Talk:The Elements of Style
Page contents not supported in other languages.
![]() | United States Low‑importance | ||||||
|
![]() | Books | |||
|
I changed "the nebbish Strunk" to "Strunk". My dictionary here says that a nebbish is a weak-willed and timid person. Even if this were true, I don't think it's the place of the Wikipedia to editorialize like that. - Dominus 15:48, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Evidently by the time of White's 1979 introduction to EOS his memory had gotten a little rusty. In it he states there were seven usage rules and eleven composition principles in the original version, but both online versions of the 1918 book show eight usage rules and ten principles. Or perhaps he only had Strunks 1935 version available (which I don't), accounting for the difference. --Blainster 09:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, this article does not follow the guidelines of the book itself. (For example, the book instructs that punctuation marks following words within quotation marks should fall before the end quotation mark. The book also warns against overuse of the passive voice; this article is currently guilty of that mistake.) I am revising the article to conform with the book's admirable and proper advice. OlYeller 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the punctuation section in the WP:style manual, and it seems to indicate that the punctuation should be contained in the quotes. Like in these two examples from the article:
White studied under Strunk in 1919 but had forgotten the "little book", a "forty-three-page summation of the case for cleanliness, accuracy, and brevity in the use of English".
Unless these are scare quotes, in which case the current usage is correct. I'm going to be bold and make the changes.--Unixguy 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Few edits have been as pleasurable as using Rule #2 from Strunk & White to add a serial comma to this article (and removing a few words at the same time). Petershank (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it out altogether, then. It's an opinion. --VKokielov 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term prescriptivist as used in the article seems to be a simple description of the author's practice. What is perjorative about it, and why are you claiming its use is part of some sort of cultural conflict? --Blainster 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject a bit, to say that "prescriptivist" is perjorative is to also imply that "activist" is similarly perjorative--which it is clearly not. "-ist" can come at the end of "terror" or it could come at the end of "natural". To say that a suffix is ipso facto perjorative does no good to the study of the English language, be it Queen's English or Yankee English. (And I am an American, so I am using the term "Yankee" in an ironic sense.) Just because there are some uneducated persons who would possibly use "prescriptivist" as an insult, does this mean that we must accept those who deify the lowest common denominator as the experts on language? Go ahead and call me an "elitist". Really, I consider that a badge of honor.--Kulturvultur 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, did Wordsworth ever *say* he was a Romantic? Guess I'm off to remove all those pejoratives from the Wordsworth page!
All I have to add on the word "prescriptivist", and to clarify my analogy, is that it doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph, and points a finger where it shouldn't. Again, it's no better than calling Bill Clinton an "abortionist" or Bush a "lassez-fairist". --VKokielov 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, again, technically you are right - but there is a difference between linguists who study language (and should stick to describing it) and grammarians who develop usage guides to help people communicate in a mutually intelligible fashion. When you call the former 'prescriptivist'(e.g. those 'linguists' who say things like 'this subculture speaks 'substandard english because they don't follow the rules') that is an appropriate criticism. When you place the same tag on grammarians who harp on freezing a language in time, that might be appropriate. When you place that tag on grammarians and teachers who strive for mutual understanding in a growing, moving language just because they establish some normative rules or guidelines, that is totally inappropriate, POV, and shortsighted - there have to be some guidelines...Bridesmill 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Strunk isn't my fave either Bridesmill 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.Bridesmill 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)I'm wondering if it might be good to put in a little on the topic of ending sentences with prepositions, just since it's a matter that seems to often be misunderstood. Many people apparently have learned that there is a strict rule against this, but Strunk & White insist it's not a hard and fast rule at all, only an element of style to be considered...Kengwen 00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Eschew obfuscation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I see that previous discussion has attempted to deal with Pullum-esque criticism of Struck & White. I find it odd that there is no "criticism" section at all in the current article. (I don't count "See also Prescription and description".) Whatever about avoiding prejudicial labels in the introduction, I think the critics deserve some mention. Even if they are few and far between, that itself is worth mentioning.
