is resolved. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't have a view that he was described as having fuses in his beard, either he was or he wasn't described that way in which case it needs to be made clear who stated as much. I'm sorry, but the sources you provided really are not good enough quality for this article. Have you considered why the major sources on Blackbeard don't say he had fuses in his beard? I'd trust someone who'd spent months or years researching the subject over people who are not experts in the field summarising for a populist audience. Nev1 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If he has been described as having fuses in either his beard or hat then that is of course a description. Neutrality would be to have both presented. Given this is for just a few words then it seems there are ownership issues going on here, the sources are more than adequate to support my edit. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If the description is not based on primary sources then it is a later invention and if it were to be included would need to say as much. The sources are most certainly not adequate for what you were adding as has been explained. I suggest you search for a source specifically about Blackbeard. Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between a reliable source and an expert source. The books used in the construction of this article are of the latter variety. I'd wager that Angus Konstam knows what he's talking about. Teach was reported to have tied fuses under his hat, in the manner hinted at in the article's main image, and coincidentally, at the beginning of this clip. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard's Religion?

What was Blackbeard's religion? In the POTC series, he seemed to be a practitioner of Voodoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.18.52 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Never seen any reliable source that suggests any specific religion. 1680's England was nominally Protestant with a Catholic monarch (until the 1688 Revolution). But the extent to which the national religion influenced local religious practice is arguable - for example some Northern Irish bishops post-Reformation held appointments from Protestant monarchs and the Pope simultaneously, and made no changes at all to local religious performance. Bristol, where Blackbeard may have been born, seems not to have been a particular centre of either Catholicism or non-conformism, but that's not to suggest that these elements didn't also exist alongside traditional Protestant views. He could have ben anything.

As a random piece of original research I would hazard a guess that it is more likely than not that he was born a nominal Protestant, given the majority of Bristol residents were probably at least nominal Protestants at the time Blackbeard was possibly born. But as there's no way to verify this, so there doesn't seem to be anything that can be added to the article on it.

I think it very unlikely he was a practitioner of voodoo, which during his lifetime was a West African practice transplanted fairly recently to Haitian slaves, and unlikely to have many (or even any) adherents among Europeans. But again, no evidence either way. References to voodoo in the fictional POTC aren't a reliable source for the historical Blackbeard, and are likely an invention of the scriptwriers for the sake of an entertaining story. Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

typo

Typo. Section: Blockade of Charleston. Sentence: "Teach then called a meeting of his fellow sailors and moved eight ships were into the harbour. " 68.231.10.67 (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, thankyou. Parrot of Doom 08:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One Piece

I was just wondering why Blackbeard from [One Piece] wasn't mentioned in the Legacy section. One Piece is the most popular manga and anime in Japan and second most popular in the US. Blackbeard, a character who is inspired from the real Blackbeard is the main antagonist of the series One Piece. I would love it if someone could add him to the Legacy section. Here is the link to his wikipedia article [2] I am not allowed to edit this page as it is semi protected. i would like to bring this to your attention. Thegreatestking (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What does One Piece tell us about Blackbeard? Parrot of Doom 20:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I said Legacy, I would like to correct that as i meant Modern View. It tells us that he was one of the best and most fearsome pirates on the sea. He is portrayed as a fearsome, yet a little generous kind of pirate. He is the main antagonist so yes, he is evil. and since its fiction, his character is a bit changed, from he originally might have been. It is the similar as Pirates of the Caribbean, except his role is bigger in One Piece, he also forms a group of allies. Thegreatestking (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So, absolutely nothing then. Parrot of Doom 07:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

wait what??? The Greatest KING 05:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are any newspapers talking about One Piece's Blackbeard and how it has forever changed the world's view of the historical pirate, then it might be worth noting on this article. As it happens, it is just yet another series' use of Blackbeard, albeit one where he features prominently. There is Blackbeard in popular culture, though. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

oh alrightThe Greatest KING 07:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatestking (talk • contribs)

