Talk:Coverture

Food
Can someone add the culinary definition of coverture as well? I don't see any link to it from the page, or mention of alternate definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.45.230 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it has nothing to do with the legal meaning, then it isn't too relevant to this article. If there's discussion in another article, we can set up a disambiguation link. AnonMoos (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Gastronomic term at Couverture chocolate, modern French term at Couverture maladie universelle... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I added a hatnote to this article and added an article to the disambiguation page. I don't know why I didn't soon after the last post above; probably I didn't have time. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

propose to recategorize as either misogynist or sexist
Coverture clearly treated women differently than it did men and denied to women rights granted to men, doing so on the basis of sex. The article shows this already. The misogyny category was added by me and then reverted by another editor because "misogyny is *hatred* of women, thus this tag is inappropriate" and then so was the sexism category, the reverting because "completely unjustified". The only discussions in this article were in the edit summaries. In the spirit of BRD, I am inviting discussion of the categorization.

While the editor who deleted both has posted to another article's Talk page, coverture was mostly not discussed there, and it seems likely the reasons for opposing the categorizations regarding coverture were different.

What do editors think?

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Misogyny" is a personal motivation, and it would be stretching things to apply it to an abstract legal doctrine. It could definitely be called sexist, but I don't know that I care too much whether or not the category is added... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Oxford English Dictionary (online), as accessed 9-25-11, for misogyny, noun, says,"Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women." Thus, misogyny is not limited to hatred.


 * Misogyny may be a personal motivation, but it may also be a societal one, and legal doctrines made into law (including informally by what is enforced or not) reflect societal motivations about what should be in the law or not. Since Wikipedia offers a category for misogyny and arguably bars its use (as the use of the Sexism category is barred for use) to categorize living people, organizations, and media, Wikipedia's intent is that the category is for use for other than living people, organizations, and media.


 * Coverture was prejudicial to women, thus misogynist. It was also sexist, but Wikipedia categorizes misogyny as a subcategory of sexism.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Societies cannot have hatreds or dislikes, thus the categorisation is inappropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Societies do and therefore can, both positive and negative, and they're most apparent during states of widespread common agreement, such as during a war, and at other times on issues on which there is widespread agreement, such as in opposition to a proposed ruler or institution. It's fair to describe the U.S. as having had a societal hatred or dislike for Communism during the cold war and continuing after the implosion of Soviet Communism. That dislike was, for example, taught in many public schools, likely the vast majority of them. And psychologists can talk about mass hysteria, in which hysteria is one type of feeling in a mass of people. If any editor believes that the category Misogyny has no potential members in Wikipedia, the category can be proposed for deletion, but in the meantime it's available and intended to be appropriately used. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Societies do not. Individuals within the society may, but that's not the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick Levinson -- To call the legal doctrine of coverture "misogynist", one would have to have evidence that a majority or very significant number of people who influenced or imposed coverture were motivated by hatred or dislike for women, and I don't think that would be an easy task. Blackstone was a man of his time with the attitudes of his time, but he was not St. John Chrysostom or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. If you want to accomplish something positive, you could go to Talk:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, where I've been sporadically trying to get some mention of his misogyny or near-misogyny (in any case, rabidly militant rampaging anti-feminism) onto his article page, but without much luck, so far. It's definitely true that coverture was sexist, so in my opinion it would not be out of line to add "Category:Sexism" to the article page; however, there's no real burning need to do so -- what it is is adequately indicated in the article, and people can make their own decision... AnonMoos (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Misogyny also includes prejudice (per the OED, quoted above), which could be without hatred. And a modern perspective is applicable; we're not punishing the men of the past, we're judging what they did, perhaps so we won't do it in the future.