I'm not American, and I'm not sure what "required reading in composition classes" means. Does "required reading" mean just that, or does it imply that the advice must not only be read but also be followed? Is "composition class" something that all students take, with a view to writing term papers and the like, or is it restricted to students of journalism or other writing-focussed disciplines?
I found Pullum's hatchet-jobs amusing, but I haven't read Strunk & White. It seems to me, from perusing the languagelog postings which allude to S&W, that Pullum's beef is that Strunk & White's attempts to provide specific technical advice are simplistic; that they themselves break their own rules; and that officious schoolmarms and subeditors, and writers insecure of their own technique, may blindly follow the crude rules to an extent which contradicts any natural linguistic instincts, and which Strunk and White themselves would never have done or intended others to do. In other words, S&W encourage hypercorrection.
It's interesting that Fowler seems to get less flak at languagelog; this may be because it's less (directly) influential in the U.S., or it may be that those aspects of S&W which stick in their craw are not dealt with in Fowler, or that Fowler is less dogmatic in his judgments. jnestorius(talk) 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be part of this discussion, but I removed the institutional affiliation with my name. My writing online is as a private person, separate from my academic affiliation. Also -- in any discussion of criticism and context, Mark Garvey's recent book Stylized, about The Elements of Style, would be worth noting. (Michael Leddy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.93.29 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the link to the pdf version in the "External links" section is broken
Is the extensive quoting of Strunk & White's rules, and the links to .ru sites with copies of the book in seeming copyright violation, appropriate? Kasyapa (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Kasyapa[reply]
.ru is the country code for Russia. You know, that place where they can print what they want because they don't have to respect US/Intl. copyright law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it's not appropriate to link to one's own brief, unremarkable "review" of the book as some sort of significant external link, Mr. Geana.
Surely this article should be written using American English? DMorpheus (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone, apparently Michael Leddy himself ([1]), has repeatedly added this response to Pullum et al. in the article. It has been removed several times, and per the edit warring policy, needs to be discussed before it is added again.
For what it's worth, I don't think the blog post is worth including, for several reasons:
Rjanag, someone else has added it. I haven't added anything about my post to this article, ever. Someone contacted me about this article yesterday, and I removed the Eastern Illinois identification, as it seemed unnecessary and a little silly. (It has nothing to do with the arguments I made in my post.) I also corrected the misspelling of my name. Looking at IP addresses (which I assume someone at Wikipedia can do) might confirm that I'm not behind the addition. And I don't understand exactly what's going on here. I learned about the citation of my post via an e-mail yesterday from someone who said that his boss told him to add something about my post to this page. The e-mail included a link to the footnote linking to my university biography. My name was misspelled as Michael Reddy in the body of the article. If I were adding my own name, wouldn't I be getting it right?! And if this info has been repeatedly added, with my name correctly spelled, I'm puzzled as to why I've never seen it via a Google Alert. (Do they not cover Wikipedia?) (Michael Leddy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.93.29 (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010
No, it is not professor Leddy that has added this post - it is I. My apologies - I am very new to Wikipedia - I've often looked at it, but never contributed, until now. Pullum's comments caught my attention because, in part, my boss disagreed with it, and I agree with my boss. I am senior counsel (lawyer) for a multinational corporation, and my boss, of course, is of greater stature than me. He has three engineering degrees and a law degree. I will not go through a litany of my credentials myself, because they are largely irrelevant to my point:
The only proposition that I wish to have included in the wikipedia entry is that some folks disagree with Mr. Pullum's assessment. You can argue about who those folks are, and whether their analysis is correct, but the simple proposition - as evidenced by a blog of a an english professor, notable or not by wikipedia standards - is that there are people who disagree with Mr. Pullum's conclusions, and discussion regarding his conclusions, not just with Professor Leddy's entry, but with other sites as well (do a google search and you will see a number). It's only fair and balanced (I know, that's Fox trademarked term) to acknowledge that such criticism exists. To say that "some have criticized Pullum's critisim of Strunk and White" is corret - they have. I am not asserting the proposition as the truth, only evidence that discussion exists. I believe that is fair - people can look at the blog and other sources themselves and convince themself of whatever truth exists. But, to not include it, I think, gives your readers the impression that Strunk and White is an outdate dinosaur that no one finds of any value, and statement that many disagree with.
