This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ormulum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Ormulum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Come now, this is Wikipedia - we can't describe something as "wholly devoid of literary merit" here. Besides, Orm does quite well on the drowsiness test. I can attest to once having read the first 50 lines of his magnum opus before I started nodding. That's 40 lines more than Finnegans Wake can claim, and I see people over there claiming they're writing about a masterpiece! Haeleth 15:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Do, please. I'm going to tinker with the lead a bit for a while, but I've finished researching it to the degree that I can. There are other things to say, but they're of the dreadfully dull variety (cataloging the ON doublets, picking some danged morphology and talking about how it shows up here then there then nowhere over X years, getting into a tangent about illiterate clergy in 1175, going on a tangent about vernacular masses in 1175, speculating on whether hand B is Walter or Orm still or none of the above, speculating on Hand C being Walter or Orm or the little boy who lives down the lane), and none of them would help make this story exciting. With a fair lead, I think the article would pass FAC, once the prose has been smoothed with rough hands. What I'm most concerned with, though, is whole angles that I've missed, as I'm sure I have. (E.g. I don't talk about patristic exegesis at all (and I don't think WP has an article on it), so explaining Augustine and Bede analyzing everything on a fourfold path is not here. It would only be here to explain how really bizarrely unhelpful Ormulum can be to moderns trying to understand the 12th c. church.) Any input welcome. (And yes, I saw the bulging cheek.) Geogre 01:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Haeleth? I was thinking. Perhaps this article needs a new template, one that says, "Kids, don't try (to read) this at home!" Figure folks are getting the message that reading this book is sort of like an autolobotomy? Geogre 02:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I've only got B&S and no access to a full ed., although some Projector or other may have put it on the web (and then the authority has to be established). Not much point in putting in Orm's explanation of his spelling system, as it would do no one much good. Hmmm. I'm not afraid of translating myself, but I'll need some text that's worth the effort. Again, any from your quarter would be most welcome. Geogre 18:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Order of C17th ownership: currently the article states "it was purchased first by Franz Junius and then Jan van Vliet, both Dutch antiquarians. It came to the Bodleian library as part of the Junius donation". I don't have anything that discusses the MS history ATM, but that looks odd to me. IIRC Junius acquired it from van Vliet's library after the latter's death - had he owned it previously too? Haeleth 22:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
It looks ready to me. Barring objection, I'll nominate it for FA tomorrow. Or, if you'd prefer to nominate it, Haeleth, I'll gladly give place. The point is, this is now a very, very good looking article on a very ugly book. Geogre 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
-or- Yoghi bare!
Umm, the yoghs still aren't displaying properly for me, with Firefox. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, as I'd need to study some to get up to naif level with screen fonts. Geogre 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, no, now that you mention it, they don't work at yogh for me. So long as it's the fault of my old browser, I have no problem with it. You've coded it in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Beyond that, there is little that anyone can do except use pictures, and those, of course, don't work for text samples from Ormulum. Geogre 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
"Turn platen one half line, type 3, backspace, type 3 again, turn platen back up half a line." Oh, yeah. Fortunately, I wasn't dealing with yoghs when I was dealing with typewriters (still thinking, at that time, that Modern literature was the coolest). All of the above work, but we really are at a difficult pass. To some degree, we can only do what we can do. Short of having articles in .pdf, we're always going to be limited to the expanded font packages. While the solutions above work for we three, we can't really tell what's going to happen to people with entirely different character sets (French, Swedish, Dutch) or those who use font translation programs (any oriental language). I'm content with things as they are, but an changing to another, more accepted, way is, of course, good. Geogre 02:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
There's always one guy who'll say, "Meh, close enough." I suppose I'm him, here, but, at the same time, you're absolutely correct. The Ayenbite that has been requested is another such instance. (I think with Layamon the argument is sometimes that it the consonant became /y/ in his case, so modern editors feel like they're helping readers by making him more obviously Lawyerman. All such things are excuses, though.) Given that we are always already out of compliance with some browser or OS (e.g. does anyone know how far "Windows MediaCenter" or "Longhorn" are going to shove the old fonts out of whack), the kludge-y but best solution might well be to use an unusable typographical symbol (*, ^, #) and have a "Key" that indicates that that symbol was used for the yogh. That would be the most honest way to do it, but it won't give the uninitiated any way to understand it. They won't attempt to read it in their heads (assuming they can read thorn, eth, and ash now). I just don't see how we can chase down the horizon with the reverse Procrustean effort of fitting everyone's bed at once. Geogre 18:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe this article is featured, as it is almost completely without references to credible sources, therefore I added a reference tag. Also, it has many subjective wording which should be altered. Some examples:
Also, who is this J.A.W. Bennett guy? He's the mentioned various times as authoritive, but there's no Wikipedia page on him.