Changes to colwidth

On a resolution of 1280x960, a cowlidth of 30em for this article's citations comes out to ~1210px of vertical space, while 20em is ~670px. The difference is visible even at 1024x768, and is much more pronounced at higher resolutions. Because almost all the references are an author's name and page number, reducing the colwidth does not cause line breaks within citations, and reduces horizontal white space markedly, allowing readers to see more citations at once. Given these improvements to readability, I plan to change the colwidth in the next day or so unless presented with a reason related to accessibility or policy. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity you have nothing better to do than this. No wonder people get fed up. Like the cowlidth though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.220.165 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your preferred format doesn't make the longer citations in that section any more readable, in fact, it makes them distinctly less readable. Unlike horizontal space, vertical space isn't an issue since readers are required to scroll down to read the article. If it's a guideline or policy you want then perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Citing sources, which recommends against arbitrarily changing established citation styles based on personal preference. Parrot of Doom 00:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Columns are not covered by the citation styles discussed in WP:CITE; that policy involves arbitrary changes from, e.g., short citations to parenthetical. What I'm referring to is reducing horizontal white space so that readers do not have to scroll as much. I've presented my numbers and described my reasoning in detail, so I really don't appreciate the intimation that what I'm describing is a mere personal preference. Dismissing me completely with a vague "was fine as it was" [3] [4] is much more of a personal preference. I'm sorry if that's a little off track at this point, and I'm sure you're a great guy, but the manner in which you reverted my changes came off to me as condescending. If you still feel that a 30em colwidth is sufficient for this article, then I suggest that either you or I seek a third opinion rather than having a back-and-forth over a triviality. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to that page (which is, by the way, a guideline, not a policy), you are wrong. This is very obviously a personal preference of yours. I don't think that readers having to scroll is an issue in any sense of the word and will not be seeking a third opinion over this matter. Parrot of Doom 08:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said that WP:CITE was a policy, you were the one who brought it up to support your view. I never mentioned scrolling in my initial post, you also brought that up. My issue was with wasted horizontal space, which you did not address. A third party should be able to resolve this quickly. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I addressed the "wasted horizontal space" by pointing out that several of the longer citations were made less readable by your modification. And if you'd care to read up just a little, you'll see that actually, you said "Columns are not covered by the citation styles discussed in WP:CITE; that policy involves arbitrary changes from". Parrot of Doom 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There are six citations that are not simply an author's name and page number, versus 111 that are. The reduction in column width may add an extra line or two in those cases, but it reduces the overall height of the citations by hundreds of pixels. And again, I'm not sure what you're arguing. That I used the word "policy" rather than "guideline" or some other some other phrase? You were the one who brought up WP:CITE, and you used in in an authoritative way to support your position. The terminology has no bearing on the fact that WP:CITE does not support your claim. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Parrot of Doom 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that gyrobo is trying to save "pixels", and Parrot is promoting readability. looks like a no-brainer to me: readability wins out every time, pixels are after all free. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

After coming here through 3O, I'd concur with Parrot in the interest of readability (the addition of an extra column makes it look much busier). I mean, really, what's another 10 ems? Not to mention that the usual way that at least I look at citations is by clicking the inline hyperlink; this takes you right to the citation, so scrolling isn't really an issue anyway, whereas the extra column just makes one more thing for my eye to be distracted by. Just my (third (fourth?)) opinion. By the way, I'll remove the 3O notice, since we've gotten a few more voices in on this. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that I haven't been explaining myself very well, so I'm going to try to address your points. It is true that the web as a medium has no limit on the dimensions of content, and that nobody is paying by the pixel. However, the people involved in this discussion are all Wikipedians; our view on this is going to be different from average readers. It's conceivable that someone more familiar with a print medium might not even realize that reference links are actually links at all, and end up manually searching the document for the citation whose number matches the reference. I'll readily admit that it's a strawman argument because I can't back that up with a study off the top of my head. But I don't think it's contentious to state that our use of Wikipedia is markedly different from that of the average person. Getting back to readability, I would argue that studies do indicate that conserving vertical space increases the readability of the article overall, because scrolling taxes users' attention. This applies to all aspects of web design, including multicolumn layout. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who does come from the design industry (both web and deadtree, the former for 16 years, the latter for 20) I can assure you that the single element that is most responsible for readability is white space. Rarely, if ever, does readability increase when white space is reduced. The fact that you want to conserve pixels is irrelevant. The eye can keep track of two columns far better than three because you are decreasing the white space and simultaneously increasing visual 'noise'. My recommendation is to leave it at two and allow the reader to continue to scroll down should they wish to read them in their entirety. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's a pretty small area to be worried about; it probably isn't big enough for eye fatigue to affect comprehension. I take your point about the hyperlinked citations, but chances are that anyone who is actually reading the citations at all is looking for a specific one. This means that, since they're not just browsing the cites, eye fatigue is less of a concern; they'll look until they find what they're looking for. To that end, I think fewer columns is better. If they're scanning sequentially, fewer columns is more efficient, eye-motion-wise, since they have to go back up to the top of the next column less. If they just scan the top of the columns, it's fewer columns to choose from, which is probably better, since the choice of a column is more work than looking for the right number within a column (although it makes scanning the chosen column worse, it's probably a better tradeoff).

Now this is all hypothetical; at the end of the day, I really think it comes down to personal preference, and, given that this is a featured article, a lot of people must've been pretty happy with it. So, I'd say, why change for the sake of changing? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Finally, let me just say that I don't really have a strong preference either way, and whichever way it ends, thanks for trying to make the article better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to The Pink Oboe (I admit that my phrasing is awkward, but I'm trying to respect your full user name): this article is not set to display the citations in two columns, it is set to display them in an arbitrary number of columns with a width of 30em. Depending on your resolution and browser/font settings, some people will see three or four columns. What I'm proposing won't eliminate white space between columns, it will just make the columns shorter. This article uses a colwidth of only 17em, but I don't believe it suffers from any readability problems. To Writ Keeper, I do agree that it is far easier to search sequentially with fewer columns – but that sort of defeats the purpose of multicolumn layout. I believe that the point of breaking up sequential data into columns is solely to conserve vertical space, and reduce the overall area that the data occupies. Articles use a variety of column widths, and there is no optimal width that can be applied in all situations. But in articles where almost all citations consist of an author's name and a page number, the tendency is toward shorter columns. Even an article like Carrington Moss uses a colwidth of 25em, and that article has more "long" citations than this one does. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean

Blackbeard in popular culture already contains details of the fourth film in this franchise. My view is that as it tells us nothing about Blackbeard, it has no place here. This article may very well be relevant to the film's article, but that doesn't mean the opposite is necessarily true. A form of consensus for this position already exists, here. I don't think anything has changed between then and now. Parrot of Doom 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not adding details, just a single mention of Blackbeard's appearance in POTC4.--Max Tomos (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You have not explained why it is significant. What does it add to a reader's understanding of Blackbeard? Nev1 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Max, please don't use the word "vandalism" or its equivalents in your edit summaries if it's not really vandalism. This is a content dispute; Parrot's edits are clearly in good faith, and are thus not vandalism. Calling someone's good-faith content edits vandalism can be construed as uncivil (although I'm sure you didn't intend it that way). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And why are film renditions of Blackbeard's life significant? They tell us nothing about Blackbeard which we don't already know. And yet, they are mentioned.--Max Tomos (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone didn't know who Blackbeard was, the movies about his life sure would tell one stuff one didn't know about him. Saying that there was a character in PotC named "Blackbeard" doesn't really help anyone.

At this point, Max, you're edit warring. It's probably better for you to cool your jets a bit and talk it over here before you edit the article any more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the story of Blackbeard's ghost helping some old ladies from Blackbeard's Ghost is really helpful.--Max Tomos (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The book and film mentions aren't that important, but in the main, they are included in the expert sources used to build this article. IIRC, Blackbeard (2005 film) is included not because it was listed in one of those books (I can't remember but if people think it's important to check, I will), but because it is semi-biographical. I don't recall why Blackbeard (2006 film) is there, but I'd be quite happy to remove that also. POTC is different though - the character of Blackbeard in that film is pure fiction, based on nothing more than a modern Hollywood script. If we allow people to mention anything with Blackbeard in, pretty soon we'd have a list of trivia - and that's what I'm trying to avoid. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom, have you actually watched POTC4? If you didn't, you must know that Blackbeard's real name in the film is Edward Teach, and his ship is the Queen Anne's Revenge. That's far away from "pure fiction".--Max Tomos (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see any reason to mention PotC-IV here. I was surprised to even see the first film mentioned, but since it's in Konstam, it's at least attested to as relevant by reliable sources. The guiding bit from WP:POPCULTURE is: In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone. In this case, the answer has to be no. Let's leave it out.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why is Count Dracula mentioned in the article on Vlad the Impaler? Since he's just a fictional character based on the historical one...--Max Tomos (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I watched POTC 3 and almost fell asleep during it, so I have no wish to subject myself once more to such rubbish. Blackbeard was killed in 1718, and his ship sank earlier, so exactly what the events in POTC 4 teach us, I don't know. Parrot of Doom 18:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The events in POTC 4 teach you that Blackbeard wasn't killed in 1718. Though his historical death was mentioned in the film (And what of you? The mighty Blackbeard. Beheaded, they say. Still, your body swam three times around your ship and climbed back onboard.), his head is still on his shoulders in the film. As far as I know, that's the first movie which shows Blackbeard as being alive until the 1750s. If that's not significant, then what is?--Max Tomos (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler is a poor quality article. This is a featured article. As for Blackbeard's miraculous ability to recover from a severed head, well I guess you'll just have to inform the historians that they were wrong all along. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we have to rewrite history. I'm just saying that the POTC version of Blackbeard is significant enough to be mentioned in this article.--Max Tomos (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Significant based on what, though? The POTC version of Blackbeard had no basis in history beyond his name and the name of his ship (especially since the historical Blackbeard was dead 30 to 40 years before the time the movies are set, as you yourself pointed out). This article is for the *historical* Blackbeard, not the movie character that happens to have the same name. If POTC depicted events that had some tenuous basis in ones that happened to the real Blackbeard, your argument might possibly have at least some kind of merit, but it didn't, so your argument has none. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Blackbeard's historical death was mentioned in the movie. Which means, the events of POTC 4 had some tenuous basis in ones that happened to the real Blackbeard.--Max Tomos (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. First of all, the mention says that the historical death is wrong, flatly contradicting any kind of reliable source on the subject, which is right there enough to mean it's not significant. The movie is either an extreme fringe theory or pure fiction, and either way, it's not significant to include in this article. Moreover, a mention is not the same as the events of the movie being based on Blackbeard's life. If they had a basis on events in Blackbeard's life, he wouldn't be in the movie as anything but a lifeless corpse (if that), because he had been dead for 30 years. Since, in the move, he is still alive, the movie's events (not dialogue, not a single line, but the actual *events*) are not based on the historical Blackbeard, and thus the movie is not significant. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with those above who are suggesting that it isn't significant for the purposes of this article. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)