It's up to you whether to include an edit or not, but I do believe it makes Wikipedia a better product when different sides of the issue are presented.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.145.123 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I put in my comments already, but I'll do it again:
You seem to be confusing the assertion "On the other hand, some have criticized Pullum's criticism of Strunk and White" to be purporting to say that the criticisms are the truth, or that Michael Leddy is "notable" by wikipedia's definition. I just think that if you are going to print Pullum's criticizm, your readers should be aware that that Pullum's criticism has been criticized as well - your readers can evaluate the strength of that criticism themselves, but you shouldn't deny that it exists. You've let Pullum crap all over a dead guy for goodness sakes, and there are many who believe that criticism is unfounded. I don't think it is unfair to say that others have criticized Pullum's criticism, if not to say that other's have criticizes Pullum's "fifty stupid reasons" article. That's all I'm trying to say. So, I will keep on submitting something that is acceptable to you, but I invite you to re-phrase and put in something that reflects my intent, as opposed to just deleting anything I put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.145.123 (talk)
I find it unfortunate that my latest post:
On the other hand, there are those who believe that Pullum's criticism of Strunk in "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" is not without controversy. Several blog entries exist in which these opinions have been shared. [12]12. See, for example, http://mleddy.blogspot.com/2009/04/pullum-on-strunk-and-white.html; See also http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003463.php
which I believe addresses the defects that are mentioned (passive voice) has been deleted (passive voice). I've violated Strunk's rules, just to show you that I don't necessarily agree with them all the time, and in fact agree with Pullum sometimes. That doesn't change the fact that controversy exists. No need to support Leddy, or be against Pullum here. Again, the proposition is that controversy exists, and I had put in a couple of citations to websites AS EXAMPLES. Why don't I take out the Leddy one and put some mroe in? Again, not attacking Pullum here, just trying to indicate there are those who have found his criticism to be controversial. Isn't that fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.145.123 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further - you mention something about taking jabs at Pullum - what about Pullum? You let him take jabs at Strunk (crapping on a dead guy, by the way, is just bad form). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.145.123 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I found this dispute on WP:3O. User:Rjanag is correct. While one can plainly see that some people disagree with the criticism, it would violate Wikipedia's policy on original research to say that a controversy exists, unless a reliable source has already stated it. Wikipedia generally disallows using blogs as sources, so this information should not be added unless someone can find a reliable, third-party source (i.e. a news article or a published academic paper) for the information. Mildly MadTC 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is fair section on criticism.
For balance, there should be a section about the influence of Strunk and White.
There should also be section on the appreciations of Strunk and White expressed by many writers and editors --- to balance the section on criticism. One reference would be this article
{{cite news}}
: More than one of |number=
and |issue=
specified (help)which has been reprinted in
I don't have page numbers.
It might be useful to find an article discussing S&W in popular culture, to use as a reference for a section on such popular references (which exist at the end of many Wikipedia articles). Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should really be a critical reception section. Criticism sections usually just become magnets for negativity. This way a more thorough review of the work could be discussed anyway. Quadzilla99 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments on their 'prescription' for quotation mark placement? Despite my earlier schooling, I have come to dislike the idea of putting quotation marks after commas in places like the introduction of this article:
it looks like it opens the phrase commencing with ten as much as it might be interpreted as closing the phrase ending with usage. Of course, with 'real' quotation marks (rather than 'tick marks') there is an extra clue, but that's not the point.
—DIV (138.194.11.244 (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The top of this article needs serious formatting assistance.fdsTalk 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Styles}}
, which is transcluded near the top of this article. I have undone the change. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Most people coming to this page will be looking for S&W's list of rules. We should summarize each specific rule in the Content section. I also suggest that this page be linked to a "Clear Writing" page, that discusses the principles of clear writing in English more generally.