Jalwikip 09:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Gordon Bennett! :-) J. A. W. Bennett has existed since 20 June 2007. Carcharoth 23:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the -in element in Ormin really come from -myn = man? Couldn't it be the Norse affigated article -inn? The name is after all Scaninavian. Please explain.
-Gertjan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.71.216 ( talk) 12:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
BodvarBjarki ( talk) 09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
His name without the suffix is Orm not Ormr. Plus as far as we know he didn't speak Norse, just English. So he wouldn't have known how to make Norse noun declensions. It's more plausible to assume that the suffix was originally the definite article, but was meaningless to a 12th century English speaker hence its seemingly optional presence. Anyway isn't the Norse word for man "maður"? Walshie79 ( talk) 16:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought this was an excellent article and enjoyed reading it, my compliments to the authors. My only concern about it was the lack, at least to my eyes, of in-line citations ( Wikipedia:Citing sources) in many sections of the text. Since excellent sources are listed at the bottom of the page, surely it would be an easy enough task to indicate what pages the information was drawn from. How else would anyone be able to verify the content of the text? It could even be confused with original research. Waygugin ( talk) 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
No footnotes}}
tag.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
16:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)"Oh, this will go to FAR!" Yes. That's nice. FAR serves an important function! Let's see, it's to... to... to... uh.... Anyway, the article had citations. They were also "in line." They were NOT, however, computer code citations. The author believed, before he died, that all of the footnote systems were bad. Instead, there were citations at the end of every sentence to the source in parenthetical citation. Someone has thoughtfully removed them all.
That is why the Author was against putting in fiddly diddly codes and boxes and hanging out with coders to talk about how to get the super code to over code the under code for the note-note-not-note. He figured that there was no profit to the reader in such things.
The Author has died, though. There were exact page numbers for each fact taken from Bennett. Burchfield is a single paragraph in a book, so only one page number applies. In general, Ormulum gets relatively scant attention, so it takes some work to synthesize material. There is no "OR" here, although there is research which is conducted for the first time. This is a new synthesis of existing information, and synthesis is the presentation of something novel from the tumble and rumble of thesis and antithesis. All the dead Author wishes is that, if they go to FAR, they simply remove the star rather than stick ignorant fingers into linguistics, philology, and history, and demand "footnotes" (which will go to websites that have derived their information from... THIS ARTICLE). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.127.134 ( talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone has written, in the section on "Significance," "It also demonstrates what would become Received Standard English two centuries before Chaucer (Burchfield)." Now, not having access to the Burchfield source, I of course have no idea what he actually said that was referred to here. However, is it exactly right to specify Received Standard English here? Orm's English probably didn't take a direct line to Received Standard English -- surely it became other Englishes as well? Or perhaps it died out completely and RSE is a descendant of another English? It seems a little beside-the-point to specify Received Standard English in this case, especially when Linguists value all dialects equally, and they're the ones to whom the Ormulum is most valuable as a source of information. Julie90043 ( talk) 02:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The introduction to the article claims that the Ormulum employs a 'phonetic orthography', yet the description of it that comes later makes it sound like it's a (roughly) phonemic orthography. Can anyone clarify which it is? Dougg ( talk) 05:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This diff [1] shows two different approaches to the explanation of what Orm's motivation was. (Really this needs better sourcing as well, but that is a separate issue.)
