- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This discussion was closed on 7 September as soft redirect to Wiktionary by User:Sovereign Sentinel, a non-admin. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I, an admin, have vacated this closure as it seems out of line with the consensus. I am re-closing as delete. Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Fiddlesticks! (interjection)
- Fiddlesticks! (interjection) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:DICDEF not a dictionary. The second source even cites the first one. There is an etymology if you look for it but it's neither interesting, nor clear enough to build an article around. Even fleshed out it would be a permastub with bad sources. Savonneux ( talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment on etymology: [1] This source which copies this [2] this source. [3] This book seems to lend some credence to that narrative. But a lack of contemporaneous accounts or research that goes beyond one authors opinion is missing.-- Savonneux ( talk) 08:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@
Savonneux: I appreciate and share your concerns for the integrity of Wikipedia, but the reason I believed that "
Fiddlesticks!" warrants inclusion as a Wikipedia entry is the fact of that interjection's roots in, and connection with
American Louisiana Cajun culture among
enslaved peoples in the early history of the United States, which I do think is interesting; and it is my intention that myself and other editors will expand that aspect of this subject further as the article is further developed and improved upon from stub status.
That story goes considerably beyond the mere etymology of a word as it would be set out in
Wiktionary, and is significant in its acknowledgement of African-American cultural traditions and contributions (often overlooked or given only
short shrift) to the broader
American folklore and culture of the United States.
When white plantation owners, as they often did, suppressed the use of African musical instruments by slaves, they deprived those people of their traditional means of cultural rhythmic expression. Their continuing need to enjoy musical traditions and express rhythm found new outlets in a number of different forms, one of which was straw beating on violins, or using "fiddlesticks", and the resultant concomitant expletive expression often muttered under ones breath back at their "Masters" and owners, that is the intended subject of this Wikipedia article. --- Professor JR ( talk) 10:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is more appropriate for Wiktionary. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 10:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Retain Given the significance of the use of "Fiddlesticks!" in American folklore, Cajun culture, and African-American History, this topic warrants more extensive treatment than just a mere short-shrifted, token etymology in Wiktionary. (By the way, the word "etymology", perhaps ironically, has an entire long article on its own etymology in Wikipedia ( Here), which has not been proposed by User:Savonneux or anyone else, as far as I know, for deletion, nor to be relegated only to Wiktionary.) --- Professor JR ( talk) 11:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I don't think the bot picks up Retain as a valid !vote, however I might be mistaken. I suggest you change the retain to Keep. --
Rsrikanth05 (
talk) 12:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to help,
Rsrikanth05, but yes, you're mistaken. There is no bot. AfD's are closed by humans, and they can read humanspeak just fine, so "Retain" is not a problem.
Bishonen |
talk 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
- I know that AfDs are closed by humans, there's a script that counts the votes for convenience. Not picking up an argument here, I think I know my way around, having been here so long. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Etymology is an academic discipline. Regardless this discussion isn't about other articles. It's about this article. WP:OTHERSTUFF-- Savonneux ( talk) 08:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to help,
Rsrikanth05, but yes, you're mistaken. There is no bot. AfD's are closed by humans, and they can read humanspeak just fine, so "Retain" is not a problem.
Bishonen |
talk 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
- Note This article now has numerous facts that are not supported by the references given. It essentially is now chock full of original research and shows a huge US bias even though what little information I have dug up points to the fact it's been in use since the 15th century.-- Savonneux ( talk) 20:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would love to come up with a rationale for keeping this one since I'm pretty sure that my username was the inspiration for this article - but I can't find any coverage/scholarship on it besides the usual dictionary-style definitions. Regrettably, I think that makes it a Delete. Fyddlestix ( talk) 20:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sources cited above in this discussion show that "fiddlestick" and the exclamation "Fiddlesticks" date back to Shakespeare's time and the claim that it is an important part of Cajun culture is not supported by reliable sources. Anyway, how many slaves had fiddles? In the 20th century it was a minced oath, like "frick," for the "f-word." Edison ( talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, Delete, Delete, already. After due consideration to the amount of whatever talent anyone commenting here may have being wasted on this discussion, and my willingness to concede on the "too much original research" argument and on the point of "too few sources" (American Cajun traditions, mostly oral traditions, are still not extensively documented in written literature) --- I have changed my mind, and agree that the page should be deleted. Why should any of us worry about better informing the, in many instances benighted young users of Wikipedia on topics such as one regarding the origins of an American cultural phenomena from Louisiana Cajun slave peoples' culture, or striving to better document same.