 * With either category, however, a major purpose, probably the major purpose, is to allow people who do not know the article exists to find articles related to one they know about by gathering them into a category. Thus, the category label at the bottom may be of not much use as a quasi-summary to a reader finishing the article, but may be useful to other visitors for discovering the article, and it may be useful to readers of this article who want to find related articles other than those linked to within the article.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The law is a what?
That bit about "The law is an ass" seems irrelevant, but more importantly seems to be wrong; according to phrases.org.uk the phrase is a couple of centuries older than that, and originally applied to something entirely different. North5 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That link says "However, it was Dickens who brought the phrase to the general public." (i.e. greatly popularized it), and the Dickens passage is about "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction" (i.e. one of the semi-corollaries of coverture). "Originated" could be changed to "was popularized" (though your link admits that a number of reference works attribute the line to Dickens).  In short, this doesn't really seem to change much.  AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
Didn't want to use too heavy a hand, but some parts did not seem to be too useful, and in particular the assertion that coverture prevailed in the U.S. until the 1960s is wrong -- aspects or relics of coverture survived into the 1960s, but coverture as an overall system had been steadily chipped away for many decades, and did not survive into the 1960s. In any case, family law varies state-by-state in the U.S., so generalizations about the United States as a whole can be hazardous. AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Coverture did exist in the U.S. into the 1960s and did so in some number of states between one and 11, that was acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the statement is sourced. It's not sourced in the lead, from which the statement was deleted, because the lead does not have to be sourced since it is a summary of the body, but it is sourced in the body, which gives the count of states. An implication of the Supreme Court ruling on it is that it was, in a way, part of Federal law, even if only tangentially, since the High Court generally does not rule on purely State law questions without Federal implications except to acknowledge what State law says. I'll restore the statement, while preserving the addition about influence.
 * I don't know about influencing other common-law jurisdictions, but because coverture may have applied in Wales (I guess it was one) and did apply in the U.S., and I don't know if it applied to, say, Australia (which I assume relied mainly on common law), I'll add "some" to that. Also, I don't know if it applied to Louisiana, which is not a common-law jurisdiction but one based on French-inspired civil law.
 * While the article did not say that coverture "prevailed", I understand your point and I'll clarify that it may not have been a major part of the law. I don't know what its scale was (I assume it was nullified as unconstitutional eventually anyway) but I'll say that it was "part" of U.S. law, since it was, and not minor for couples and parties who depended on the couples' conduct.
 * The lead as a summary should reflect criticism in the body, and the lead's criticism paragraph is based on the sourced content in the body. If you feel that another way of writing it would be better, go ahead. Otherwise, I'll likely put it back. I'll wait a week for a response.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Coverture as a coherent full system did not exist in the 1960s. What 1960s married women mainly faced were restrictions such as not being able to make a major capital purchase (such as buying a house, etc.) without her husband co-signing.  This sounds vaguely coverture-like, but it's not in fact Blackstonian classic coverture, and was actually due more to common banking practices of the time than state laws... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Court's opinion in the Yazell case says this (per the source linked to in the article and omitting endntes): "At the time ... [a certain] loan [in the case] was made, Texas law provided that a married woman could not bind her separate property unless she had first obtained a court decree removing her disability to contract. ... Mrs. Yazell had not done so. At all relevant times she was a beneficiary of the peculiar institution of coverture which is now, with some exceptions, relegated to history's legal museum.... [T]he Texas law which gave rise to the difficulty was repealed in 1963.... [The] husband and [the] wife ... were barred by the coverture statute from forming a partnership.... The chattel mortgage [in the case] was accompanied by a separate acknowledgment of Mrs. Yazell before a notary public, which was required by Texas law as a part of the institution of coverture.... [I]t seems clear (1) that the SBA [the Federal agency in the case] was aware and is chargeable with knowledge that the contract would be subject to the Texas law of coverture; (2) that both the SBA and the Yazells entered into the contract without any thought that the defense of coverture would be unavailable to Mrs. Yazell with respect to her separate property as provided by Texas law; and (3) that, in the circumstances, the United States is seeking the unconscionable advantage of recourse to assets for which it did not bargain.... Is there a 'federal interest' in collecting the deficiency from Mrs. Yazell's separate property which warrants overriding the Texas law of coverture? .... The institution of coverture .... exists, in modified form, in Michigan.... We should not here invent ... [a "federal law ... relating to the protection of the separate property of married women"] and impose it upon the States, despite our personal distaste for coverture provisions such as those involved in this case." The dissent adds that "[t]he Texas law of 'coverture,' which was adopted by its judges and which the State's legislature has now largely abandoned, rests on ... [an] old common-law fiction". Thus, both the Court as a whole and the three dissenters agree that coverture existed in Texas and the Court opinion explicitly acknowledges that it existed into the 1960s with the dissenters not disagreeing on the date. Whatever various banks did (and some may have gone beyond coverture or applied coverture-reminiscent banking practices in states that did not have that kind of law) is separate from whether in some states the law applied coverture, and that it did. And, as the Court ruled, in some cases the Federal government had to apply coverture if a State did.
 * Doubtless U.S. coverture was not identical with English coverture, as Blackstone wrote it up or in any other English legal form, and Texas and Michigan probably differed in their forms of coverture, too. But the Court says coverture was part of U.S. law in the 1960s. The article is global, as Wikipedia articles should be, and so it should cover the various legal forms of coverture insofar as the sources do. Almost certainly there are sources that describe major differences between different forms of coverture, probably state-level legal treatises, and those sources can be added. But we should report what is known from what we have found so far.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Classical Blackstonian coverture was not a single provision or a single law, but a full system -- a system which had suffered attrition by a thousand minor cuts beginning in the second half of the 19th century, and so no longer existed as a full system by the 1960s. What survived as long as the 1960s were scattered quaint and picturesque legal remnants of coverture, scattered quaint but annoying legal remnants of coverture, and provisions whose main purpose was to prevent a wife from unilaterally dragging her husband into major financial transactions -- which he would be legally obligated to pay for -- without his previous knowledge and consent.  Only the third category had a real functional useful purpose in the 1960s, and it was by no means as thoroughgoing and all-encompassing as classical Blackstonian coverture, or even necessarily a strict subset of classical Blackstonian coverture.  Your 1961 thing is kind of interesting (though a little archaic even then), but the possibility of "a court decree removing her disability to contract" is distinctly non-Blackstonian, and the very quote which you provided says "coverture which is now, with some exceptions, relegated to history's legal museum".  If in the rest of the article, the word "coverture" is defined and referred to in its Blackstonian meaning, then it would be inappropriate and confusing to use it in a quite different meaning (without suitable explanation or context) in one sentence in the lead section... AnonMoos (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lead would be misleading if coverture is being misunderstood from it as mainly static; it wasn't wiped out in one fell swoop, as some single-jurisdiction laws sometimes are. I've now added to the lead a clarification based on the History section.
 * The mention of the "museum" is not my disagreement with the history of coverture having largely faded by that time; I agree it was disappearing, albeit still in effect in part.
 * The Yazell opinion was from 1966, not 1961, thus well into the 1960s (if you meant something else by "1961", please let me know).
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant the decision was about Texas law as it existed prior to 1963 (don't know why I said 1961). In any case, mid-20th-century American coverture (if you want to call it that) was mainly about preventing the wife from being able to unilaterally drag the husband into major financial obligations; it really was not the same as classical Blackstonian coverture, and it was already overall on the decline (in ways that varied from state to state).  Your new rewritten version of the lead paragraph does not appropriately distinguish between classical Blackstonian coverture vs. mid-20th-century American coverture, and could be considered to falsely imply that there was legal uniformity across the U.S., and that coverture was alive and well in the 1960s (instead of pretty much on its last legs).
