Talk:Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

True or false?[edit]

I really don't think this should be a Wikipedia article, but I'm editing to clarify that it is (in all likelihood) an urban legend. 69.111.195.50 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a book but a famous joke and urban legend, which is based on printed letter of VIctorian era. Please Christian Administrators not behave as silencing authorities just because people laugh at it internationally. Sorry, but it is a fact, and yes, this is a very funny text! very funny and pretty sad for the women of that time. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it was recently published (so it is also a book) again as a pun. And even Sun has something to tell about it (11 july this year) --SofieElisBexter (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the AfD page[edit]

I posted some suggestions for this article there. Newportm (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

If it is a hoax, should not it be placed in "Hoaxes" rather than in "Historical documents"?212.13.96.18 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a hoax?[edit]

It is virtually impossible from the "sources" given here on the article page to determine whether this book was a hoax or not. There is, however, in the article quite a bit of original research and seemingly logically argued but unsupported assertions about its validity. Most of the citations that are given, in fact, do not support the verbage that accompanies the citation, either pro or con, that is, in fact, a hoax. Many of the citations actually should be removed or reformed to accommodate the evidence of the documents, along with their assertions, so that they reflect the content... As it stands the contentions about its being a hoax are poorly supported, if supported at all. Hence, my conclusion is that those arguments are themselves "original research" from a mind that is rather confused about how to illustrate their argument... Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]