I think I understand to some extent what is being said, but it needs further clarification. I don't think the clergy would be unable to *transliterate* Latin to Middle English, as such. Is *translate* what is meant?
I do wonder if that is also unclear. Would clergy, even low-ranking clergy, of the period, be unable to either "navigate" or translate (understand) Latin? Perhaps the meaning is rather that they were not supposed to - or allowed to - translate the Bible directly from Latin into English in this period. Whichever way it is, it should be made clearer.
It would be great to get this fixed while the article is featured on the front page, as at present this passage is somewhat confusing for the newcomer. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 08:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The following caption is awkward, it should be reworded:
The interior of the church of Bourne Abbey, where the Ormulum was composed: the two nave arcades, though now whitewashed, remain from the church Orm would have known.
Smallman12q ( talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it me, vandalism, or does the article literally not have a single inline reference as per WP:REF? Smallman12q ( talk) 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There are two different sources with "Bennett", cited in the Sources section. Which one is being referred to, when? Years are needed as well, in the in-line citations, please. Thanks. -- Cirt ( talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1:
Nikkimaria has made a generous offer, and I suggest that we use this section to present text that we believe requires verification. Hopefully, Nikkimaria will be able to find the time to verify it and then note the source & page number on this page. That process should go a long way to ensuring the article meets the requirement for verification of text "which is likely to be challenged". Perhaps consensus then can be achieved on how that verification is integrated into the article (bearing in mind the comments in #Sources above). The aim is to improve the article in a constructive manner, so please try to be reasonable with demands on Nikkimaria's time. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Joan Turville-Petre's "Studies on the Ormulum MS." Journal of English and German Philology 46(1) (January 1947), 1-27 worth a mention in the references/further reading section? 81.156.175.248 ( talk) 09:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The caption for the image of the church interior says: "although now whitewashed, remain from the church Orm would have known". Is that a fact, that churches weren't whitewashed back then? Sculpted celtic crosses, like Muiredach's High Cross, are thought to have been painted, the Parthenon was painted. Were the interiors of churches just left plain in the time of Orm?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 11:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Does the figure of 19,000 lines refer to the whole work as planned (and maybe executed or maybe not), or does it refer to the surviving portion of the manuscript? The article doesn't really make this clear. -- 92.226.25.150 ( talk) 09:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The characters mentioned in Orthography were added in Unicode 14.0 in the Latin Extended-D block. These are upper and lowercase closed insular g (Ꟑ, ꟑ), lowercase double thorn (ꟓ), and lowercase double wynn (ꟕ). The latter two are used to indicate vowel length while the former represents the voiced velar plosive. Given this, I am of the opinion that they should be inserted into the Orthography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Cherokee ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
ꟕ redirects to Ormulum#Orthograpy, but there is no information about the letter in the orthography section of the article. ꟓ also until recently redirected the same way, but I edited it to redirect to Thorn (letter) as that page mentions both the double thorn, and that it is used in the Ormulum (while the page for wynn does not mention anything about double wynn except for its existence). I would recommend either more information about these letters to be added, or that they redirect elsewhere. Syollandre ( talk) 10:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This article uses a manual system of citations which (as discussed over a decade ago, above) predate the modern Wikipedia templates. They do not work well on mobile devices or with the visual editor, and a few of them are broken due to the manual coding. I would like to update the article with more modern and specific scholarship, as it is unnecessarily reliant on anthologies and encyclopedias, but it is unnecessarily laborious to adapt these to the article. Hence I would like first to update all the citations to the modern Wikipedia citation templates: please let me know if you have any objections. AndrewNJ ( talk) 22:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ormulum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Ormulum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Come now, this is Wikipedia - we can't describe something as "wholly devoid of literary merit" here. Besides, Orm does quite well on the drowsiness test. I can attest to once having read the first 50 lines of his magnum opus before I started nodding. That's 40 lines more than Finnegans Wake can claim, and I see people over there claiming they're writing about a masterpiece! Haeleth 15:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Do, please. I'm going to tinker with the lead a bit for a while, but I've finished researching it