 * If it would take a lengthy passage to suitably explain the differences between classical Blackstonian coverture and mid-20th-century American coverture, and this article is mainly about classical Blackstonian coverture, then that could well be a sign that mid-20th-century American coverture should not be included in the lead paragraph... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article could be retitled (moved) to Coverture (Blackstonian) and another article created as Coverture (non-Blackstonian), but there isn't enough content (now) for a split. So, both kinds of coverture should be in the same article, but with an appropriate distinction. The U.S. law was known as coverture, that being what the U.S. Supreme Court called it; I didn't call it that on my own, and we should call it that, since sources agree on calling it that. If a source says that what the Americans called coverture wasn't really that, then add the source, but I don't know of one. If a longer explanation on the distinction is needed, which would be if we had enough sourcing to support describing the various differences, and since once sourced they do deserve weight, that would go into the body. But we already have enough in the body to acknowledge in the lead now that there was a distinction, and we should not keep this article much more narrowly focused than the article title and the cited sourcing already support. Your analysis that my wording meant "that coverture was alive and well in the 1960s (instead of pretty much on its last legs)" is directly contradicted by what my edit said: "Coverture evolved during its later existence, generally being weakened until it was ended." Your edit also removed "some" preceding "other common-law jurisdictions", leaving open that all of them adapted coverture, which is unknown to me and unsourced. So I'm putting back two of the statements and rewriting one to meet your concern. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, this article is not going to be moved to "Coverture (Blackstonian)", because classical Blackstonian coverture is what most informed people have in mind when they hear the word "coverture", while other forms of coverture (or quasi-coverture) were watered-down historically-transient versions of Blackstonian coverture.
 * In any case, your latest version of the lead paragraph is still completely unacceptable, since it confusingly uses the word "coverture" in two radically different and divergent meanings, without offering any explanation or context. AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I would say that they're radically different, since I don't have more sources about the U.S. form, but it is less encompassing. If a source says it's radically different, we should add that. But even if radically different, both are closely-enough related that both should be in the article and in the lead. Otherwise, readers would have the impression (unless they read the body) that it was only in England. But if a different wording would help, please go ahead, or please suggest some ideas. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the editing. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been extremely diligent in seeking out legal and scholarly references, but unfortunately, you seem to have very little feel for what coverture was overall, and what purposes it served, at any particular period, in which case I would respectfully suggest that it might be better for you not to mess with things that you don't seem to understand very well. In particular, if the 1960s are to be mentioned at all, then some indication must be given of how classical Blackstonian coverture differed from mid-20th-century American coverture, or else the first paragraph will be misleading in the extreme, as discussed at length above. Of course, feel free to drop the 1960s reference from the lead paragraph completely, in which case none of these problems will exist... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * When Wikipedia does not have enough information on a subject (and this case warrants the information you're proposing), we add it, we don't delete other information. The 1960s information is relevant and sourced, it is understandable insofar as it is stated, and therefore it belongs. If a rephrased distinction would help to make the article easier to understand, please do that or I can, if you wish. I don't have sourcing analyzing differences between Blackstonian and non-Blackstonian coverture or between English and U.S. coverture; if you have it, please add it. The sourcing probably exists. I have not been "extremely diligent", simply careful, so there is doubtless more to be found. As you may have noticed, I did not omit the information; I mainly tagged it as needing a citation, which was correct, and I did that on the good faith that someone, perhaps you, can produce sourcing to support it. It does not belong without that template unless a source is provided.
 * If this were a subject I did not understand at all or well enough to edit, it would join many articles that I do not edit for precisely that reason. Sometimes I have posted information onto a talk page so other editors can consider it, instead of my editing such an article. We may disagree on issues related to coverture, but that is why we rely on sourcing. Unsourced statements or views in cases like this are not appropriate for Wikipedia. What is back in the lead is unsourced.
 * We shouldn't have content in the lead that is not in the body, so the solution is to add what is kept in the lead to the body. WP:MOS/Lead section says (in its lead) that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The guideline's body elaborates on this. While the MOS is a guideline and not a policy, diverging from the guideline without a good reason is normally frowned upon. Please explain why you believe the explanation of U.S. coverture that you provided should be in the lead but not in the body.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- the U.S. family-law lawyers may be so fully aware of the differences between classical Blackstonian coverture and mid-20th-century American "coverture" that they often don't bother to spell out the differences except when they're the actual topic under discussion. However, anyone who has moderate knowledge of the ramifications of coverture not derived from random Google searching knows that there was a significant difference.  For that matter, anyone who reads and understands the judges' comments about "history's legal museum" etc. knows it.  Therefore anything which gave the idea that unmodified Blackstonian coverture prevailed in the U.S. during the 1960s would be blatantly factually incorrect and misleading in the extreme.  I'm open to any suggestion which would avoid including flagrant howlers in the lead paragraph and still comply with all relevant Wikipedia policies, but by far the simplest solution would be to omit any mention of the 1960s there... AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What is still in the lead is mainly what you wrote. I don't think you wrote a howler. When you found it in the body, you may have forgotten that you wrote it. I fixed a dangling participle (not everyone would bother) and otherwise copied your parenthetical passage into the body. Essentially, you objected to the copy of your passage. I also added a Citation Needed tag. It needed the tag.
 * I was about to replace the date from the lead (keeping it in the body) with saying coverture existed decades ago without saying how many, but realized that would run afoul of the guideline on weasel words, since the decade is sourced. We can't omit the U.S. from the lead; it's too important. We'll have to trust lead-only readers with the knowledge that coverture existed in the 1960s. However, I clarified the lead by adding a sentence stating that the two national forms were different, albeit without adding how. I don't think that they were different is itself challengeable (someone might disagree, think they were identical, and tag it for needing a citation, but I'm willing to wait to see if that happens). But the specific statement about finance still needs tagging or a source.
 * We agree that there are national differences and I didn't find that out by Googling (I read books). Nothing in this Wikipedia article said that what was in the U.S. was unmodified Blackstonianism anywhere in or near the 1960s. I suppose it's possible that they were identical in early colonial times but I don't have a source one or the other on that, and, given the size of the Atlantic and the colonists' partial disregard for England even during colonial times, the laws were probably divergent pretty quickly and permanently.
 * I doubt that U.S. or British family law lawyers would know much about the national differences in coverture any more, as most lawyers probably don't know much about laws that have expired before the fifty years preceding our asking them. For that, finding sources might be helped by asking specifically legal historians or legal librarians. Another tactic might be to Shepardize the Yazell and similar cases for journal articles citing them and see if those articles cite earlier articles and treatises on coverture, probably repeating the step in journal articles for still earlier articles and treatises, until a researcher gets to a time when coverture was alive and well in the U.S.
 * Treatises from the 1960s and earlier likely describe U.S. coverture of the time; but modern ones likely don't and, for modern ones in loose-leaf form that were also published long ago, the removed pages may be nearly impossible to find. But larger law libraries might have older titles that were not updated since the 1960s or were updated only with pocket parts and separate pamphlets. I also don't know whether any of the electronic publishers have old titles in their services. Case law is much more readily available, although systematically searching them is a skill most nonlawyers don't have and access to law libraries or paid-for electronic services is usually needed for that.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, I didn't write any article version which implied that unmodified Blackstonian coverture prevailed in the U.S. in the 1960s, as far as I know. If I did write such a version, then I made a mistake, since such an implication would be misleading in the extreme.  Second, the differences between classical Blackstonian coverture and mid-20th-century American "coverture" were more chronological than geographical.  I don't know that there was any great difference in coverture between England and the U.S. states in 1789 (though sometimes divorce was easier than it was in the ridiculous pre-1857 English system of divorce). Third, when you "copied [my] parenthetical passage into the body", I objected to it because the difference was presented as a national difference, not a chronological difference.  Since this whole matter has been about the 1960s, it was really quite strange that when you "copied [my] parenthetical passage into the body" you presented it as a fact about United States coverture from the beginning (something which I have never claimed), instead of about coverture in the 1960s (when it was pretty much on its last legs).
