Talk:The Elements of Style

Nebbish

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)

Not an editorial: White describes Strunk as "nebbish" in various editions of the little book. --Robertkeller 22:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Strunk is only mentioned in the introduction. The word does not appear in the introduction to the 3rd (1979) edition (the last one White edited). The copyright page states that the introduction in the 1959, 1972, and 1979 editions was originally written by White for the 1957 New Yorker article. In which edition do you find it? --Blainster 21:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. He used the word "nibbling" which my memory mistakedly recalled many years later as "nebbish". Omit the needless word. --Robertkeller 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of rules

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)

Commissioning date and copies sold

1. White was commisioned by MacMillan in 1957 shortly after his New Yorker article, not in 1959. The revised edition was published in 1959.
2. The cover on my copy of the fourth edition clearly states that the ten million cumulative sales occurred throught the first three editions, and does not include the fourth edition. --Blainster 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article style

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)

Perhaps it is ironic, but this article should follow the Wikipedia Style Manual, since this is a Wikipedia article about Strunk and White (which I admire too--at least up through the third edition). Jonathunder 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Your examples above do correctly show Wikipedia house style. On WP, quote marks enclose a literal string of text from a source. A mark of punctuation goes inside the quote only if it was part of the exact text being quoted. Since this is different from how I was taught, it took some getting used to, but after a while it seems logical. Indeed, this practice is often called the "logical style". (Note how the dot goes outside the quote there.) Jonathunder 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

"prescriptivist"

Let's leave it out altogether, then. It's an opinion. --VKokielov 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If it tells someone how to speak or write correctly, it's prescriptivist. It's a neutral descriptor. Slac speak up! 05:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You say it's neutral. I say it isn't. It's pejorative. You know as well as I do that "prescriptivist" is the normal state of affairs, and has been for many centuries, while "descriptivist" is a brilliant twentieth-century American invention. Are you feelin rite tonite, man? --VKokielov 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mind, I'm talking about Western culture here. The Americans are the first who took up formalizing all sorts of things like that. To read that the "prescriptivist authors" of a book call our bluff is like reading that the "rightist" Republicans want to ban abortion. Judge for yourself. --VKokielov 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were American, by the way. But Queen's English is a standard, and the English still care about their language. They care about it more than we Americans do. --VKokielov 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

In general, "-ist" is an English suffix with a slightly pejorative meaning when it is derived from words which describe famous factions of various sorts (from relativism to communism). In particular, "prescriptivist" is a label for "old-school" linguistics, and I hear in it an insult to old-school linguists. Again, even if we can say with a clear conscience that "a Republican is rightist," can we really say, with as clear a conscience, that "the rightist Republicans fight against abortion"? We're attributing something to the Republicans now -- to be precise, we're attributing to them a liability, and showing our disdain for rightists, Republicans, and the ban on abortions. --VKokielov 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps "-ist" isn't to all of us as offensive as it is to me. But its combination with attributions must be, because my first association with a faction like this is "deep-seated belief". --VKokielov 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I find all of this quite difficult to follow. I'm not sure what the Republican Party's attitude to abortion has to do with the neutrality of the term "prescriptivist". If the term is such an insult to prescriptivist grammarians (and I find it very hard, in the absence of any cites, to see why: which one of them would disagree that "prescribing forms of speech" is what they do?), what other term do they use to accurately describe their methodological approach? And, dare I say it, prescriptivist grammarians do have a "deep-seated belief" that some forms of language are better than others. That's what defines them as a group. How can this be contested? Slac speak up! 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, since when is that term in use? Second of all, did Strunk and White ever say they were prescriptivists? Show me where. Now, I'm not trying to catch you. I'm trying to say that I don't believe it. And, if they didn't call themselves prescriptivists, and it is their book, then why should we call them prescriptivists right before attributing to them what we (all of us, prescriptivists, descriptivists, and bar flies) hated most about our high school English teachers? --VKokielov 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave your text up, but will you quid pro quo write up a Request for Comment? I'd like to know what the masses think. --VKokielov 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see I'm not the first to start this fight up. Your move. Will you put up a request for comment, or shall I? --VKokielov 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Geez, did Wordsworth ever *say* he was a Romantic? Guess I'm off to remove all those pejoratives from the Wordsworth page!