to the degree that I can. There are other things to say, but they're of the dreadfully dull variety (cataloging the ON doublets, picking some danged morphology and talking about how it shows up here then there then nowhere over X years, getting into a tangent about illiterate clergy in 1175, going on a tangent about vernacular masses in 1175, speculating on whether hand B is Walter or Orm still or none of the above, speculating on Hand C being Walter or Orm or the little boy who lives down the lane), and none of them would help make this story exciting. With a fair lead, I think the article would pass FAC, once the prose has been smoothed with rough hands. What I'm most concerned with, though, is whole angles that I've missed, as I'm sure I have. (E.g. I don't talk about patristic exegesis at all (and I don't think WP has an article on it), so explaining Augustine and Bede analyzing everything on a fourfold path is not here. It would only be here to explain how really bizarrely unhelpful Ormulum can be to moderns trying to understand the 12th c. church.) Any input welcome. (And yes, I saw the bulging cheek.) Geogre 01:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Haeleth? I was thinking. Perhaps this article needs a new template, one that says, "Kids, don't try (to read) this at home!" Figure folks are getting the message that reading this book is sort of like an autolobotomy? Geogre 02:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I've only got B&S and no access to a full ed., although some Projector or other may have put it on the web (and then the authority has to be established). Not much point in putting in Orm's explanation of his spelling system, as it would do no one much good. Hmmm. I'm not afraid of translating myself, but I'll need some text that's worth the effort. Again, any from your quarter would be most welcome. Geogre 18:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Order of C17th ownership: currently the article states "it was purchased first by Franz Junius and then Jan van Vliet, both Dutch antiquarians. It came to the Bodleian library as part of the Junius donation". I don't have anything that discusses the MS history ATM, but that looks odd to me. IIRC Junius acquired it from van Vliet's library after the latter's death - had he owned it previously too? Haeleth 22:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
It looks ready to me. Barring objection, I'll nominate it for FA tomorrow. Or, if you'd prefer to nominate it, Haeleth, I'll gladly give place. The point is, this is now a very, very good looking article on a very ugly book. Geogre 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
-or- Yoghi bare!
Umm, the yoghs still aren't displaying properly for me, with Firefox. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, as I'd need to study some to get up to naif level with screen fonts. Geogre 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, no, now that you mention it, they don't work at yogh for me. So long as it's the fault of my old browser, I have no problem with it. You've coded it in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Beyond that, there is little that anyone can do except use pictures, and those, of course, don't work for text samples from Ormulum. Geogre 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
"Turn platen one half line, type 3, backspace, type 3 again, turn platen back up half a line." Oh, yeah. Fortunately, I wasn't dealing with yoghs when I was dealing with typewriters (still thinking, at that time, that Modern literature was the coolest). All of the above work, but we really are at a difficult pass. To some degree, we can only do what we can do. Short of having articles in .pdf, we're always going to be limited to the expanded font packages. While the solutions above work for we three, we can't really tell what's going to happen to people with entirely different character sets (French, Swedish, Dutch) or those who use font translation programs (any oriental language). I'm content with things as they are, but an changing to another, more accepted, way is, of course, good. Geogre 02:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
There's always one guy who'll say, "Meh, close enough." I suppose I'm him, here, but, at the same time, you're absolutely correct. The Ayenbite that has been requested is another such instance. (I think with Layamon the argument is sometimes that it the consonant became /y/ in his case, so modern editors feel like they're helping readers by making him more obviously Lawyerman. All such things are excuses, though.) Given that we are always already out of compliance with some browser or OS (e.g. does anyone know how far "Windows MediaCenter" or "Longhorn" are going to shove the old fonts out of whack), the kludge-y but best solution might well be to use an unusable typographical symbol (*, ^, #) and have a "Key" that indicates that that symbol was used for the yogh. That would be the most honest way to do it, but it won't give the uninitiated any way to understand it. They won't attempt to read it in their heads (assuming they can read thorn, eth, and ash now). I just don't see how we can chase down the horizon with the reverse Procrustean effort of fitting everyone's bed at once. Geogre 18:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe this article is featured, as it is almost completely without references to credible sources, therefore I added a reference tag. Also, it has many subjective wording which should be altered. Some examples:
Also, who is this J.A.W. Bennett guy? He's the mentioned various times as authoritive, but there's no Wikipedia page on him.