 * In any case, the broader point remains -- if throughout this article, the word "coverture" is used almost exclusively to refer to classical Blackstonian coverture, then any statement that (unqualified and unexplained) "coverture" prevailed in the United States as late as the 1960s is likely to give the incorrect idea that unmodified Blackstonian coverture prevailed in the U.S. in the 1960s (rather than almost entirely being part of "history's legal museum"). I welcome any helpful ideas you may have about how to avoid giving such a highly misleading misimpression, without compounding the error (such as presenting the difference as mainly geographical, rather than chronological)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're reading much more into the texts than is actually there. Neither of us "implied [in the article] that unmodified Blackstonian coverture prevailed in the U.S. in the 1960s". The differences were significantly both national and chronological. While Blackstone's theory may have been invariant, the law of coverture was what the law was in each nation, country, and state at each point in time. What the U.S. law on coverture was in 1789, the year the U.S. Constitution was ratified, is something neither of us knows and we lack sources on it. Likewise, I don't know the law as it prevailed under the Articles of Confederation or in the colonies prior to formal independence, but some form of the common law applied before independence and, I think, probably under the Articles. American lawmaking was separate from English lawmaking after independence and the American was not bound by the English. The law on coverture varied substantially, as shown by the Wikipedia article. For example, the orginal law of coverture was amended by married women's property acts. And the article is not limited to what Blackstone wrote. Thus, national differences are already in the article and sourced. And just six days ago you supplied one major difference yourself when you added this to the lead: "Certain aspects of coverture (mainly concerned with preventing a wife from unilaterally incurring major financial obligations which her husband would be liable for) survived as late as the 1960s in some states of the U.S." That is both a national difference and a chronological difference and it is substantial. Unless someone has a source saying that in the 1960s or at any other time England or the U.K. did what the U.S. did to coverture at the same time, since we already have a source on the U.S., then the chronological difference is a national difference as far as either of us knows and as far as sourcing is concerned.
 * Neither of us has proposed that the discussion of U.S. coverture be "unqualified and unexplained" with respect to differences. I have qualified and explained insofar as sources support. You have objected. Produce another wording that you feel is better or find more sourcing and write from that.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You were the one who added language to the lead paragraph stating that coverture prevailed in the U.S. as late as the 1960s, and then I added language explaining what "coverture" actually meant in that context (since almost everywhere else in the article the word "coverture" means Blackstonian coverture). The geographical stuff came from you, and I actually have relatively little knowledge of specific geographical variations.  However, the states basically incorporated Common law into their own law at the time of the founding of the U.S., with specific exclusions for entails and aristocratic and royal stuff (see Common law), and coverture came along for the ride at the time.  The state legislatures could have relaxed coverture at any time (just as they relaxed English divorce laws), but if they chose to do so in any significant way before the late 19th-century wave of Married Women's Property Acts, then I've never heard of it...
 * In any case, according to the quote which you yourself supplied, coverture was actually on the brink of being consigned to "history's legal museum" in the 1960s, and if the lead paragraph clearly implies that coverture was not on the brink of being consigned to "history's legal museum" at that time, then it would be strongly misleading... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're correct about my adding language to the lead about the 1960s and your adding on finances. But, in the discussion above, you were conflating two statements: your parenthetical clause about financial obligations, which I copied, and my later addition about there being an unspecified difference. You deleted "(mainly concerned with preventing a wife from unilaterally incurring major financial obligations for which her husband would be liable)" from the lead's 1960s context and followed in 17 minutes with your talk post on the 1960s. You had put the financial information into the 1960s context in the lead in the first place, but you objected to my doing so, not your doing so.
 * It's not the case that "almost everywhere else in the article the word 'coverture' means Blackstonian coverture". Blackstonian is important; it more or less is the central point of coverture's history. But the article is hardly limited to what Blackstone wrote of coverture, and that's because coverture is mainly a legal system and the article is mainly about the law and law is not bound to original writers; both the U.K. and the U.S. constitutions are living documents whose meanings gradually change, lower-level laws tend to change more often, and from time to time original precedents forming common law are replaced by later ones in terms of what judges rely on. The article is simply about coverture, regardless of who first inspired it.
 * "If the lead paragraph clearly implies that coverture was not on the brink of being consigned to 'history's legal museum' at that time, then it would be strongly misleading": I don't think it ever implied that, that was not my understanding of sources, and I don't propose that it should imply or say that. What it says is: "Coverture ... was weakened and eventually eliminated by subsequent reforms. Certain aspects of coverture ... survived as late as the 1960s in some states of the United States." That directly answers your concern. When you deleted the financial statement, you left intact the part about weakening until elimination and that certain aspects survived into the 1960s in some states, so it appears that you agreed that the lead made the near-extinction clear already.
 * I'll try to separate two important statements here so we can solve these problems:
 * Your financial statement I took on good faith as warranting inclusion even though it needs a source. I'm taking your word on it being sourceably true, because I don't know much beyond that and it seems to me like it probably is true (other than that I don't know about the emphasis for "mainly", but I'll leave that for another time so we can see what sourcing says.) So, I don't object to including the statement now as long as we solicit a source.
 * My separate addition said very little: it said that coverture in the U.S. and coverture in England were not identical. How different they were it did not say. (Common law as incorporated by reference in the states in various years was also subject to conflicting interpretations by the states; what Massachusetts and Texas said regarding the same common law on a non-coverture subject reportedly were in contradiction and that legally did not require resolution; common law was also adopted into Federal law. I would assume with 49 states using common law they likely would differ in coverture.) To object that we can't say that the national bodies of law were not identical because it makes them seem too alike makes the whole lead objectionable for the same reason and means we should make the difference clearer by relying on sourcing. We can hardly omit acknowledging that they were different. And, Wikipedia being a work in progress, we don't refuse summarizing into the lead sourced content because more can be added later. We can add what we have as we get it and add more later, even if that results in the lead changing over the life of the article as more knowledge is brought to bear from sources.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have very little interest in going around and around with you on this yet again. You insisted on adding a mention of the 1960s to the lead paragraph, but unfortunately you did so in a way that was highly misleading by implication.  I added what I considered to be a minimal fix-up to correct the highly-misleading aspects of your reference to the 1960s in the lead paragraph.  If you have a better solution to the problem to offer, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the matter, but it's quite useless for you to attempt to deny that there is a problem.  (Of course, if you stop insisting on including the 1960s in the lead paragraph, then the problem will automatically go away.)  I did the reversion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coverture&diff=580652646&oldid=580633731 because you strangely changed my explanation of chronological differences into an assertion about geographical differences, and so garbled it into something I never claimed, and which is fairly obviously false... AnonMoos (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Solved, I hope. I put the addition where both chronology and place should now be clearer to readers. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