Dispute

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)

(Reaction to RfC:) I would agree that the position in the phrase "its prescriptivist authors" is not optimal. But some other place in the intro, I think, would be appropriate. The concept is extremely relevant as a characterisation of what the book is, but not so much as a characterisation of what its authors are. Some sentence like: "The book is one of the most well-known and influential prescriptivist popular treatments of English grammar and usage in the US." - By the way, there doesn't seem to be a section on "criticism", right? I don't know if "Language Log" counts as a "reliable source", but it sure makes for a fun reading when it comes to Strunk-and-White-bashing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how we, weasels as we are, can bring ourselves to bash Strunk and White, when Strunk was a professor and White was a writer. I'm not a rightist or leftist ;), in the sense that I respect tradition neither for tradition nor common sense, but out of respect and the knowledge that "sense" isn't always common. (This is how most people are, but the poles, as usual, have been making themselves known much more than the middle.) --VKokielov 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur. The whole issue of Descriptivist vs Prescriptivist is an issue of linguistics, not an issue of style and grammar. The point of style guides is to indicate usages which allow for 'inter'communication and cut down on misunderstanding. to call that prescriptivism, while 'technically' accurate from a linguisitc point of view, is shortsighted and insulting to those of us who strive to teach people to be able to understand each other. There seems to be a train of thought out here that anyone who sets down 'any' rule of grammar is a prescriptivist and we should all be left to our own devices - once the phrase is uttered, it is acceptable. That is how Babel is made; yes, linguists need to stick to description rather than prescription - but somebody needs to establish style and usage parameters. It is only when those parameters are un-moving (e.g. insisting on Victorian usage as 'proper' English) that the slur has any place. While prescriptive/descriptive thus has a place in that article and articles abbout grammar disputes, it has no place here.Bridesmill 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you meant to "concur" with VKokielov or with me here. Just one nitpicking point: I can't follow you on "an issue of linguistics, not an issue of style and grammar". Grammar is the domain of linguistics. (Style too, though not quite as centrally.) If Strunk/White tell us you can't write "three people" because you also can't write "one people", they are making a claim about grammar, hence they are doing linguistics. As long as Strunk/White do grammar, they have to be evaluated by standards set by that discipline. And even where it's concerned only with style preferences and not grammar, yes, that too can be done either in a prescriptive or a descriptive way, so the adjective is still pertinent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as an afterthought: I see above that VKokielov was concerned about the negative connotations of the "-ist" suffix. When dealing with a characterisation of the approach, we can easily replace "prescriptivist" with "prescriptive". "Prescriptive grammar" is just the accurate and neutral disambiguated name of the field to which this work belongs. Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the field as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hm, sorry but I have the feeling your response sounds as if you hadn't really read my last paragraph above at all? What you call "grammarians who develop usage guidelines" - that simply is the meaning of "prescriptive grammar". What's wrong with calling it that? "Prescriptive grammar" is an entirely non-judgmental term. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you thinks so, but the term has been used in a derogatory sense; I find it derogatory when used to refer to grammarians, I find it derogatory when it is applied to me, and so do others. This is like the 'n' word - not everybody considers it derogatory, and sometimes it isn't. But we still avoid it because it is too easily taken the wrong way. So if it doesn't need to be used, why use it unless the intent is to send a message? On the other hand, the intro as it stands right now works for me - prescriptive is a good descriptor in this sense - prescriptivist Isn't.Bridesmill 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we can agree on that. You're right that the way the "-ist" was used in the earlier version did sound as if it wanted to "send that message". - We could still do with a "criticism" section maybe, further down in the article of course. The criticism I've seen is not so much against the book being prescriptivist as such, but against it being bad prescriptions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Strunk isn't my fave either Bridesmill 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Read Geoff Pullum, grandmaster of Strunk-and-White-bashing.. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have, IMHO he's the other end of the pendulum swing LOL. Guys like that make me pull my hair out, because every 'anti-prescriptivist' in the book loves to quote him out of context.Bridesmill 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --VKokielov 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If everyone is happy with the intro now, shall we say the dispute is solved, and de-list the RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That would have my vote - would also make this article a good example of everyone working together for a better tomorrow

.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)

Favorite Reminder

16. Eschew obfuscation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Criticism and context

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)

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)

pdf

the link to the pdf version in the "External links" section is broken

Fair Use / Links

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

What is a .ru site? As for the extensive quoting of the rules, most of it has been removed now. --Unixguy (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

.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)

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.

American English?

