4 ms·

> This is incorrect anyway Even the Wikipedia article is titled "Mid-atlantic accent": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent https://en.wikipedia.o

> This is incorrect anyway Even the Wikipedia article is titled "Mid-atlantic accent": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent What is it about this article that seems to so efficiently be bringing the armchair prescriptivists out of the woodwork?

nailer 10y ago
As wikipedia mentions, don't cite wikipedia itself. The first reference on the site prefers 'Transatlantic' too: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/oh-old-timey-movie-voice http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/oh-old-timey-m...
- jewbacca 10y ago
  Key word: prefers. The grandparent comment is framing this as "that word is wrong, because in the context I've encountered it in, we used this other, right, word". When, assuredly meeting whatever measure you might use to qualify this besides the GP poster's personal experience (... though they do seem to recognize its meaning well enough), "mid-atlantic accent" and "trans-atlantic accent" are synonyms. ---- Like, here's how this conversation looks in a different domain: Article: ... so I found this horrific spaghetti code for traversing the tree ... GGP comment: What is with this childish writing, being "horrific spaghetti" code, instead of not-yet-organized? It's the writing calibre of a young teen, and it seems to be popular. [actual quote. this is the thread we are participating in.] GP comment: This is incorrect anyway. Speak to any network administrator: it's called iterating me: Even the wikipedia article says "Traversing a tree involves iterating over all nodes in some manner" you: As wikipedia mentions, don't cite wikipedia itself. The first reference on that article prefers "iterating".
  - nailer 10y ago
    You're right, I was way too absolutist there. Edited. You still shouldn't cite wikipedia!
    - jewbacca 10y ago
      It's a little awkward because there is no authority on the meaning of a word beyond that some other people understand it in a particular way. In that role, wikipedia is as good as any other source. No explicit comment on the wider applicability of your rule in other circumstances. But when was the last time you critically reexamined it?
    - CRConrad 10y ago
      Why on Earth not?!? Wikipedia is where lots of good cites are collected; quote any single one of them and you get only that single one. Quote the Wikipedia page and you get all of them. What's wrong with people, unable to click through to those further cites? (Mouse broken exactly as the WP page opened, or what?) Judging from the "Even the first WP cite prefers..." comment above you seem to have managed it, so I really can't see what the problem with citing Wikipedia is supposed to be. Is it OK to quote the Britannica? If not, why not? If yes, then why not Wikipedia too?

nailer 10y ago

As wikipedia mentions, don't cite wikipedia itself. The first reference on the site prefers 'Transatlantic' too: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/oh-old-timey-movie-voice http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/oh-old-timey-m...

jewbacca 10y ago
Key word: prefers. The grandparent comment is framing this as "that word is wrong, because in the context I've encountered it in, we used this other, right, word". When, assuredly meeting whatever measure you might use to qualify this besides the GP poster's personal experience (... though they do seem to recognize its meaning well enough), "mid-atlantic accent" and "trans-atlantic accent" are synonyms. ---- Like, here's how this conversation looks in a different domain: Article: ... so I found this horrific spaghetti code for traversing the tree ... GGP comment: What is with this childish writing, being "horrific spaghetti" code, instead of not-yet-organized? It's the writing calibre of a young teen, and it seems to be popular. [actual quote. this is the thread we are participating in.] GP comment: This is incorrect anyway. Speak to any network administrator: it's called iterating me: Even the wikipedia article says "Traversing a tree involves iterating over all nodes in some manner" you: As wikipedia mentions, don't cite wikipedia itself. The first reference on that article prefers "iterating".
- nailer 10y ago
  You're right, I was way too absolutist there. Edited. You still shouldn't cite wikipedia!
  - jewbacca 10y ago
    It's a little awkward because there is no authority on the meaning of a word beyond that some other people understand it in a particular way. In that role, wikipedia is as good as any other source. No explicit comment on the wider applicability of your rule in other circumstances. But when was the last time you critically reexamined it?
  - CRConrad 10y ago
    Why on Earth not?!? Wikipedia is where lots of good cites are collected; quote any single one of them and you get only that single one. Quote the Wikipedia page and you get all of them. What's wrong with people, unable to click through to those further cites? (Mouse broken exactly as the WP page opened, or what?) Judging from the "Even the first WP cite prefers..." comment above you seem to have managed it, so I really can't see what the problem with citing Wikipedia is supposed to be. Is it OK to quote the Britannica? If not, why not? If yes, then why not Wikipedia too?