- P.S. Writing in 1946, Mary Beard said In time, Blackstone's formula of the "civil death" of married women was blasted throughout the Union by civil law ("Woman As Force in History", chapter 7; here "Union" = United States). If the civil death of married women was already archaic and superseded in 1946, then anything which gave the ideas that it continued into the 1960s would be quite misleading (as I've been saying all along...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Beard's statement does not sound more authoritative than or equally as authoritative as the U.S. Supreme Court's in what is not an obiter dictum. I don't know whether "blasted" meant 'criticized' or 'spread' (although you may be able to tell from the context in your copy). I don't know whether she meant civil law as distinct from criminal law or as distinct from common law, but if she was talking about many states than probably she meant the latter. The article is about coverture regardless of how closely it adhered to the Blackstonian description and perhaps all she was saying was that Blackstonianism was rejected but that other forms of coverture were present. Archaic things might continue to exist but superseded ones don't. In any case, what she said might be weighty enough to be worth reporting as an attributed view with a page citation. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- Beard's statement is more or less equivalent to the statement that coverture was on the brink of tottering into "history's legal museum" in the court decision which you yourself turned up. It's unfortunate that you can be extremely diligent in searching out sources, but sometimes bordering on the apparently intentionally obtuse in understanding what they're saying... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * They're not close to being equivalent because both statements are about law and the Supreme Court and states' highest courts are generally the final authorities on law in the U.S. while Beard was apparently not a lawyer (her father had a law practice and she may well have picked up an understanding of law from him). If someone claimed that coverture had disappeared from law and then been made law again after Beard's statement but before the Court spoke, a claim I doubt is true, we'd need a source for that revival. Otherwise, on a statement like one we're discussing, the Court's view is far more authoritative than hers, although hers would still be reportable as one view. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, they're both saying that coverture in its full force as known to Blackstone did not survive into the mid-20th century United States (certain isolated relics and anomalies survived, though on the brink of teetering into "history's legal museum", and certain pragmatic restrictions -- not necessarily exactly Blackstonian in nature -- survived, but the full Blackstonian system, including features such as the "civil death of married women", did not survive). When it comes to a choice between Beard, who was actually alive in 1946 as a fairly well-respected independent scholar and senior surviving early feminist, versus your highly selective and sometimes quasi-eccentric interpretations of documents you don't always appear to understand too well, then I'll choose Mary Beard, sorry... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article being about coverture in general and not only Blackstonian coverture, the Supreme Court view is quite reportable. The Supreme Court's opinions in the cited Yazell case do not have the string "Blackston" at all (thus not Blackstone or Blackstonian). The Supreme Court was opining on coverture, which is the subject of the article. Reporting Beard's view is fine. Reporting it to the exclusion of the Supreme Court's view would be a very serious error. Selectivity is required for editing any article; I have not mis-selected from or misunderstood any of the sources I cited on point. If you're saying that my interpretation of the Yazell case is "quasi-eccentric", then please post a citation to a source that interprets any of the Yazell opinions in a contradictory way. And if Beard and the Yazell court were talking about the same law and the Court said it's alive (perhaps barely, but nonetheless alive) and Beard was saying that it was already dead before then and if they were both right, then coverture would have to have been brought back into law after Beard's statement and before the Court spoke; please supply a source citation to that effect, as I have no such knowledge or source. Otherwise, Beard's statement may be reportable as a view, but not as a replacement for what the Court wrote as law. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The eccentric part is insisting on using the word "coverture" in ways that don't distinguish between its 1760 meaning and its 1960 meaning (as far as the laws actually in force during those two years), and which would in fact actively cause confusion. The phrase "history's legal museum" should have clued you in that such differences exist, yet for some reason you insist on ignoring it... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I think I pointed out several times that such differences do exist. In this thread, I wrote, "both kinds of coverture ["Blackstonian" and "non-Blackstonian"] should be in the same article, but with an appropriate distinction.... My edit said: 'Coverture evolved during its later existence, generally being weakened until it was ended. I then wrote, "I don't have sourcing analyzing differences between Blackstonian and non-Blackstonian coverture or between English and U.S. coverture; if you have it, please add it. The sourcing probably exists." I then wrote, "I clarified the lead by adding a sentence stating that the two national forms were different, albeit without adding how. I don't think that they were different is itself challengeable .... We agree that there are national differences .... Nothing in this Wikipedia article said that what was in the U.S. was unmodified Blackstonianism anywhere in or near the 1960s.... The laws were probably divergent pretty quickly [from "early colonial times"] and permanently." I then wrote, "the differences were significantly both national and chronological.... The law of coverture was what the law was in each nation, country, and state at each point in time. What the U.S. law on coverture was in 1789, the year the U.S. Constitution was ratified, is something neither of us knows and we lack sources on it." I then wrote, "neither of us has proposed that the discussion of U.S. coverture be 'unqualified and unexplained' with respect to differences." In the article, in a past revision, I wrote into the lead, "coverture was not the same in the United States as it was in England." The Court did not distinguish between specifically 1760s coverture and what was remaining in the 1960s and I assume that settles your issue about eccentricity of interpretation of the court case. We can't exceed the sources, but we can add sources, if known. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the main difference is not geographical, but chronological -- I have no intention of going all through that with you yet again. The first significant reform to coverture listed in Beard's book is 1848.  (This is very different from the case of laws concerning divorce, where North America already started diverging from England in colonial times.)  Some of the things you say sound nice in the abstract, but unfortunately they didn't keep you from adding an extremely misleading reference to the 1960s to the lead paragraph of the article, or objecting to my attempts diminish the misleadingness... AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We have agreed on what to say in the article on point and that's on what the article says now. The differences in coverture were both chronolgical and geographical. Whether only the "main" difference was chronological and not geographical is a judgment that requires a source for it not to be original research. When more sourcing can be added on any point, more content can be added. The string "1848" is not in the article, so if the Beard source says something deserving of weight about a change in that year, please add it. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