Surely this article should be written using American English? DMorpheus (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Leddy blog post

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:

• I don't doubt Leddy's credentials as a professor, but he does not appear to be notable in the Wikipedia sense, and his blog is self-published. It's certainly not comparable to Language Log. Also, Leddy does not appear to be a linguist; that doesn't mean he's not allowed to have an opinion on English usage, but it does mean he's not an "authority" on the subject that LLers make the most complaints about, which is syntactic structures.
• The blog post in question only addresses one of Pullum's articles on S&W, not the whole body of them (as far as I can tell). So the way it was being used in the article was a slight misrepresentation, as Leddy didn't address Pullum's criticism of S&W in general, but only addressed the opinions he put forth in one article (and an article written for a lay audience at that).
• The blog post itself contains some errors—specifically, much of it builds a straw man out of arguments that Pullum didn't even make in the Chronicle piece, and then refutes those arguments while ignoring the substantive ones. No offense to Dr. Leddy, but that is how I have understood the blog post. For example, in the early part of the post, Leddy staunchly defends the usefulness of S&W tidbits like "be clear" and "don't explain too much"—but in the Chronicle article Pullum himself said those weren't too bad (see the 6th paragraph). Much of the rest of the post similarly refutes straw man arguments (or even nonexistent arguments) or simply misunderstands the criticisms Pullum was making. In short, this blog post is far from being a damning game-changer.
• General issue of conflict of interest. No offense, but we editors always need to be skeptical of people battling to get their own opinion into an article. If Leddy's blog post turns out to be important enough, someone other than Leddy will add it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Apologies if I made a mistake about that, I assumed the IPs were both you (but now that you mention it, it looks like the other IP is from Georgia, and you're correct that your IP never actually added the information, just modified it). But my other points above still apply. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Everything has some people who disagree with it, that any reader knows. But unless Leddy gets his view published in a reliable source, there is no reason to add it here.

Besides, the way you've been wording this addition ("stuff like 'Leddy has criticized Pullum's criticism") is poor writing and makes this sound like nothing but a stab at Pullum. If it were really to be included (which I still believe it should not be), it should be worded more along the lines of "Pullum says bla bla bla, although so-and-so still defends the usefulness of S&W." This article is about S&w, not about Pullum. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Third Opinion

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 Mad^T_C 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Influence and Appreciation (balancing "criticism" section)

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

• Lang, Berel (1982). "Strunk and White and Grammar as Morality". Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Vol. 65, no. Spring. {{cite news}}: More than one of |number= and |issue= specified (help)

which has been reprinted in

• Lang, Berel (1991). "Strunk, White, and Grammar as Morality (Chapter one)". Writing and the moral self. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-90295-9.

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)

You are welcome to add stuff like that, but please do so in a way that makes sense. The bit you added about influence is unsourced, and the bit that is sourced (about S&W being influenced by puritan ideas) is not exactly praise or criticism, and as such is pretty irrelevant to the section you put it in. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It pays to enrich your word power: "Criticism" includes placing a text in its context. Lang suggests that the Elements of Style reflects speech patterns of (New England) puritanism; c.f., the "true eloquence" of John Bunyan or John Milton. Your phrases "makes sense" and "pretty irrelevant" were uncharitable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading Leslie Lamport in The LaTeX Handbook that "it is a delightful book." (But I don't have the page/chapter number.) N6n (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

"Critical reception" is for artistic works, which this is not. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you being facetious? You're saying we should include a section that consists wholly of people being critically negative in review form but not if they comment otherwise? Quadzilla99 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Me again (I've changed my username), changing this section to "Negative critical reception" would effect what change exactly? AaronY (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is fine... or critical reception, or whatever... the word criticism is neutral, and there's room for praise to be included under the criticism header. The important part is that this article acknowledge the vast influence of elements of style and widespread adulation heaped upon it by its admirers. The closest this article comes to acknowledging ANY positive reception to elements of style is within Pullum's quotation ("Several generations of college students learned their grammar"). A reader of this article unfamiliar with Elements of Style would believe the book to be roundly criticized as outdated and irrelevant. This is absurd. The truth is quite the opposite: the book is widely praised and criticism is confined to obscure academic circles. The point of Pullum's criticism is that Elements of Style has over the years achieved a near-idolatrous following and failure to reflect this in the article makes Pullum's criticism seem irrelevant and unnecessarily anti-American.I would start with this blurb sheet: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/02/prweb2052714.htm. The quotations aren't sourced, but some of the originals shouldn't be too hard to find. (EoS has its defenders within the academic community as well... there's plenty out there, but you can start with http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7919673&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0266078410000362). 76.27.129.154 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If I were to say "Governor Foo has received criticism for his budget proposal", is there any context under which you would expect me to follow up with praise? When I say something has received criticism, in English, the implication is almost always negative, straying from that would be very eccentric. It is neutral when talking about a field - for instance, literary criticism, or biblical criticism, but not when describing the "criticism" some work has received. Create a separate field for positive comments on the work, or unify it into a general "reception" category.

