Talk:Blackbeard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tiny issues

Two tiny issues I've spotted. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article ("Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article"); the article is Blackbeard, and so should not, have a section entitled "Blackbeard".

The second issue is that the article states Blackbeard was killed in Ocracoke, North Carolina, but the event of his death predates North Carolina by a several decades. I understand a more accurate approach would be to use a format like "was killed in Ocracoke—then in Province of Carolina, now in North Carolina", or in the infobox "Ocracoke, Province of Carolina, British America".

Hope that helps. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

re the first point, I wanted to title that section to make it clear that this was the time when Blackbeard (and not Teach) appeared. I thought that things like "rise of the legend" etc were a little bit pompous. What would you suggest? The second point, I think that might require a little expert help since the Province of North Carolina (according to its article) ended in 1712, but the sources don't call it anything but North Carolina. Indeed it seems that "North Carolina" was the accepted usage at the time, but obviously that's a distinctly different colony than the present US state. Parrot of Doom 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Blackbeard and Arabella Drummond

Oddly, there is no mention in the article that Blackbeard had three most likely surnames ... the third being Drummond. Elsewhere, in the non-academic culture of the internet, it seems that there is a single established source of the third option, and hence it not so often quoted. Elsewhere in wiki there is a reference to Arabella Drummond. She is an established historical figure, and at least we know her name, but relegated to the 'his story' way of doing history ... i.e. she is treated as a novelty in this beautiful encyclopedia. As a novelty because she was the only contemporary female pirate captain, though curiously, in the same point in time and space. That is, the Carolina coast around 1712. Drummond isn't a common name. This otherwise brilliant entry could be accused of sexism. At least it should reflect on this link in their names. If the single source links them together, fair enough, I'm wrong, because it could be false. But if it doesn't, then its a strange coincidence that Arabella had a crush on Edward, and that she may have called her cat 'teach'. Surely the possibility exists that both 'Teach' and 'Thatch' were both nicknames - common enough when others were still being reflected in the work they did and a century and more later as in Jones the Bread. Anyway, he was a pirate, and they don't necessarily give away their identity so easily. He may have been born rich. It's in the myth. Was he protecting his family? Were they protecting themselves against their rascal child? Teach; and Thatch? Well, he was very bright, and, he was also very hairy.. :-) I think it's over assertive. There is an underlying sense of certainty to the article that his name was Teach. It feels there may be an underlying academic rift here, but not being a historian, I wouldn't know. mallek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.151.65 (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Blackbeard was a gender-bending shape changer, but the connection is clear. mallek --116.206.151.65 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

none of the sources I used in this article (if memory serves) link the names in the way you suggest. Teach is used not because that was his name, but because historically that is the name that has been most often used. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were making a mistake, but an omission. Nevertheless, I do think that the names are being 'concrete - ised', both in the article and more generally in the 'information stream'. If all of them are probable nicknames, why not stick to the most likely? Blackbeard. With the energy of lawyers, we seem to need to authenticate him, or any other historical figure, by using their 'proper' name. This is unhelpful if there is any doubt about the name. If we humans didn't have a tendency to do this, the previous records of Blackbeard would be easier to understand, more transparent because the writers and interrogators of those records wouldn't have made the same mistake. The article points out that its unlikely we will ever know his real name. That's like a pirate's curse. Ah, ye'll nea'er know, laddie!

What was the single source which named Blackbeard as Drummond? It would be interesting to know. Was the connection between them only in the mind of Arabella, who by the sound of it, was psychotic.... Were they related? History is made up from the stories of such people. mallek --116.206.151.65 (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is identified by the citation used in the article. Parrot of Doom 16:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead

The gist of WP:LEADCITE is that it's not necessary to cite things in the lead, unless they are challenged or likely to be challenged (although it's a guideline rather than policy). I suppose assertions contrary to the readers' prior assumptions fall under "likely to be challenged". It should be pretty simple to duplicate the refs from the main body to cover those two points (it didn't take me long to skim the article and find that note 4 related to Teach not harming his captives for example). I suppose there is some wriggle room as the guideline also states "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus", but edit summaries are not the best place to establish consensus. I was about to remove the fact tags myself as it's pretty much a given that the references will be in the main body of the article but it's already been done, and while I think it may be useful to have references to bolster what may seem to many readers counter-intuitive, I ask that BillMasen does not reinstate the tags. And let's drop the nonsense about WP:CIVIL. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The last thing I want is an article littered with little blue numbers when they're not needed. What you end up with is a mess, but more than that, tagging is really quite lazy, especially considering that for most people to check that citation they'd have to get copies of the books used. I judge the chances of anyone being interested enough actually doing that, at about zero. If they dispute anything contained in the article, they could just ask me on this talk page, and I'd copy exactly what the source says. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Blackbeard in Pirates of the Caribbean

I'm curious, what is so wrong with having Blackbeard appearing in a Pirates of the Caribbean film in this article? I mean we know he will appear through millions of news articles about the film that Ian McShane will portray Blackbeard. If it's a matter of knowing if it's the "real" Blackbeard or not, then look at this video interview and it has the film's producer, Jerry Bruckheimer, confirming that McShane would portray a living Blackbeard. I'm willing to negotiate to the last possible conclusion that this HAS to be mentioned, because this would be considered a "Modern view" of Blackbeard. CJS2.0 (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the film isn't yet out, what's the point in mentioning it here? Mention it at the film's article, it's relevant there. Parrot of Doom 09:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So it's one thing if it's about any appearances of Green Lantern and his portrayer in a new movie, but for writing about Blackbeard and his portrayer in the new movie is completely different...I disagree. Appearances make by a character in a movie is NOT different from Blackbeard's appearance in the new Pirates of the Caribbean film, even though the book the film's based on is also in Blackbeard's article makes it even more ridiculous. CJS2.0 (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about a green lantern, but just because Blackbeard is relevant to the film does not automatically mean that the film is relevant to Blackbeard. The book is listed alongside other books about Blackbeard for obvious reasons, but is given only a fleeting mention.

An unreleased film about the fictionalised exploits of a character almost certainly based very loosely on Blackbeard has no place here right now. If you're looking for a list of trivia I suggest you try IMDB. Parrot of Doom 01:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to believe that the name "Blackbeard" is used to describe a character in an upcoming movie. The issue for this article is why that is sufficiently significant to the modern cultural understanding of Blackbeard, for it to warrant inclusion in the article on the historical figure. Simply stating that Blackbeard is mentioned in a modern-day film/book/comic/play doesn't tell us anything about how the historical figure is interpreted, and risks being indiscriminate information which does little to advance our understanding of the topic. I suspect before we include the fact that Blackbeard wll be mentioned in yet another modern movie, we would need to know how this mention is of enduring cultural significance. I also doubt that the real-life Blackbeard can be presented in a historically accurate context in the otherwise fictional universe of POTC> More likely, and with all respect to Ian McShane, it is likely Blackbeard will simply be a large black-bearded pirate who has matches in his beard and says "Yarr." An entertaining figure no doubt, but not one that advances this article, which is about the real-life Caribbean pirate.

I don't mean this to sound snarky, so my apologies if it comes across that way. It's just that articles like this can quickly amass extensive and fairly trivial lists of mentions, including every time the subject is even referred to in sitcoms and the like. Check out the page history from about a year ago, to see what I mean. I'd prefer not to return to simple lists of mentions, even when Blackbeard is a major character in the film/novel/comic/TV episode. Instead and for what its worth, I support Parrot's suggestion of mentioning it at the film's article, where it has apropriate context.

Views, comments welcome. Euryalus (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this significant? It's significant because this is the first time that Blackbeard survives the Battle of Ocracoke Inlet. Every other movie shows his death in 1718, but this time, he is still alive in the 1740s.--89.172.196.4 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That ... isn't notable. Why would it be?

If it were a documentary alleging that the man himself survived, then it might be worth mentioning that there were minority opinions that he survived, but what does this film have to do with blackbeard?