lead as summary
In response to a reverting of an edit: The lead should summarize the body, so what is in the lead should be in the body (and the body can also have more than the lead). The MOS guideline says, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.... The lead .... should ... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.... Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." That's in the guideline's lead; the nutshell says, "The lead should ... summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." The main exceptions are clarified in the guideline's subsection on relative emphasis: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." I don't think the exceptions apply to the text we added. Apart from the tag and renaming the section (since the addition was support for coverture), my addition to the body is identical to what you added to the lead. We could delete from both locations, but I think the statement is probably sourceably true and deserving of weight (and presumably you agree) and so should be present and sourced. There has not been "duplication ... [of] everything"; this fit the guideline. If you think an exception applies or that the guideline should be overridden, please let me know. If there's no reason not to, I plan to revert or restore. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you seem to have a limited ability to usefully contribute to the first section of this article. The paragraph you recently added was confusingly-worded, semi-incoherent ("legal function" instead of "legal fiction" didn't help), and very difficult to understand. I attempted to substitute a brief and pithy few sentences covering some of the same points.  I don't have any references right now, but I was summarizing things I read a while back about how opponents of the repeal of coverture seemed to fear that such a repeal would mean that the law would invade the Englishman's or American's sacred castle -- his home and family -- with litigiousness, so that minor marital spats or tiffs would be dragged through the courts etc.
 * If you think it's wrong, then say so, but duplicating things is not the answer. I didn't strongly object to one minor duplication as a way out of the 1960s morass above, but I don't see how indiscriminate or semi-automatic duplication really solves anything. Maybe you should focus less on wiki-lawyering skills, and more on things that would help you write cogent, relevant, non-misleading, clearly understandable article summaries... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're complaining about something that, while I wrote it, you deleted without any objection from anyone; and about "function"/"fiction" I wrote "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coverture&diff=582830084&oldid=582779495 you're right, 'function' was my error]". So why you're complaining now is entirely unclear. And I didn't complain about your writing; I even copied it into the body. It does need a source and I don't disagree that what you wrote is probably true, so, again, your complaint appears to be entirely misplaced. I've read enough to agree that it's probably true. You don't have a source handy and I don't either, and that's not a critical problem; the tag is to notify anyone interested that they can add a source. I don't think the statement is wrong but it is certainly challengeable (this isn't as widely agreeable as the sky being blue) and it needs a source.
 * You advise me to write better article summaries. Fine; some of my writing tends to get complicated and that's a valid criticism. But still the lead has to be a summary. If you disagree with the guideline on leads being summaries, please edit the guideline or propose an edit to the guideline. But, in the meantime, applying something as obvious as a major guideline is not wikilawyering. If you think I am missing the lead guideline's "spirit or underlying principles", for example, please tell me how. Otherwise, we need to apply it, because Wikipedia tries to apply relatively consistent standards throughout the encyclopedia, including this article, for the sake of the encyclopedia's credibility.
 * One possibility is to add to the body not only the lead's text but also from your explanation in this thread about the support for coverture. Another is to copy from the lead into the body and then shorten what the lead says on it into an even shorter summary. Then it won't look like a simple duplicate. But I'm fine with the duplication as tagged. Please let me know your preference or why the guideline should be ignored.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- I just now turned up my copy of "Woman as Force in History", so I'll page through that and see if there's anything useful. Meanwhile, since you don't seem to have been able to add anything of real value to the first (lead) section of this article, maybe you should focus more on how to improve substantive content there, rather than narrow technicalistic wikilegalisms... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Paging through "Woman as Force in History", so far I haven't found any extended rhetoric by opponents of the repeal of coverture, just fragments such as "he expressed great fears in regard to meddling with this well-settled condition of domestic happiness", "lovers of the common law declared that heaven, home, and, mother would be outraged by this innovation", etc. However, I did turn up that an early married women's property act was passed by New York state in 1848 (though it was somewhat basic, and was later modified by a series of subsequent acts, as was the case with all the early married women's property laws), while Robert Owen appealed to the Indiana legislature for a married women's property law as early as 1832 (though such a law was not passed in Indiana until after 1850). Beard emphasized that even before the passage of such laws, equity courts had modified the practical application of coverture in some respects, and pointed out that Nevada, Washington, and Idaho adopted a "community property" family law, even though there was no significant Spanish or French legal influence in those states (unlike some other "community property" states)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Those first couple of quoted sentiments, and perhaps others represented by the "etc.", might be reportable as attributed views (with page citations), unless they don't warrant weight (as you have the source, perhaps you can judge weight). Beard's statement on modifications might go well next to Hendrik Hartog's that's already in the article and perhaps Beard had more to say about specific modifications. The content about Married Women's Property Acts and community property even where Spanish history was not very relevant only matters insofar as sourcing shows they affected coverture; otherwise, it may belong in other articles but not in this one, although cross-linking on community property in the See Also section of this article might be useful (Married Women's Property Acts are already the subject of links). Nick Levinson (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I (re-)added to the article's body on a good faith assumption that the attribution/s and sourcing can be added by an editor who is knowledgeable, given a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coverture&diff=583336982&oldid=583196781 prior post] in this topic/section and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coverture&diff=582779495&oldid=582701732 prior editing to the article's lead]. What's in the lead is appropriate for the lead but almost anything in the lead also has to be in the body. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for delay in replying, but 1) I really do not see the merits of duplication as a general strategy for article improvement. 2) The "he expressed great fears in regard to..." quote comes from an old history of women's suffrage book, as you could have easily found out for yourself through a perfunctory Google search, but it's rather vague and indeterminate, and I don't see much point in including it on the article. 3) "lovers of the common law declared that heaven, home, and, mother would be outraged by this innovation" is Mary Beard's paraphrase; this quote could possibly be used on the article, but it would have to be in a somewhat different manner. I was really hoping to find one of the quotes from opponents of coverture reform along the lines of how it would dissolve the sacred bonds of family and intrude lawyers into private intimacies, but the Beard book does not appear to contain one of those, and I'm not sure where else to try to find one... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To avoid duplication, then, I took it out of the lead (which is mostly limited to being a summary of the body) and put it back into the body with the prior tagging and section retitling but without the two quotations you disputed for vagueness and indeterminism or because "it would have to be ["used"] in a somewhat different manner". I did not research the quotations' sourcing since you had supplied them and presumably would have an easier time sourcing them. I don't feel that if someone else supplies unsourced content I must always do the sourcing we ask them to do, even though I could and even though I sometimes do. I don't know if the State Senate floor debates in 1848 were published in anything like extensive verbatim text, but that would be a possible direction for research by anyone interested. I am not restoring the first quotation since a source (History of Woman Suffrage (Project Gutenberg)) probably should be examined further; the quotation seems to come from a letter by a New York State Senator opposing coverture briefly summarizing the views of an unnamed State Senator supporting coverture (if we re-add the quotation to the article, we should also add that the Senator supporting coverture had been single all his life). That he supported coverture is clear from the quotation, thus it is not vague; and indeterminism does not apply since we have the word of a colleague that the summary is of support for coverture, thus it is determinate. While another source might have more about why he supported it, the present quotation is sufficient to show a rationale for support until more sourcing is found. With respect to the second quotation, please feel free to use it in the manner you deem appropriate, with a citation; I'll wait at least a week for your work. I'd like to clarify that the Who tag does not require that we provide personal names of supporters, but it would be helpful to provide at least a characterization beyond that they were supporters, e.g., that it was a popular view or the view of some legislators, judges, religious leaders, or writers, if that information is sourceably available. I trust this editing solves the new issues you raised. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's nice that Wikipedia has policies, but unfortunate that you often insist on applying them in ways which do not result in meaningful or useful article improvement -- especially to the lead section. The 1848 quote is vague because it does not incisively or specifically express the objections of coverture-reform opponents, but merely expresses inchoate fears that any change may be for the worse.  