As well, I would think that we would do well to give the opinion of the academic community priority. Who would be a better source on the subject than people who've spent their lives studying the issue?108.131.71.4 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Quotation marks

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:

usage," ten

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))

Top

The top of this article needs serious formatting assistance.fds^Talk 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The problem wasn't in the article, but in a change someone made to {{Styles}}, which is transcluded near the top of this article. I have undone the change. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Content Synopsis Is Weak

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)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a copy of, or a substitute for, other books. People who want to know the list of rules in Strunk & White can buy or borrow their own copy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Likewise, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and as such there is no "how to write clearly in English" page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And TEoS would be a terrible choice to offer as a guide in any case, since the advice it offers is so bad overall. Personally, I think the lede is far too flattering. But if someone is going to add more details of the contents, I think it would be important to also integrate some of the criticism, pointing out where the book is wrong, where it contradicts more reliable guides, and where it contradicts itself. All of which can be done with reliable sources--Pullum is far from the only linguist to point out just how awful this book really is. Xtifr _tälk 12:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with rʨanaɢ. The article should be basic information about the book, but not its contents.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Time Magazine Date Causality?

"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)

I assume they were referring to the revised version, published in the 1950s. If you check the source they even say that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

anachronism

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)

Editions

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.

strikeout revised and emphasis added. I presume 1920 is the first published edition, same content as 43-page 1919 printing, reset on 52 pages for publication. Essentially I added the 1920 publication to the article with that LCC record as formal reference.

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.

LC does not "count" either of the last two as a 5th edition.

--P64 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We cite a 5th ed. 2009 formally (now ref #3, 4, 9) but give ISBN identical to the 4th ed. 1999 (now ref #12). In both cases (all four refs) we cite particular pages.

The same LC catalog browse hits a 2007 parody.

And a 2006 Dover reprint of the 1920 Strunk, evidently. [2].

--P64 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Pullum's claim

The article tells us that

Pullum has claimed, for example, that [blah blah].

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)

Since nobody has objected in a period of about two weeks, I've made the change. -- Hoary (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A worthwhile version of The Elements of Style

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)

Since nobody has objected in a period of about two weeks, I've added links to Strunk & Cowan and made related changes. -- Hoary (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

SpikeToronto doesn't approve. If anyone would like to see it, here it now is. -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

the trivia section Jeopardy question?

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)

I have removed the item, as mere trivia. All it seems to say about our subject matter here is that the makers of a TV show thought that some but not all contestants would be able to think of it. If I misunderstand and this is not mere trivia, perhaps it could be more informatively presented and differently titled; but first, I (and I suspect other editors too) would like to see an argument for its value. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

From Time to TIME

There's been a minor disagreement between one editor and another. Let me quote our manual of style on the matter:

• Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one:
  • avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS
  • instead, use: Time, Kiss, Asus
• Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything. For instance, use SAT for the (U.S.) standardized test or KFC for the fast food restaurant. Using all lowercase letters may likewise be acceptable if it is done universally by sources, such as with xkcd.

-- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah buddy appreciate you ArodnapKils (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of Comma

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:

• The original was composed by William Strunk Jr., in 1918, and published by Harcourt, in 1920, comprising eight "elementary rules of usage", ten "elementary principles of composition", "a few matters of form", a list of 49 "words and expressions commonly misused", and a list of 57 "words often misspelled".

"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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116124639/http://www.laco.org/composer/359 to http://www.laco.org/composer/359
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A humorous observation

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)

CGEL doesn't tell people how to write (or speak). It's no more prescriptivist than War and Peace is -- it's an entirely different genre of book.

Do you have a suggestion for this article, User:TheKurgan? -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No. As I said, it was just a humorous observation. :) There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)