S&W wrote their guide almost eighty years ago, before many important contributions to the study of clear writing were made. This newer research affects the topic his book tried to cover. We should note contributions to the study of clear writing from researchers in Marketing and Advertising, Reading research, technical and business communication, professional journalists, academic psychologists -- and even Military Researchers who evaluate Military (Mil-Spec) manuals have a lot to contribute here. 173.36.196.8 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2011, Time magazine ... one of the 100 best and most influential books written in English since 1923". But the book was published in 1918. What have I missed? Nonnb (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The present text states «The fourth edition of The Elements of Style (2000), published fifty-four years after the death of William Strunk Jr., omits his stylistic advice about masculine pronouns: "unless the antecedent is or must be feminine";[7] and, in its place, editor E.B. White reports:». But White had already been dead for 15 years, so I don't think it was him who changed the text. Could someone please check it? --.mau. ✉ 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .mau. (talk • contribs)
The Library of Congress online catalog (browse for Strunk) shows five records for The Elements before White's involvement: Microfilm of 1918;1919;1920;StrunkTenney c1934;StrunkTenney 1935.
The first two evidently cover identical works with record of copyright [composition] date for the Microfilm and private printing date for the hard copy. The third may be identical but reset on 52 pages for publication, or may be revised. The last two have dates copyright 1934 and unspecified 1935, which is consistent with identical content, but the titles and page-counts differ.
The same browse is useful for covering those Strunk & White editions/issues/reprints in the catalog --more convenient than the browse report for White, which is much longer, and probably identical regarding Strunk & White.
interjection. On second thought, here are the LCC records for Strunk & White (all those in the browse Strunk report): 1st, 1959; 2nd, 1972;3rd, 1979;4th, 1999;2005 Illustrated;2009 Anniversary.
--P64 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article tells us that
I believe it's fair to say that he has demonstrated that [blah blah]. Is there any informed, credible claim that no, he has got it wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original Elements of Style is in the public domain and thus open to mash-ups or whatever. It hadn't occurred to me until today that anyone would have thought of doing something worthwhile with this curio, but today I realized that the computer scientist John Cowan had done just that. Clearly a man with his head screwed on the right way, Cowan has here adapted it for the real world this century, removing Strunk's fantasies and squaring it with the English of people who write good English.
Does Cowan's reworking merit a mention or a link? Admittedly, it seems to have been little noticed (I'm not suggesting that a paragraph should be devoted to it); yet it seems more significant than many accretions to many other carefully tended articles, and it's free of charge and potentially useful. (To me, it seems hugely superior to "Strunk & White", quite aside from its more attractive price.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the answer that the listed question was used as final Jeopardy was something like:
this volume, now in it's 4th edition was first published in 1918 as a 48 page guide for Cornell English students
but due to not taking a screen shot i cannot be positive that that is exact... i am hoping that an east coast 7pm or 7:30pm version or even an afternoon pacific coast airing can be checked by another editor
--Qazwiz (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a minor disagreement between one editor and another. Let me quote our manual of style on the matter:
-- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah buddy appreciate you ArodnapKils (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article has what, I, intuitively feel, is way to many commas for modern written English. There's the parenthetical usage — my preference is for em-dashes — of commas introducing unneeded breaks. There's the NYTimes commas. And there's just, if I may say, too many, er… writerly, commas, giving an archaic, and interrupted, voice to the prose. For example the second sentence:
"in 1918" does not require commas, it was published then that is not parenthetical to the preceding words "The original was composed by William Struck Jr"
", and published by Harcourt," really? commas come after "and"?
Where can I read about usage of commas for Wikipedia style and more generally in written English?WideEyedPupil (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Elements of Style. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just had to laugh out loud. It was quite loud, actually. Geoffrey Pullum's book on grammar, "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," is 1,860 pages. Mr. Pullum vociferously criticized Strunk and White for their "prescriptivism." What was so funny is not only that he seems to have steadfastly ignored the maxim of, "Omit needless words," but that he also claims not to be prescriptivist when his book on grammar is more than 600 pages longer than "War and Peace!" LOL I am further reminded of the two speakers at Gettysburg: Edward Everett, who spoke for two full hours, and Abraham Lincoln, who scrawled the Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope and spoke for two minutes. Which one do most of us remember forever? To put it in the vernacular, "It ain't Everett."There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]