Jalwikip 09:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Gordon Bennett! :-) J. A. W. Bennett has existed since 20 June 2007. Carcharoth 23:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the -in element in Ormin really come from -myn = man? Couldn't it be the Norse affigated article -inn? The name is after all Scaninavian. Please explain.
-Gertjan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.71.216 ( talk) 12:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
BodvarBjarki ( talk) 09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
His name without the suffix is Orm not Ormr. Plus as far as we know he didn't speak Norse, just English. So he wouldn't have known how to make Norse noun declensions. It's more plausible to assume that the suffix was originally the definite article, but was meaningless to a 12th century English speaker hence its seemingly optional presence. Anyway isn't the Norse word for man "maður"? Walshie79 ( talk) 16:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought this was an excellent article and enjoyed reading it, my compliments to the authors. My only concern about it was the lack, at least to my eyes, of in-line citations ( Wikipedia:Citing sources) in many sections of the text. Since excellent sources are listed at the bottom of the page, surely it would be an easy enough task to indicate what pages the information was drawn from. How else would anyone be able to verify the content of the text? It could even be confused with original research. Waygugin ( talk) 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
No footnotes}}
tag.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
16:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)"Oh, this will go to FAR!" Yes. That's nice. FAR serves an important function! Let's see, it's to... to... to... uh.... Anyway, the article had citations. They were also "in line." They were NOT, however, computer code citations. The author believed, before he died, that all of the footnote systems were bad. Instead, there were citations at the end of every sentence to the source in parenthetical citation. Someone has thoughtfully removed them all.
That is why the Author was against putting in fiddly diddly codes and boxes and hanging out with coders to talk about how to get the super code to over code the under code for the note-note-not-note. He figured that there was no profit to the reader in such things.
The Author has died, though. There were exact page numbers for each fact taken from Bennett. Burchfield is a single paragraph in a book, so only one page number applies. In general, Ormulum gets relatively scant attention, so it takes some work to synthesize material. There is no "OR" here, although there is research which is conducted for the first time. This is a new synthesis of existing information, and synthesis is the presentation of something novel from the tumble and rumble of thesis and antithesis. All the dead Author wishes is that, if they go to FAR, they simply remove the star rather than stick ignorant fingers into linguistics, philology, and history, and demand "footnotes" (which will go to websites that have derived their information from... THIS ARTICLE). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.127.134 ( talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone has written, in the section on "Significance," "It also demonstrates what would become Received Standard English two centuries before Chaucer (Burchfield)." Now, not having access to the Burchfield source, I of course have no idea what he actually said that was referred to here. However, is it exactly right to specify Received Standard English here? Orm's English probably didn't take a direct line to Received Standard English -- surely it became other Englishes as well? Or perhaps it died out completely and RSE is a descendant of another English? It seems a little beside-the-point to specify Received Standard English in this case, especially when Linguists value all dialects equally, and they're the ones to whom the Ormulum is most valuable as a source of information. Julie90043 ( talk) 02:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The introduction to the article claims that the Ormulum employs a 'phonetic orthography', yet the description of it that comes later makes it sound like it's a (roughly) phonemic orthography. Can anyone clarify which it is? Dougg ( talk) 05:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This diff [1] shows two different approaches to the explanation of what Orm's motivation was. (Really this needs better sourcing as well, but that is a separate issue.)