It is NOT accurate, however, that the interjection "fiddlesticks!" dates "back to Shakespeare's time", as has bee suggested by User:Edison and elsewhere by User:Savonneux (the fact that a couple of you may have found the word "fiddlestick" (singular) in Henry IV, Part 1, notwithstanding.) Shakespeare's line (in Act 2, Scene 4 of Henry IV Part 1) is: "Heigh, heigh! the Devil rides upon a fiddlestick: what's the matter?" His use of "fiddlestick" (singular) there is neither employed as an interjection, nor does it carry the same meaning as the American Cajun usage of "fiddlesticks" (plural) when the latter is used as either just a noun to refer to the straws or sticks used to tap on a violin, or as the interjection "fiddlesticks!", both of which did in fact originate in 18th Century Cajun culture in the United States; and you'd be surprised, User:Edison, "how many slaves had fiddles" --- as they were more ingenious than you apparently give them credit for, and in many instances even learned to read, and dared to worship, though those activities were also forbidden in the majority of cases by their "owners".
Shakespeare's character, however, was referring merely to a violin bow, with which one plays a violin (cf. Merriam Webster - definition of "fiddlestick" (singular)); and the playwright uses the term here to suggest metaphorically that the Devil is riding (or resting his case) on a trifle, in other words that he is spouting trivial nonsense; and the context where "fiddlestick" appears in that line of the play certainly does not support that it is intended as an exclamation or interjection.
I agree with User:Fyddlestix, and "would love to come up with a rationale for keeping this one" --- but at some point it behooves us to desist from paddling against the rip-current of the millennial tide, and, not with any feelings of discontent nor regret, to content ourselves with the recognition that, as the novelist said: " we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." --- Professor JR ( talk) 08:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Professor JR, your ad hominem attack on "millenials" certainly misses in my case. "Fiddlesticks" appears to have been a term of derision by 1719. Google book search has a 1719 version (English translation of that date?) , [4] "Cupid, I adore thee ! There is a charm Turn up your lip, old Sourcrout ! we care not. We — the young — the gay — the healthy — the happy! Wisdom! — physic — no more ! — fling them both to the dogs, say I. Wisdom ! — fiddlesticks ; I am tired ..." from "Monsieur Bossu's treatise of the epick poem: Preface of ... - Page 53" by ≤René Le Bossu, André Dacier, Fontenelle (Bernard Le Bovier, M. de) - 1719 - Snippet view. (Other sources date le Bossu's original work, likely in French where a different word might have been used to 1675). The references provided so far to beating on a violin with straws or sticks are not sufficient to show notability of that technique as a subject of an article about the musical technique. Edison ( talk) 16:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ Edison: That's most interesting, and thank you so much for tracking it down. I appreciate knowing that the use of "fiddlesticks" as an exclamation or interjection may trace back that far. Even though the French original (which I have not perused) may not have included a term or word equivalent to "fiddlesticks", the translator certainly did use the term, and in the sense we're talking about here, which does indeed seem to validate its use as an exclamation as early as the early 18th-Century in England. Thank you again. (Incidentally, are you aware that there already exists a Wikipedia article ( here) on the subject of using fiddlesticks as a musical technique, whether qualifying for notability or not I'll leave to others.) --- Professor JR ( talk) 10:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly doesn't belong per WP:NOTDICT. Word definitions and etymology belong in Wiktionary. -- Michig ( talk) 07:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- @
Michig: Then explain to me, please, why
this interjection, or
this one, or
this one warrant inclusion in our august, "etymology-free" Wikipedia,
but fiddlesticks! does not . . . nevermind. --- Professor JR ( talk) 07:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)- WP:OTHERSTUFF-- Savonneux ( talk) 04:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This discussion was closed on 7 September as soft redirect to Wiktionary by User:Sovereign Sentinel, a non-admin. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I, an admin, have vacated this closure as it seems out of line with the consensus. I am re-closing as delete. Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Fiddlesticks! (interjection)
- Fiddlesticks! (interjection) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:DICDEF not a dictionary. The second source even cites the first one. There is an etymology if you look for it but it's neither interesting, nor clear enough to build an article around. Even fleshed out it would be a permastub with bad sources. Savonneux ( talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment on etymology: [1] This source which copies this [2] this source. [3] This book seems to lend some credence to that narrative. But a lack of contemporaneous accounts or research that goes beyond one authors opinion is missing.-- Savonneux ( talk) 08:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@
Savonneux: I appreciate and share your concerns for the integrity of Wikipedia, but the reason I believed that "
Fiddlesticks!" warrants inclusion as a Wikipedia entry is the fact of that interjection's roots in, and connection with
American Louisiana Cajun culture among
enslaved peoples in the early history of the United States, which I do think is interesting; and it is my intention that myself and other editors will expand that aspect of this subject further as the article is further developed and improved upon from stub status.