A year from now, if this film has vastly increased blackbeard's popularity and made him a household name, then it'll be relevant to this article, because it will have effected the notoriety of the real guy. APL (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And who are you to decide how long we'll wait to mention POTC Blackbeard in this article?--89.172.233.242 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When you've made a convincing argument for its inclusion, then you expect an answer to that question. Parrot of Doom 18:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere when these discussions pop up, the film is only relevant to the pirate if reliable sources about the pirate talk about the film's influence on the perception of the person. Wikipedia is not a "google aggregator" where we take every mention of a person or thing and mash it into an article. We reflect how reliable sources discuss the person, and opinions over why this particular film is important to this article bear no weight unless there are the sources to back it up. Quantpole (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Portrayers

There have been portrayals of Blackbeard(fictional or non-fictional), by many great actors. I propose that we should do like what they did with the "Legacy" section in George II of Great Britain's page and list the portrayals of Blackbeard in them. Who's up for the idea? 75.90.106.163 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not me, I'm afraid. There's been discussion around this point in the archives, its better to have decent quality prose that demonstrates his legacy, and I feel the article does a good job of that. A list of actors who've portrayed Blackbeard isn't really encyclopaedic. Parrot of Doom 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the best part, it doesn't really have to explain how it demonstrates his legacy because it just has the list of portrayers. I personally find nothing wrong with the idea of just listing portrayers of Blackbeard into said article. 75.90.106.163 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A list doesn't really impart any information though. We should try and demonstrate to the average reader exactly how Blackbeard's legacy has persisted through the centuries. That's why prose is preferable to a list. That said, if you wanted to create Blackbeard in popular culture as a new article then I doubt anyone will object, and you can link to that article from this one. In fact, it might help keep some of the Pirates of the Caribbean nonsense off this article. Parrot of Doom 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That may work. Although I'm not highly skilled enough to make such an article. Should the modern views and such(like the On Stranger Tides novel and the "Jack Sparrow is similar to Blackbeard" thing), be moved as well? I'm just curious. 75.90.106.163 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to be highly skilled, look at other "in popular culture articles" (Guy Fawkes for instance) and copy the format. Dead simple. No, modern views should stay here. Parrot of Doom 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've created the article, but apparently I can't do it. I don't know how, but I'm not entirely interested in doing it exactly, I just wanted to give a suggestion about this. Many apologies for that CJS2.0 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

Question: Was "Edward Thatch" ever one of Blackbeard's real aliases. I mean, I know "Edward Teach" is the real alias, but I'm confuse as to if Thatch was his name or not. 75.89.202.231 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Thatch was used by his contemporaries. Edward Teach/Thatch etc was not his real name. Parrot of Doom 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so his name is truly unknown, then? Mainly known as "Blackbeard" 75.89.202.231 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what the article says. Parrot of Doom 01:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

--I just stumbled upon this entry for "blak" in the University of Michigan's Middle English Dictionary: 1.(a) Of a black color, black; ...(e) fig. the color of sin, sorrow, etc.; ~ berd, the Devil; ~ is his eie, he is guilty. suggesting that "blakberd" would have once been a name for the devil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.24 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's curious. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to go into any more detail. A quick search produced a puzzled look from Google and not much else, so I'm not sure if it can be added to the article. An interesting coincidence perhaps. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

POTC

Here's to hoping this redirection would maybe help in the future with this POTC mess. Sorry for all those additions of adding information of the fictional version here, Parrot of Doom. Definitely something needs to be done so that editors won't want to add Pirates of the Caribbean information here all the time. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It always happens, for years people kept putting V for Vendetta into Guy Fawkes (someone tried again, recently). However, the linked page still claims that Blackbeard is a character in PotC4 though, which isn't really true. The linked page should read something like "Ian McShane - Blackbeard (based on the historical figure)" or similar. Parrot of Doom 19:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this help? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that can work out and hopefully adding the Potc navbox here stops. I just thought of this but maybe there can be divided article on the On Stranger Tides Blackbeard since the POTC one is basically based on that one. It might be a little hard though proving his notability even if he is though. Novel fictional characters were always the hardest when it came to that but I think he might have a chance. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I forsee calls to include PotC in this article in some respect, which is entirely understandable, so if anyone comes across a high-quality source that compares the character and the historical figure, please do feel free to mention it. Parrot of Doom 19:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This article might be promising for this article in some way. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We currently also have Blackbeard in popular culture. If we cleaned up that article and expanded it, all the important PotC info. would probably fit into that one quite nicely. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was encouraged because of a discussion here that I remember. It is new and there are many opportunities that that article can have for the future. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)