Talk:Wreck on the Highway (1938 song)

Re 1) "moralistic" and 2) sentence structure
The article currently states, "Wreck on the Highway" tells the story of an automobile accident, with implication of alcohol abuse ("whiskey and blood run together") and moralistic religious language". First, "moralistic" either needs to be sourced or removed as npov. To respond to your comment, consider the common definitions eg from google ("characterized by or expressive of a narrow moral attitude") or the second m-w definition ("characterized by or expressive of a narrow moral attitude"). If you want to say he is describing a moral tale, that's fine. But that's not the same as "moralistic," which carries negative connotations. Second, the sentence is ungrammatical. It has "language" as an object of "implication of", in coordination with "alcohol abuse". It at least needs a comma. What exactly is your gripe with my edit you reverted, which addressed both these issues?
 * Well to address the second point first, the sentence (with the examples elided) is
 * Which could be interpreted as
 * Wreck on the Highway tells the story of an automobile accident, with
 * implication of alcohol abuse, and
 * [use of] moralistic religious language
 * You've interpreted it as
 * Wreck on the Highway tells the story of an automobile accident, with
 * implication of alcohol abuse, and
 * implication of moralistic religious language
 * But that's an unlikely interpretation according to common sense. So I mean the first interpretation seems the most likely, so the sentence is not wrong. I suppose it could be constructed better.
 * But that's an unlikely interpretation according to common sense. So I mean the first interpretation seems the most likely, so the sentence is not wrong. I suppose it could be constructed better.


 * As to the first point, "moralistic" is pejorative? What's wrong wrong with a narrow moral attitude? I doubt that Dorsey Dixon would have considered "walking the straight and narrow" to be anything but praise. The song doesn't take broad minded view -- "Enh, maybe he shouldn't have done it, but who am I to judge, and who knows if prayer has any efficacy or not" or whatever -- so why tell the reader that it does? If "It'll be too late if tomorrow you'll fall by a crash by the way" [and you haven't reformed your sinnin' ways] isn't moralistic language then the word has no meaning and should be removed from the dictionary. But it is in the dictionary and it's fine to use it here IMO. Herostratus (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As to the sentence construction, yes it's obvious what it's intended. But it's not what it says. Hence my edit. So I ask a second time, what was your gripe with my edit, since you concede the sentence was contructed incorrectly. As to the connotations, it doesn't matter what I or you think about a narrow moral attitude. What matters is whether the application to this song is appropriate. That application is unsourced. Do you see my point? "Moralistic" is not just saying he is taking a narrow moral attitude, it is saying it is "overly" narrow. It is close to saying he is being "preachy" or "sermonizing". It is an inherently subjective adjective, no different than saying a painting is ugly. By contrast, that religious themes are being invoked is uncontroversial.


 * Well, I dunno. The placement of commas is something of an art rather than a science, and something that different people do differently (see WP:SERIAL for instance). It would be OK i suppose to add a comma if the sentence was only
 * However, the sentence is more complicated than that because examples are interwoven:
 * and adding a comma to this rather complicated sentence will cause to reader to stumble, with no commensurate gain in clarity, in my opinion.
 * and adding a comma to this rather complicated sentence will cause to reader to stumble, with no commensurate gain in clarity, in my opinion.
 * and adding a comma to this rather complicated sentence will cause to reader to stumble, with no commensurate gain in clarity, in my opinion.


 * Looking at search results, and discounting Google Inc. itself (which I do discount because the are not lexicographers, I don't know their sources, and I don't trust them), we get in order:


 * 1) According to Merriam-Webster, the first definition for "moralistic" is "characterized by or expressive of a concern with morality". It is true that the second definition is "characterized by or expressive of a narrow moral attitude". But so? Lots of words have multiple definitions. We don't avoid "They built a bridge across the Volga" because one possible interpretation is that they spanned the Volga with a dental prosthesis, and so forth.


 * 2) Next up is Dictionary.com, which only describes "moralistic" as the adjectival form of "moralist", which is then defined as "1) a person who teaches or inculcates morality. 2) a philosopher concerned with the principles of morality. 3) a person who practices morality. 4) a person concerned with regulating the morals of others, as by imposing censorship ("morality" is then defined as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct").


 * 3) Next up is Free dictionary which for its first definition of "morality" has "Characterized by or displaying a concern with morality". A secondary definition is "Given to making moral judgments, especially in a self-righteous or judgmental manner". Which anyway both definitions apply to the song.


 * 4) Next is the Cambridge Dictionary, which has "involved with judging other people’s morals and telling them how to behave" and the example sentence is "American foreign policy had been rigidly moralistic".


 * 5) Next up is MacMillan, and they have "moralistic" as "expressing strong ideas about what is right and wrong and trying to make other people behave according to them", with the example clause being "moralistic notions of sin and redemption".


 * 6) Next, Vocabulary.com which has "narrowly and conventionally moral" and a synonym being "moral" which is defined as "concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles".


 * 7) Next up is Collins which has "If you describe someone or something as moralistic, you are critical of them for making harsh judgments of other people on the basis of their own ideas about what is right and wrong."


 * 8) Last result on the first page is the Oxford Dictionary, which gives "Overfond of making moral judgements about others' behaviour; too ready to moralize"


 * 9) We'll end with our own Wiktionary, which has "Characteristic of or relating to a narrow-minded concern of the morals of others; self-righteous"


 * So it's a mixed bag. Most of the first hits have a neutral definition, but some have a somewhat pejorative sense as a secondary definition, plus some of the later have a definitely pejorative sense as the main or only definition. I think the problem is that ""Given to making moral judgments, especially in a... judgmental manner" is an accurate description of Dixon's lyric, but to some dictionary editors this is inherently bad which of course it isn't (it depends on what the judgement is), but you can't argue with dictionary editors.


 * I think its fine. "Characterized by or displaying a concern with morality" is the intended meaning and what most dictionaries probably have. But if people are looking up the word Collins or Oxford they aren't going to get that, and Collins and Oxford are reputable, so based on this data I'll concede your point, and accordingly changed "moralistic" to "moral", hoping this will be satisfactory. Herostratus (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)