AnonMoos (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We apply policies and guidelines even if their benefit is not evident. Rather, the proper practice goes in the other direction: exceptions are applied only where exceptions would improve Wikipedia. That's because policies and guidelines are not merely an outsider's advice about what would be nice, but reflect both Wikimedia Foundation decisions binding on all of us and, probably more often, consensus among Wikipedia's editors across a wide swath of the editing community, far larger than the subset of editors who form only a local article's consensus. For instance, we don't omit original research because a particular omission would improve Wikipedia. Rather, it is the adding of original research that would have to be justified as an exception. If you think any policy or guideline is in error, please edit the policy or guideline or post to the related talk page about it (and if you're too busy to do that I sympathize but we are still charged with complying until they're amended by someone). Conformance to the policies and guidelines is expected because we should not be attempting article-by-article undermining of Wikipedia's effort at consistency based on standards, consistency that likely enhances the encyclopedia's usefulness to readers. So far, an exception on point has not been justified. With respect to the support statement, I now concur in your deleting it because your doing so, after our discussion, implies that it is not sourceable. Thus, it would be original research that must be omitted. If it is not original research, please supply a citation before re-adding. With respect to the lead, I restored a shorter version of the statement that you deleted as imbalanced, because it reflects what is substantially sourced in the body. Balance is good but not beyond what is due weight from sourcing. We do not edit to achieve balance between a sourced view and an unsourced view and we do not posit equal weight between abundantly sourced views and slightly sourced contrary views. (I also added to the statement in accordance with the sourced body but did not re-add "etc" as et cetera is a weasel word in the context. And I repositioned the statement to fit the lead approximately chronlogically.) Feminist criticism is sourceably important enough in the sources that it belongs in the lead. Pro-coverture support will likely also belong in the lead when it is sourced and present in the body. If you have more content that is sourced, please add it. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On the good side, you have great abilities to diligently research things from sometimes obscure sources. On the bad side, you sometimes seem to have very little understanding of the concrete realities or functional purposes of what it is that you're researching, and so can allow fortuitous loose wording or striking phrases in such material to give you a false understanding of basic facts.  Only a complete ignoramus or moron would deny that there was strong support for retaining coverture during various periods, so I don't see why a brief unfootnoted statement of some of the main reasons for eliminating or reforming coverture can't be accompanied by a brief unfootnoted statement of some of the main reasons for retaining coverture.  Meanwhile, I would be more impressed by your alleged strict adherence to the rigid letter of Wikipedia policies if it weren't for the fact that you insist on practicing a personal idiosyncratic method of dictionary-definition triangulation which has no support in Wikipedia policies, not to mention the fact that when you had free reign over the "Matriarchy" article its quality went down (since it came to be encumbered with a bunch of borderline-relevant or irrelevant junk).
 * The upshot is that you add stuff to this article which is not fully useful for article improvement in the form in which it was added, and then I add amendments to save what you added, and then we go around and around and around and around and around on these amendments, in semi-pointless discussions sometimes accompanied by high-flown rhetoric which do nothing to change the fact that what you added was not fully useful for article improvement in the form in which you added it... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost every article in Wikipedia is for a range of readers, including people with substantial knowledge who wish possibly to find out something more and people who know almost nothing about a subject and may learn almost everything about it by reading one article, perhaps this one. Some we would call "complete ignoramus[es] or moron[s]" but only if they are expected to know a given subject, and many of them, such as students, read Wikipedia on many subjects. (I have occasionally been astonished at what it is that some students – and some adults – do not know.) I don't think the main unsourced content should be deleted, because I agree that most or all of it is probably accurate. But, even so, it needs sourcing. Perhaps someone else will find sourcing, saving both of us the time. As to the other points, I recognize that we disagree and I have explained with respect to, I think, all of them. In general, while I read a lot of books, I occasionally come across a book that should be good but gives signs in the text of excessive unreliability; when that happens in Wikipedia, the option to edit is helpful. Generally, I take Wikipedia articles on good faith and often miss that there's a need to edit until I re-re-read it much later. There are multiple instances of editors across Wikipedia believing something to be true, as when an editor was sure that slaves (in a certain time and place) could not marry; but I found a credible source that said that some could; I wish that editor had either refuted or acknowledged the point (and I'd like to see more refuting done with evidence), but there's been no reply in a long time. Sometimes certainty in one direction must give way. One scholar may have famously said, when challenged about changing his mind, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" I have acknowledged my errors many times and found some of them before anyone else did, even during editorial disputes on proximate matters. Thank you for your comment about my research abilities; I try not to fall into the pitfall you mention or into others. There are, at times, disagreements, as there are among scholars in books, about the realities and functions of various phenomena. Sometimes disagreements continue for years, both in Wikipedia and in off-wiki scholarship, despite efforts at education. That is why I try to cite evidence. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Kirchberg v. Feenstra
The case sounds very interesting, but Louisiana is very well known for not having a Common Law based legal system, so what was at issue in the case was not the Common Law doctrine of coverture. (It could be that the decision would have struck down coverture as well as the Louisiana law in question, but no evidence has been provided for this.) AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I cited the case and probably no one had earlier. Another editor put it into the lead, with errors but not wrong about which body of law applied, because only part of the lead is about the common law and the case is not based on either common or civil (Napoleonic) law but on statute and the Constitution.
 * While Louisiana law is largely based on French civil law while other states based their laws on English common law, when courts rule on common or civil law they generally do so on uncodified provisions still in effect, such as when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether the Constitution's 7th Amendment right to a jury trial meant that the jury had to be composed of 12 members or could be 6 and on guilt had to be unanimous or could be less than that, points not addressed in the plain wording of the Amendment but found in common law, and common law was explored by the court for the new cases because common law was in use in 1789 and thus would have been known to the Amendment's drafters and ratifiers. At least one state adopted the common law for its law except as amended by that state's law later. At least one point of common law (whether, if someone's life is threatened by an adult human intruder inside the threatened person's own home and a safe exit is available, the threatened person may kill in self-defense without first attempting to exit) has reportedly been judicially interpreted in opposite ways by courts of two states, applying the same original common law as part of each state's law, so that both decisions can be correct.
 * The current treatment in this article of the Feenstra case is acceptable as it is. I rephrased some of the paragraph and deleted the last sentence altogether, as it added virtually nothing on the article's subject.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that it's a very interesting and far-reaching decision, but it doesn't show that the common law doctrine of coverture was in force in the U.S. into the 1980s (what you originally added to the lead section). By the way, all you have to do is watch the "Streetcar Named Desire" movie, and Marlon Brando will tell you that Louisiana is under the Napoleonic Code (mainly) [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The 1980s reference replacing 1960s in the lead was not by me, unless there was another that I haven't found.
 * As far as I know, the Napoleonic code and the civil law (the one that's vs. common law, not the one that's vs. criminal law), also known as Code Civile, is the same thing, so I essentially said that the Napoleonic is Louisiana's law (as amended). I'll assume from your comment that Marlon Brando's scriptwriter/s and their researcher/s agree. Good for them.
 * In a sense, though, no state has ever been entirely a common or civil law state, partly because they have enacted constitutions and statutes that are not exactly either body of law and partly because state and Federal judicial decisions, even when not binding, are often persuasive in various jurisdictions, leading to some blending and similarity of laws. And the system of relying on precedents when available (the doctrine of stare decisis) rather than going back to the law the precedents would interpret is a feature of common law and not of civil law; I don't know what Louisiana's state courts do about that, but the Federal courts, at least, would apply precedents to legal questions arising in Louisiana.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Couverture in people's wills
The phrase @independent of her couverture@ or @ of any converture....@ seems to occur is some wills that I have studied, where a father is mentioning his daughter in his will; this would tend to suggest another way around the restrictions discussed in this article; RH Simons (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Rosemary Simons