I think I understand to some extent what is being said, but it needs further clarification. I don't think the clergy would be unable to *transliterate* Latin to Middle English, as such. Is *translate* what is meant?
I do wonder if that is also unclear. Would clergy, even low-ranking clergy, of the period, be unable to either "navigate" or translate (understand) Latin? Perhaps the meaning is rather that they were not supposed to - or allowed to - translate the Bible directly from Latin into English in this period. Whichever way it is, it should be made clearer.
It would be great to get this fixed while the article is featured on the front page, as at present this passage is somewhat confusing for the newcomer. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 08:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The following caption is awkward, it should be reworded:
The interior of the church of Bourne Abbey, where the Ormulum was composed: the two nave arcades, though now whitewashed, remain from the church Orm would have known.
Smallman12q ( talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it me, vandalism, or does the article literally not have a single inline reference as per WP:REF? Smallman12q ( talk) 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There are two different sources with "Bennett", cited in the Sources section. Which one is being referred to, when? Years are needed as well, in the in-line citations, please. Thanks. -- Cirt ( talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1:
Nikkimaria has made a generous offer, and I suggest that we use this section to present text that we believe requires verification. Hopefully, Nikkimaria will be able to find the time to verify it and then note the source & page number on this page. That process should go a long way to ensuring the article meets the requirement for verification of text "which is likely to be challenged". Perhaps consensus then can be achieved on how that verification is integrated into the article (bearing in mind the comments in #Sources above). The aim is to improve the article in a constructive manner, so please try to be reasonable with demands on Nikkimaria's time. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Joan Turville-Petre's "Studies on the Ormulum MS." Journal of English and German Philology 46(1) (January 1947), 1-27 worth a mention in the references/further reading section? 81.156.175.248 ( talk) 09:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The caption for the image of the church interior says: "although now whitewashed, remain from the church Orm would have known". Is that a fact, that churches weren't whitewashed back then? Sculpted celtic crosses, like Muiredach's High Cross, are thought to have been painted, the Parthenon was painted. Were the interiors of churches just left plain in the time of Orm?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 11:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Does the figure of 19,000 lines refer to the whole work as planned (and maybe executed or maybe not), or does it refer to the surviving portion of the manuscript? The article doesn't really make this clear. -- 92.226.25.150 ( talk) 09:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The characters mentioned in Orthography were added in Unicode 14.0 in the Latin Extended-D block. These are upper and lowercase closed insular g (Ꟑ, ꟑ), lowercase double thorn (ꟓ), and lowercase double wynn (ꟕ). The latter two are used to indicate vowel length while the former represents the voiced velar plosive. Given this, I am of the opinion that they should be inserted into the Orthography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Cherokee ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
ꟕ redirects to Ormulum#Orthograpy, but there is no information about the letter in the orthography section of the article. ꟓ also until recently redirected the same way, but I edited it to redirect to Thorn (letter) as that page mentions both the double thorn, and that it is used in the Ormulum (while the page for wynn does not mention anything about double wynn except for its existence). I would recommend either more information about these letters to be added, or that they redirect elsewhere. Syollandre ( talk) 10:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This article uses a manual system of citations which (as discussed over a decade ago, above) predate the modern Wikipedia templates. They do not work well on mobile devices or with the visual editor, and a few of them are broken due to the manual coding. I would like to update the article with more modern and specific scholarship, as it is unnecessarily reliant on anthologies and encyclopedias, but it is unnecessarily laborious to adapt these to the article. Hence I would like first to update all the citations to the modern Wikipedia citation templates: please let me know if you have any objections. AndrewNJ ( talk) 22:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)