Talk:Patrick O'Brian

Overly non-NPOV Perspective

This article is an absolute disgrace, and trades entirely too heavily in speculation and editorializing, mixing in obviously copy/pasted passages from secondary sources to insert value judgments in several instances. It also depends all too much on sources that obviously dislike the main subject, with little effort to provide balanced perspectives.

The presence of the phrase "an endless stream of marvellous sounding but impenetrable naval jargon"--an entirely unfalsifiable opinion that I strongly suspect has been lifted wholesale from a review somewhere--completely discredits this entry, as it makes clear that this is yet another instance of lazy Wikipedia-ing that emphasizes sensationalism over substance.

This entire article needs to be rewritten from the ground up.‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.122.56 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

You are right. The entire para containing the "Impenetrable..." quote is lifted word for word from the 1993 New York Times article. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/16/magazine/patrick-obrians-ship-comes-in.html Scarabocchio (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not lifted, it is cited to the article in The New York Times written by Mark Horowitz, who in turn referred to remarks by Richard Ollard, editor of the early novels by O'Brian's in the Aubrey Maturin series. Please do read the inline citations, IP. Howorowitz clearly interviewed Ollard for the news article. It was not a statement in "a review somewhere", but the view of someone who worked with O'Brian when he was alive. That is a properly sourced statement and appropriate for this article on Patrick O'Brian. I disagree wholly with the IP on this article having other than a neutral perspective. I hope this discussion ends quickly! -- Prairieplant (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There are long stretches of text copied verbatim from the article but *outside* double quotes, so unattributed and not covered by any nearby citation. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Long stretches, Scarabocchio? I find one, maybe two, sentences in a paragraph, with inline cite at the end of the paragraph, all attributed to Horowitz. It is this, which I have copied from the article in the subsection Media exposure and controversy in his final years: One interviewer, Patrick Horowitz, described the man in his late seventies as "a compact, austere gentleman. ... his pale, watchful eyes are clear and alert."[13] He is polite, formal, and erudite in conversation, an erudition that Horowitz said could be intimidating. He learned from those who worked with O'Brian that the erudition did not go unnoticed, while they remained friends.

Richard Ollard, a naval historian, calls this particular habit "blowing people out of the game." Ollard, who edited the early Aubrey–Maturin novels, urged O'Brian to tone down the most obscure allusions, though the books remain crammed with Latin tags, antiquated medical terminology and an endless stream of marvellous sounding but impenetrable naval jargon. "Like many who have struggled themselves", Ollard said of his friend, "he thought others should struggle, too." One longtime acquaintance put it more bluntly: "Patrick can be a bit of a snob, socially and intellectually."[13]

Here is the text from the 1993 article by Horowitz: O'Brian's perfect manners and impressive erudition are intimidating, and he is not above flaunting them. Richard Ollard, a naval historian, calls this particular habit, "blowing people out of the game." Ollard, who edited the early Aubrey/Maturin Novels, urged O'Brian to tone down the most obscure allusions, though the books remain crammed with Latin tags, antiquated medical terminology and an endless stream of marvelous sounding but impenetrable naval jargon.

"Like many who have struggled themselves," Ollard said of his friend, "he thought others should struggle, too." One longtime acquaintance put it more bluntly: "Patrick can be a bit of a snob, socially and intellectually." END OF NEWSPAPER QUOTE

The number 13 at the end of each paragraph is a citation to Horowitz 1993. If you want more quotation marks inside the paragraph, then add them where you think they belong. In the paragraph as it stands, the quote marks are used for the direct quotes from Ollard, rather than the words by Horowitz writing about what Ollard said. In my mind, that is a clear use of the quotation marks and a clear citation to Howowitz. I think perhaps you are exaggerating about the article not being written by Wikipedia editors, if that is the only sentence that you think is not properly attributed. I feel no urge to edit that paragraph, as it reads well and clearly to me, but you may edit it, keeping the distinction between what Ollard is quoted as saying separate from what Horowitz wrote, or your better phrasing of what Horowitz wrote. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

What you describe here is plagiarism. 186.154.112.243 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Link to hmssurprise.org

I am new to this so might be doing the wrong thing. My edit is good faith. It concerns my entry and your reversion. I see there is a link already in for http://hmssurprise.org/ However the link already there goes to a specific article in the link. Whereas I am linking to the home page of that fan website. I think that is better. Could you advise where I am going wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythbuster121 (talk • contribs) 07:44, September 29, 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mythbuster121- I think you are addressing the above post to me, as I am the one who reverted your addition of a link to hmssurprise.org. I did so because I think such links to fan sites might be discouraged in a biography article -- see WP:LINKSTOAVOID. But others might have a different view, so this talkpage is the place to discuss the question and draw the attention of other editors so they might weigh in.