 * Not sure why you replaced quote marks with at-signs in your remarks above, but there were various ways to dedicate property to the benefit of a woman so that her husband couldn't directly touch it. Here's a quote from Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens about dedicating property for exclusive benefit of a woman who wasn't even married: AnonMoos (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

In those early days, the turnkey first began profoundly to consider a question which cost him so much mental labour, that it remained undetermined on the day of his death. He decided to will and bequeath his little property of savings to his godchild, and the point arose how could it be so "tied up" as that only she should have the benefit of it? His experience on the lock gave him such an acute perception of the enormous difficulty of "tying up" money with any approach to tightness, and contrariwise of the remarkable ease with which it got loose, that through a series of years he regularly propounded this knotty point to every new insolvent agent and other professional gentleman who passed in and out.

"Supposing", he would say, stating the case with his key on the professional gentleman's waistcoat; "supposing a man wanted to leave his property to a young female, and wanted to tie it up so that nobody else should ever be able to make a grab at it; how would you tie up that property?"

"Settle it strictly on herself", the professional gentleman would complacently answer.

"But look here," quoth the turnkey. "Supposing she had, say a brother, say a father, say a husband, who would be likely to make a grab at that property when she came into it--how about that?"

"It would be settled on herself, and they would have no more legal claim on it than you", would be the professional answer.

"Stop a bit", said the turnkey. "Supposing she was tender-hearted, and they came over her. Where's your law for tying it up then?"

The deepest character whom the turnkey sounded, was unable to produce his law for tying such a knot as that. So, the turnkey thought about it all his life, and died intestate after all.

Why was feme sole unique for England in Europe?
I have often wondered: why was England to only nation in Europe, were unmarried women were not under coverture? As far as I know (and I have done research), there was not a single nation in Christian Europe, prior to the law reforms initiated during the late 19th-century, in which unmarried women were not considered to be just as much legal minors as married women -the only difference being that unmarried women were under the coverture of their closest male relative rather than a husband. In France, in Germany, In Sweden, Norway and Denmark - I do not know a single European nation were the phenomena of "feme sole" existed in the 18th-century, except for England. Why was England such an exception from this? Was England truly the only European nation were the "feme sole" existed, or was there in fact any other country were adult unmarried women were of legal majority prior to the reforms of the late 19th-century? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't know any details of Continental law in this area, but it may have to do with England developing its own "Common law" tradition, as opposed to the "Roman"/"civil"/"code" law generally adopted in Continental Europe... P.S. England also early rejected the Salic Law for its kingdom, unlike many continental monarchies (though male-only succession or inheritance did apply in England in a number of cases below the royal level). AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coverture. 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/20160304092212/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/cmcf-vsi-women-in-france.pdf to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/cmcf-vsi-women-in-france.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Husbands latitude
What is not made clear in the article is that the husband is not totally free to do as he wishes. Certainly with anything to do with joint or other property the wife would have too give assent and would be interviewed in the court by herself to confirm that she was not under duress Chevin (talk) -- 19:41, 7 May 2022


 * Sometimes, but "Privy examination" seems to have been an American refinement. Among the land-holding classes in England, the husband was mainly restrained by "settlement" documents drawn up before marriage, whose main purpose was to ensure that landed property she brought into the marriage would be inherited by her descendents... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

THe following is an example that was typical of manor court transactions during and after the Eighteenth Century in England. In this case a married woman has inherited copyhold tenancy from her uncle:

"Sarah Statham was at a Court specially held for the said Manors the 19th May 1836 admitted tenant as Neice & Customary heiress of the said Henry Street & at the same Court the same presents were surrendered by the said Richard Statham & Sarah his wife to the use of the said Richard Statham she the said Sarah having been first examined by the said Steward in open Court in the absence of her said husband & having acknowledged that she was not thereto compelled by her said husband but of her own free will did consent to that Surrender" 19:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC) -- Chevin


 * That was not a "Privy examination", since it took place in open court. I'm sure that the relevant judges were using a practical expedient to try to head off some of the saddest cases or worst injustices, but by its nature it could not be the same as actually allowing a married woman to legally control the property she owns...  AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Need reference(s) for 3rd paragraph of initial description
This paragraph has no citations: " After the rise of the women's rights movementin the mid-19th century, coverture was increasingly criticised as oppressive, hindering women from exercising ordinary property rights and entering professions. Coverture was first substantially modified by late-19th-century Married Women's Property Acts passed in various common-law jurisdictions, and was weakened and eventually eliminated by later reforms. Certain aspects of coverture (mainly concerned with preventing a wife from unilaterally incurring major financial obligations for which her husband would be liable) survived as late as the 1960s in some states of the United States." Mspandana (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead section at the top of a Wikipedia article is not supposed to be heavy with footnotes. Is there anything prominent there which is not cited down in the body of the article? AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Social Movements in the US
— Assignment last updated by Lj2005 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)