That story goes considerably beyond the mere etymology of a word as it would be set out in
Wiktionary, and is significant in its acknowledgement of African-American cultural traditions and contributions (often overlooked or given only
short shrift) to the broader
American folklore and culture of the United States.
When white plantation owners, as they often did, suppressed the use of African musical instruments by slaves, they deprived those people of their traditional means of cultural rhythmic expression. Their continuing need to enjoy musical traditions and express rhythm found new outlets in a number of different forms, one of which was straw beating on violins, or using "fiddlesticks", and the resultant concomitant expletive expression often muttered under ones breath back at their "Masters" and owners, that is the intended subject of this Wikipedia article. --- Professor JR ( talk) 10:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is more appropriate for Wiktionary. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 10:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Retain Given the significance of the use of "Fiddlesticks!" in American folklore, Cajun culture, and African-American History, this topic warrants more extensive treatment than just a mere short-shrifted, token etymology in Wiktionary. (By the way, the word "etymology", perhaps ironically, has an entire long article on its own etymology in Wikipedia ( Here), which has not been proposed by User:Savonneux or anyone else, as far as I know, for deletion, nor to be relegated only to Wiktionary.) --- Professor JR ( talk) 11:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I don't think the bot picks up Retain as a valid !vote, however I might be mistaken. I suggest you change the retain to Keep. --
Rsrikanth05 (
talk) 12:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to help,
Rsrikanth05, but yes, you're mistaken. There is no bot. AfD's are closed by humans, and they can read humanspeak just fine, so "Retain" is not a problem.
Bishonen |
talk 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
- I know that AfDs are closed by humans, there's a script that counts the votes for convenience. Not picking up an argument here, I think I know my way around, having been here so long. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Etymology is an academic discipline. Regardless this discussion isn't about other articles. It's about this article. WP:OTHERSTUFF-- Savonneux ( talk) 08:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to help,
Rsrikanth05, but yes, you're mistaken. There is no bot. AfD's are closed by humans, and they can read humanspeak just fine, so "Retain" is not a problem.
Bishonen |
talk 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
- Note This article now has numerous facts that are not supported by the references given. It essentially is now chock full of original research and shows a huge US bias even though what little information I have dug up points to the fact it's been in use since the 15th century.-- Savonneux ( talk) 20:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would love to come up with a rationale for keeping this one since I'm pretty sure that my username was the inspiration for this article - but I can't find any coverage/scholarship on it besides the usual dictionary-style definitions. Regrettably, I think that makes it a Delete. Fyddlestix ( talk) 20:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sources cited above in this discussion show that "fiddlestick" and the exclamation "Fiddlesticks" date back to Shakespeare's time and the claim that it is an important part of Cajun culture is not supported by reliable sources. Anyway, how many slaves had fiddles? In the 20th century it was a minced oath, like "frick," for the "f-word." Edison ( talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, Delete, Delete, already. After due consideration to the amount of whatever talent anyone commenting here may have being wasted on this discussion, and my willingness to concede on the "too much original research" argument and on the point of "too few sources" (American Cajun traditions, mostly oral traditions, are still not extensively documented in written literature) --- I have changed my mind, and agree that the page should be deleted. Why should any of us worry about better informing the, in many instances benighted young users of Wikipedia on topics such as one regarding the origins of an American cultural phenomena from Louisiana Cajun slave peoples' culture, or striving to better document same.