Please see here for talkpage procedures; this links to a specific section of the guidance article, but you will likely find other useful information in other sections as well: WP:TALKHEADING. Note that I created a heading for this discussion section. And please see here regarding talkpage signatures: WP:SIGNATURE. -Eric ^talk 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a fan site for a book he wrote is not appropriate for this article about O'Brian. I used the template to sign the initial post by Mythbuster121. -- Prairieplant (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You trim the hmssurprise.prg links from four to three because the main page is not appropriate???? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the link to the main page of hmssurprise.org. This was originally the American publisher's Patrick O'Brian mailing list back in the 1990s and over the years it has accumulated a number of useful resources - three of which are included in our external links list - while many others are referenced on the main page as well as a good deal of scholarly discussion in the searchable rchives. I'm not sure who described it as "a fan site" but it is in fact a venerable institution in its own right with various publications related to Patrick O'Brian and much excellent research material, especially from the days when O'Brian was still alive. --Pete (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Irish-Catalan" vs "Irish-Spanish" to describe Stephen Maturin

@Temax and Prairieplant: I saw the series of reverts between you two, and thought maybe it'd be better if we discussed the issue here. While I don't have a passionate view, I don't see the objection to "Catalan", which most people inclined to read these books would probably know that, or be curious enough to find out that, Catalonia is part of Spain. If I'd written the sentence, I don't think I'd express Maturin's nationality with either of these hyphenated descriptions. I might have written something like the Irish physician with a Catalonian mother, or maybe even Hiberno-Catalonian. I now see that in the time it took me to write this, Temax has undone my revert, once again with no edit summary. Eric ^talk 20:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The Dear knows, my Killickian employment of "which" in my original post was, sadly, purely accidental; which I wish it had been intentional, ha ha ha! Eric ^talk 20:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Several editors (Eric, Temax and me) are reverting the description of Stephen Maturin in the first sentence of the lead, the opening of the article. Irish-Catalan is the original phrase, and some change it to Irish-Spanish for unclear reasons. Please make a case for the change, in the lead, in the first sentence. Stephen Maturin is not described elsewhere in the article, perhaps an error, as the lead should highlight material in the article. Meaning that at least a sentence of description of these two main characters belongs in the main body of the article, not just the lead. It is clear that Patrick O'Brian is connected to the Catalan part of Spain, based on his writings, and that is clear throughout the article. I suggest Irish-Catalan be retained, and a sentence or two be added in the main article. -- Prairieplant (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Irish is a nationality, as it is Spanish. Catalan is not a nationality. You cannot say Irish-Catalan, like you cannot say O'Donnel-Spanish. It is called intellectual honesty. The original phrase is an ideological statement. If we want to show his nationality then Irish-SPanish is the way to go. If you want to show regions inside Irland and Spain, then you can say O-Donnell-Catalan. But this is not a debate. Irish-Catalan is not correct. Temax (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Eric ^talk 20:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot disagree with something that is a fact. Catalan is not a nationality. Spanish is. You cannot put Irish, a nationality, along with Catalan, which is not a nationality. Irland is a country. Spain is a country. Catalonia is a region. You cannot say you disagree. This is just a fact. Temax (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Catalan is a demonym for people living in Catalonia, see the info box at Catalonia. One can also use Catalonian. Thus it is a match to Irish, a demonym for people living in Ireland. Demonym article says it is "is a word that identifies a group of people (inhabitants, residents, natives) in relation to a particular place." So I must differ with you on that point, Temax. Catalan and Irish are grammatically equivalent terms. -- Prairieplant (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is very simple. You cannot remove Spanish because that is the truth. Catalonians are Spaniards. So, if you want to also add the region, I don't mind you adding that to the Irish-Spanish country or origin. But Irish-Spanish is a correct term, and it is the country of origin. Mixing country from the irish side, and region from the SPanish side leads to confusion. Again, if you want to add the regions from the Irish and Spanish sides after it, I am fine with it. Feel free to add after Irish-Spanish the regions from both places, like Irish-Spanish Corkonian-Catalonian, to give an example. Temax (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Temax The county in Ireland is not named in the novels, but his region in Spain is named, often. Maturin's family includes people fighting for the independence of Catalonia from Spain in the period of the novels. Maturin's castle is in Catalonia. Maturin speaks many languages, and Catalan is one of them; in the first novel, Maturin points out to Aubrey that the people in the restaurant speak Catalan, which was why they had not understood Aubrey's attempts at speaking Spanish. Do you get this notion of a demonym? I hope you can open your mind to the use of a word that is not referring to a modern day nation, but to a region in that nation, a region that still fights for its independence from Spain. There is a strong Catalan identity even now -- but what matters is the identity of the character in the series of novels. -- Prairieplant (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a debate on facts. You cannot remove the country of origin just because you don't like it. It is a fact. He is of Irish-Spanish origins. His father was a soldier in the Spanish Army. This is a fact. So, as I said, if you want to also add the regional origins, you are welcome to do so after the country of origin. But you cannot just remove the country of origin because you feel like it. You add the regional origins right after it. Temax (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Use Irish-Spanish, as Catalonia is still within Spain. Also, Temax would you please sign your posts at the end, rather then at the beginning? GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. I just signed my edits at the end. Temax (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Catalan is a legitimate demonym. Irish-Catalan is the most accurate description of character Stephen Maturin. Others besides Wikipedia articles describe that way. Christopher Hitchens, cited in the article about the character Stephen Maturin, describes him as “The summa of O’Brian’s genius was the invention of Dr. Stephen Maturin. He is the ship’s gifted surgeon, but he is also a scientist, an espionage agent for the Admiralty, a man of part Irish and part Catalan birth—and a revolutionary.” The article on Patrick O’Brian now mentions the Irish and Catalan parents of Stephen Maturin in the body of the article. Temax has again changed this in the lead, which is frustrating. I begin to wonder what happens if Aubrey is described as English. GoodDay, are you a higher level arbitrator making a decision, or another editor with a view on this topic? — Prairieplant (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