It is NOT accurate, however, that the interjection "fiddlesticks!" dates "back to Shakespeare's time", as has bee suggested by User:Edison and elsewhere by User:Savonneux (the fact that a couple of you may have found the word "fiddlestick" (singular) in Henry IV, Part 1, notwithstanding.) Shakespeare's line (in Act 2, Scene 4 of Henry IV Part 1) is: "Heigh, heigh! the Devil rides upon a fiddlestick: what's the matter?" His use of "fiddlestick" (singular) there is neither employed as an interjection, nor does it carry the same meaning as the American Cajun usage of "fiddlesticks" (plural) when the latter is used as either just a noun to refer to the straws or sticks used to tap on a violin, or as the interjection "fiddlesticks!", both of which did in fact originate in 18th Century Cajun culture in the United States; and you'd be surprised, User:Edison, "how many slaves had fiddles" --- as they were more ingenious than you apparently give them credit for, and in many instances even learned to read, and dared to worship, though those activities were also forbidden in the majority of cases by their "owners".
Shakespeare's character, however, was referring merely to a violin bow, with which one plays a violin (cf. Merriam Webster - definition of "fiddlestick" (singular)); and the playwright uses the term here to suggest metaphorically that the Devil is riding (or resting his case) on a trifle, in other words that he is spouting trivial nonsense; and the context where "fiddlestick" appears in that line of the play certainly does not support that it is intended as an exclamation or interjection.
I agree with User:Fyddlestix, and "would love to come up with a rationale for keeping this one" --- but at some point it behooves us to desist from paddling against the rip-current of the millennial tide, and, not with any feelings of discontent nor regret, to content ourselves with the recognition that, as the novelist said: " we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." --- Professor JR ( talk) 08:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Professor JR, your ad hominem attack on "millenials" certainly misses in my case. "Fiddlesticks" appears to have been a term of derision by 1719. Google book search has a 1719 version (English translation of that date?) , [4] "Cupid, I adore thee ! There is a charm Turn up your lip, old Sourcrout ! we care not. We — the young — the gay — the healthy — the happy! Wisdom! — physic — no more ! — fling them both to the dogs, say I. Wisdom ! — fiddlesticks ; I am tired ..." from "Monsieur Bossu's treatise of the epick poem: Preface of ... - Page 53" by ≤René Le Bossu, André Dacier, Fontenelle (Bernard Le Bovier, M. de) - 1719 - Snippet view. (Other sources date le Bossu's original work, likely in French where a different word might have been used to 1675). The references provided so far to beating on a violin with straws or sticks are not sufficient to show notability of that technique as a subject of an article about the musical technique. Edison ( talk) 16:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ Edison: That's most interesting, and thank you so much for tracking it down. I appreciate knowing that the use of "fiddlesticks" as an exclamation or interjection may trace back that far. Even though the French original (which I have not perused) may not have included a term or word equivalent to "fiddlesticks", the translator certainly did use the term, and in the sense we're talking about here, which does indeed seem to validate its use as an exclamation as early as the early 18th-Century in England. Thank you again. (Incidentally, are you aware that there already exists a Wikipedia article ( here) on the subject of using fiddlesticks as a musical technique, whether qualifying for notability or not I'll leave to others.) --- Professor JR ( talk) 10:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly doesn't belong per WP:NOTDICT. Word definitions and etymology belong in Wiktionary. -- Michig ( talk) 07:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- @
Michig: Then explain to me, please, why
this interjection, or
this one, or
this one warrant inclusion in our august, "etymology-free" Wikipedia,
but fiddlesticks! does not . . . nevermind. --- Professor JR ( talk) 07:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)- WP:OTHERSTUFF-- Savonneux ( talk) 04:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.