When Catalonia becomes an sovereign state, then use it. Until then, use Spanish. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: How can it be frustrating to just say the truth? I already proposed a solution, which neither you nor Eric are commenting about. I proposed that you can go ahead and add the regional origins after the national origins. I don't understand your frustration just because the article is now reflecting correctly the Irish-Spanish origins. If you want to also reflect the regional origins, you can add it too.Temax (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to open an RFC on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I forget what RFC is. Temax, people do not have to be described by a current or past nation. Your view is not “truth”, it is your view. I suspect you have not read my post explaining demonym, a term describing people from a place. Catalonia is a place; England is a place. Neither is presently a nation. Both English and Catalan are legitimate descriptors of live people or fictional characters. Your fixation on nations seems to block your mind to other views. You keep reverting, and here you keep posting the same words over and over, not acknowledging what others have said, unless they agree with you. Please cool off. - - Prairieplant (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia's special treatment of the United Kingdom, concerning demonyms, fwiw. I don't like it, but they're used. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that Maturin was a "passionate advocate of Catalan independence", it seems more precise and true to O'Brian to use Catalan. "Irish-Catalan", that is. Carlstak (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? I know Maturin's a fictional character. But do we need to pretend that Catalonia is independent, too? GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, thanks for your attention to the edit-warring, and for joining in here. While I understand your view, as a reader of many of the Aubrey-Maturin books, my take has always been to view Catalonia the way it was seen from Maturin's point of view, and I would imagine by many people living during the time period in which O'Brian's stories are set, the Napoleonic Wars of the early 1800s. I'm far from being an expert on this, but I think this section of our Catalonia article and the one following it seem to support the notion of autonomy at that time: Catalonia#Modern_era. Eric ^talk 00:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Having read all 20 books more than once, I can confidently assert that never did O'Brian describe Maturin as Irish-Spanish. His mother was "a Catalan lady." Why are we deviating from the canon declaration to substitute a synthesized analysis for a fictional character, whose Catalan identity was central to his character development? It's fiction, and we have no business substituting Spanish to describe a fictional character who is never characterized that way than we have to describe hobbits as English because Tolkien modeled hobbits on his impression of Merrie Olde England peasantry. O'Brian created fictional nations as it suited his purposes, and he used historical Catalonia as a setting and a reason for Maturin's actions (and his activities as an agent opposing Castilian Spaniard rule of Catalonia) for the same reasons. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I read them all too with the greatest pleasure as I've sailed a bit in my day; I applaud Acroterion's comment. Carlstak (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I would further add that O'Brian's characterization of Maturin placed his origin in two subjugated nations, Ireland and Catalonia, both of which he is trying to liberate. Without that essential conflict, he'd just be another ship's surgeon with an addiction issue, a vastly less interesting character. And don't get me started on the far more logical (by the sovereignty of the time the books are set in ) synthesis of British-Spanish. Stick with what the canon and what sources like Hitchens say. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Acroterion. Eric ^talk 13:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I quite agree. While we don't absolutely have to use the specific expression "Irish-Catalan", it does accurately reflect O'Brian's fundamental characterization of Maturin as a man of his time with deeply-felt origins in both Ireland and Catalonia. To suggest that it is "an ideological statement" and should therefore be changed is simply to say that you don't like O'Brian's historic characterization. The fictional Maturin was a deeply ideological man, and in describing him we should of course reflect that. In so doing we imply nothing about the status of Catalonia in the present day. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)