Talk:Josephine Butler/Archive 1

Request for comment on names
Should this article on an adult female human continue to refer to her by her first name throughout? Her name was Grey as a young woman and became Butler when she married. Would it really be too confusing to refer to her by those names? --John (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What a pointless waste of time. This has already been through two community review processes without any complaints until you've thrown your rattle out of your pram... Do you really have so little to do that you get so disruptive on something so small, and so previously agreed? - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Retain current format, particularly as this is the format already agreed by the community twice. It follows a comment made at the PR. There is often a problem with the use of the surname for married women: to call her BUTLER through her pre-marriage years confuses most readers (particularly when she meets her husband, who we then have to use the first name for); to call her GREY is the same in reverse but worse, because she is known to history as Butler; to use both GREY in her younger years and BUTLER post marriage is confusing. This is the way we can keep the naming consistent throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Retain as written. This went through both PR and FAC the way it is; the time for objections was earlier.  Not now, after it's been TFA. We hope (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Retain. I was disappointed to find John using an intemperate phrase like "sexist claptrap", above. This editor is normally very sober and helpful, and I am surprised to see him being so needlessly aggressive. The question has been thoroughly considered at the article's review stages, and in articles on other notable married women where nomenclature is an issue. There is no perfect answer. To say sans phrase that the maiden name must as a matter of dogma always be used until the subject marries is unhelpful. To use the married name throughout is ipso facto inaccurate, but is sometimes the least objectionable course, and one I have been party to in another recent FA. To use the maiden name when nobody has ever heard of it should, of course, be one of the options considered by the main author(s) but is sometimes not frightfully helpful to the reader. We should always keep the reader in mind, and if we think using a given name throughout is the smoothest and most helpful course we should do so, even while admitting it is no more ideal than either of the other possibilities. –  Tim riley  talk    14:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Retain Per the above. A lot of work went into the article and the review and it has been approved as it is. The complaints which arise on TFA today is enough to put people off wanting to promote future articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not that astonished that those who signed off on this think it's fine. When said at the peer review that "Maybe others will have views on the use of Josephine throughout" I guess this is what he meant. What efforts were made to proactively sort this? Or was it just quietly hussled through? I still feel it's unsatisfactory and I'm sorry if anyone thinks this is "a pointless waste of time". I don't regard getting gender-related matters right as pointless or a waste of time. I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force; I'm surprised this wasn't done either of the two previous times. John (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As Brian was the one who suggested in the first place using the only name she used throughout her entire life, perhaps you should allow him to answer, rather than try and force your own interpretation onto what someone else has said. Despite another over-the-top and quite untruthful claim, nothing was ever "quietly hussled through" (sic), despite your snide attempts to smear the processes the article went through. The name "Josephine" was there throughout the FAC - nothing "quietly" done, or being 'hustled through'. Personally I think your disruptive nonsense here is deeply unsatisfactory, as is your insults to the reviewers in the thread above. In addition to Brian and those who have commented here, the reviewers included, , , , and , all of whose judgement who are uncivilly attacking by claiming that you consider it "Astonishing that this passed a review". And as to your comment at GGTF, do you have any appreciation of what CANVASSING is, or the posting of neutral notices - or do you somehow think that the rules don't actually apply to you? - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you find it disruptive, I expect you know where to find AN/I. --John (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I see you pull a stunt like more CANVASSING, I will. You are an admin: you should at least try and act like one. (And I see from your subsequent placing of notices, that these also fail to be neutral and that you have misrepresented the arguments given. Your standards of approach are sadly lacking here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was quietly hustled through in the glaring light of FAC (and PR before it), where, as you know, John, entry is by permit only. Your own view on the matter seems to be remarkably inconsistent – from "a little chatty" to "sexist claptrap" in five days. I much regret that the respect I had for you as an editor and wise counsel has taken a bit of a knock over your comments on this page. 17:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry to hear it, Tim. I'm afraid the articles come first though. --John (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems covered by our Manual of Style: Manual_of_Style/Biographies: "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname (last name). But if her most commonly used name does include her husband's surname, and you're discussing a period of her life before her marriage, it is often best to refer to her by her maiden name." At no point does it say "if her most commonly used name does include her husband's surname, refer to her by her first name throughout". --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the MoS, a series of advisory guidelines, does say that, but it is not compulsory to slavishly follow such guidelines, and the MoS specifically states that exemptions to any of its suggestions are entirely acceptable. I would also suggest that "her most commonly used name" was probably Josephine. At least three of the biographies use her first name. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that a Victorian era campaigner would be most commonly publically referred to as "Josephine". Surely she was most commonly referred to as "Mrs. Butler". As for the biographies, can you provide specifics? Even in the case of a biography that seems very familiar, context matters. Of course we need to refer to her by first name when discussing others who share her last name in the same sentence, but in general our custom is to refer to people by their last names. --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As above, the MoS is a series of suggestive guidelines, not inflexible orders carved in stone that need to be unthinkingly followed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you need to give a reason why this should be an exception to all the other cases of maiden/married names. --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. I have; 2. "all other cases"? No: there are others that use this form. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you remind us what the reasons were, other than "simplicity"? And isn't MoS compliance still a Featured Article criterion? --John (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But it isn't an exception. See Bessie Braddock and Mrs Beeton. I shouldn't, myself, like to embark on either of the Webbs or Curies calling them by anything other than their given names: we have our readers to consider as well as the Panjandrums of the MoS. Have a look at Beatrice Webb and see how a failure to address boldly and purposefully the matter of nomenclature leaves the reader adrift.  Tim riley  talk    18:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any male examples? --John (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Er, S. Webb and P. Curie?  Tim riley  talk    18:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pierre Curie isn't a great article, hasn't been peer-reviewed, and as far as I can see this has never been discussed at article talk. The article also doesn't uniformly call the adult subject by his first name, although there is arguably more justification there than here. Any peer-reviewed article on male subjects which use this convention? --John (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Modest Stein is an example, since you ask. Although it hasn't been through a PR and FAC as this one has, it has gone through the DYK process and appeared on the front page as a result. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps you might like to check rather than speculate. –  Tim riley  talk    18:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, I do prefer to check rather than speculate. If you are using Pierre Curie as a point of comparison here, it isn't a very good one, for the reasons I point out. --John (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Retain, per the very good reasons listed above.  Cassianto Talk  17:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am forced, by way of John's stonewalling tactics, to draw attention to his blatant WP:CANVASing; although he could have acknowledged himself to be in the wrong and apologised for his ill-judged hastiness, he has in fact doubled-down on his canvassing and restored it.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change to Butler all the way through. I don't see any places where that would cause any confusion, except perhaps at "By 1850 Josephine had grown close to George Butler, a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, whom she had met at several of the balls hosted around County Durham," where "Josephine" might be retained, or maybe "she" might be used instead, or a total rewrite of the sentence using "her future husband, George Butler".
 * This does strike me as a WP:MOS issue and we should just check in detail what they say, and perhaps continue the discussion over there. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As above, the MoS is a series of suggestive guidelines, not inflexible orders carved in stone that need to be unthinkingly followed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Change to Butler throughout. I'm not sure that there's a strong enough case to go against MoS guidelines, or why Josephine Butler should be treated differently to other women who change their surname at marriage. I'm not sure that it's any more confusing to readers to see a child referred to by a married surname as the child David Bowie referred to by a future stage name. Especially as so little of the article covers her life before her marriage, I haven't seen a reason convincing enough to continue using her first name throughout. Ralbegen (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Comment  ( leaning towards Change) As someone who has never read this article and accidentally stumbled upon this discussion, I'd like to point out that using the name "Josephine" throughout reads kind of odd to me, and it comes across as unencyclopedia in tone. It is for this reason that I'd suggest sticking to what the MOS has to say about the subject; the guide was written for a reason, and while it is a suggestive guideline, it clearly lays to rest the issue here. Is there a particular reason that Josephine Butler should be a major exception (and I ask this in all earnestness)?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change to Butler throughout, per MOS:LASTNAME. I see no reason why this article should be an exception to a long-standing and uncontroversial Wikipedia convention. Most of the objections above seem to boil down to "this was already decided". However, I only see a brief comment at the FAC, and the request to change it to "Josephine" at the peer review is prefixed with the caveat "I'm not sure what the names protocol is in such cases". The protocol is to use surname throughout unless there's a good reason not to. So far no one has given such a reason. The claim that it's confusing doesn't hold water. It's easy to avoid confusion by writing something like "Josephine Butler was born Josephine Grey on 13 April 1828 at Milfield, Northumberland..." as we do for other featured articles involving name changes such as Mary Shelley. The most common reasons why exceptions are made to this convention are in cases where the subject's spouse is more closely associated with the last name (Constanze Mozart) or the subject's most common name isn't actually their name (Ada Lovelace, Lady Gaga). This article fits neither of those exceptions. Kaldari (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change to Butler, of course, as standard academic style and the MOS recommend. It's embarrassing that the article has been using "Josephine" all this time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change / compromise proposal – use “Butler” in the lead, since the subject is introduced as “Josephine Butler”. Use “Josephine” for childhood and early life until marriage. Use “Butler” after marriage. Calling the subject “Josephine” throughout is indeed odd and seems less than encyclopedic. It’s especially awkward in the lead. Straight up change to "Bulter" would also be fine with me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing to straight "Change" per discussion below. However, Margaret Thatcher uses maiden name for early life (Roberts), before marriage. Regardless, whether the article uses "Butler" or "Grey/Butler", I don't see "Josephine" as a good option. That would be the least preferred for me. "Josephine" presumes certain closeness to the subject that is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I concur with the compromise outlined above. My initial comment at the peer review was not intended as a suggestion that the forename be used throughout the article, as I think my expressed reservations make clear.  I had expected more debate on the issue, at PR or FAC, but that didn't happen to any significant extent. What I had in mind was more or less what K.e.coffman is now suggesting; this is not that different from what has been the practice in many biographies, male or female: use of the forename until adolescence or maturity, and surname thereafter. We should note that the relevant MoS guideline is worded to give us wriggle-room which enables us to take decisions based on the interests of the reader. FAC decisions are not set in stone, but I don't think it's  helpful or useful to demand rigid adherence to an MoS wording that is itself flexible. Better to seek a solution that is acceptable to all. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Compromise per this seems the most sensible solution to me. I see no reason not to refer to her as Butler once married, as this both appears a more formal and professional phrasing, and lines up with our MOS guidelines. Prior to that the use of her forename works well.  Harrias  talk 13:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per K.e.coffman, I can see the logic to calling her "Josephine" when discussing her childhood (Lenin had the same treatment at one point), but calling a grown adult by their first name throughout doesn't strike me as encyclopediac, is contrary to the MOS (which, yes, is a only guideline, but I am unconvinced by the reasons for ignoring it), and, in the case of women, especially ones notable for their feminism, is an extremely emotionally and politically loaded decision. Either refer to her as Butler throughout (there are plenty of featured articles which consistently refer to a person by a name which they only later took on, including the aforementioned Lenin), or refer to her as "Josephine" or "Grey" before marriage and "Butler" afterwards. (And as an aside, the idea suggested by a few people above that once an article has passed FA it is or should be immune from criticism or change is utterly ludicrous.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: is it worth polling the above "remainers" and "leavers" (sorry about that) to see if the suggested compromise ("soft Brexit") is broadly acceptable? Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support compromise. In the Early life; 1828–1850 section, she shall be referred to as "Northern Ireland"... --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would also support Butler throughout, or changing between last names when appropriate. Anything but Josephine. Jo no go. --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I prefer to leave these decisions to the main author(s), because they have to maintain the article and feel comfortable with it. I would like to see one name throughout, whatever it is. If I were writing this, I would use Butler. Butler was the name she was known by. She chose to take that name, and she was in a happy marriage. There's no problem with saying Butler was born, and Bulter did X as a girl; see Theresa May, who is May throughout. We usually don't call men by their first names when they were boys; see David Cameron, who is Cameron throughout. I strongly oppose calling her Josephine until she married, then Butler. That suggests she didn't grow up until she took her husband's name. SarahSV (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would the current state be suggesting she never grew up, then? --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on first names because it assumes the right to be familiar with her, and it can be infantilizing. But I'd prefer that to switching, which is pointless, confusing and draws attention to the issue. Making that change when she marries would be the worst outcome here. SarahSV (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would much prefer calling her Butler throughout. But I think calling her "Josephine" throughout is the worst of all possible outcomes. Though I understand your objection to switching from "Josephine" to "Butler". What is your opinion on switching from "Grey" to "Butler"? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Grey to Butler is less bad, but there's no need to switch. This article used Butler throughout (e.g. here) until August 2016, when it was changed following a suggestion at peer review. I think it would be better to go back to Butler, unless the main author is wedded to Josephine. (I don't like to see main authors being overridden on style issues that matter to them.) SarahSV (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sarah, but with men we often do refer to them in childhood by their first names. I've done it myself in a number of biographical articles, male and female, and never thought of it as a gender issue. Likewise I've read hundreds, perhaps thousands of scholarly biographies where the same practice applies. Indeed, I can't offhand recall a single one where a child is referred to by surname from birth. I believe the proposed compromise change won't be pointless or confusing to the great majority of our readers who won't see it as an issue at all. I do agree with you in one respect, however - that if one name is to used throughout, the choice of the main authors should not be overridden. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , here on Wikipedia we usually don't change men's names from first to surname with age. At what point would we make the change? When they marry? That would be very odd. SarahSV (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I'd rather discuss this general issue with you separately, elsewhere. In this thread, let's concentrate on what should be done with this particular article. At present there is no apparent consensus for any of the suggested courses of action. Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's directly relevant here. We wouldn't call a man by his first name until he married, but that's being suggested for a woman. It reminds me of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). I would much prefer to leave it at Josephine than do that. (And I would prefer that option anyway if it's what the main author wants.) SarahSV (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth David, another of Schrocat's FAs and another woman using her husband's name, is David throughout, except briefly where she's discussed with her sisters. SarahSV (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We tried maiden name—married name (see here), but we felt it didn't read smoothly for anyone reading the article.  Tim riley  talk    00:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (And Marjory Stoneman Douglas is "Marjory" up to her marriage aged 25. We can all cherry-pick – it gets us nowhere). Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Using her married name throughout looks a little weird, but would be better than what we have, and is seemingly a style that one of the main defenders of the current style has previously used without a problem. I think I favour calling her by her first name until 16, "Grey" until marriage, then "Butler" afterwards. Would anyone have a problem with that? --John (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have observed above, I don't believe there is an ideal solution to the matter of naming famous married women. All three options are open to objection, and in my view the main editors, with the help of peer reviewers and FAC reviewers (and now post-FAC reviewers) have to find – horrible phrase, but useful − the least worst option. I don't think we have a consensus so far to change the nomenclature.  Tim riley  talk    00:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies! Not three options: I hadn't spotted SarahSV's fourth, above, which, I heartily concur, is not the way to go.  Tim riley  talk    00:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Change to Grey and Butler per MOS:SURNAME. She is not from a patronymic culture and none of the previous arguments are convincing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change To Butler after first mention of birth name in 'early life', which is sufficiently short to probably not need more than a single mention (use she therafter in that section?). Butler is the name by which she is known to history. Referring to her by her first name is over familiar and very 'odd' in an encyc in which this is not the norm. Using first name only might work in a biography, where one would 'get used to' the conventions of that biographer, but it seems out of place - and rather patronising here.Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – In an earlier comment asks for specifics about the naming used in the biographies. Dr Jane Jordan, Senior Lecturer in the English Department of Kingston University, authored the biography Josephine Butler and is co-editor of another book on the subject, Josephine Butler and the Prostitution Campaigns.  The biography uses 'Josephine' throughout. When I read the book I did not find this jarring or out of place. I agree with Sarah that in cases where there is no obvious consensus or an easy solution as in this instance, the style used by the main contributor(s) – who after all are the ones who have given their time, money and effort to produce the article – should be respected. I also think it makes it easier for readers to follow.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 13:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but such an outcome wouldn't be compatible with continued Featured Article status. --John (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats just not true. A consensus on the name - even if it is to retain the current form - would not result in the loss of Featured status. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil! I can't find the first book on the web, but excerpts from Josephine Butler and the Prostitution Campaigns clearly refer to her as "Butler". --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And? It shows that there is more than one way of doing things with a perfectly good outcome in both cases. It's a lesson that some people don't seem to be able accept. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's not a perfectly good outcome. It's offensive, because it's disrespectful of our subject. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Offensive? Disrespectful? What utter tosh. Using the name a subject had for her entire life is neither offensive or disrespectful. If your going to continue commenting here, please try and get a sense of perspective. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) It is only disrespectful or offensive in some peoples opinion; it appears you are now suggesting that a scholar, Dr Jordan, is being disrespectful and offensive? The second book I mentioned was simply to indicate that Jordan is very well versed in the subject and it now appears cherry picking is being employed to suit specific opinions. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 18:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) It is because of these sort of attitudes I had been extremely reluctant to even comment here.
 * Comment Let me attempt a more substantive and hopefully a more constructive responsive. It is stating the obvious that if we fail to find consensus here to change the article, the article will continue in its present state. Can I remind you that the original question was Should this article on an adult female human continue to refer to her by her first name throughout? Her name was Grey as a young woman and became Butler when she married. Would it really be too confusing to refer to her by those names? I see Smallbones, Ralbegen, User:Gen. Quon ("leaning"), Kaldari, Granger, User:GRuban, User:Harrias, K.e.coffman, Walter Görlitz and me who have supported some kind of change, and SarahSV who has said "If I were writing this, I would use Butler." and "I think it would be better to go back to Butler, unless the main author is wedded to Josephine." The theme that using her first name throughout shows over-familiarity and is unencyclopedic, to the degree that it may seem sexist and infantilise the subject, who ironically of course was an early feminist, has been mentioned by several.


 * On the retain side, we have SchroCat, We hope, User:Tim riley, User:Dr. Blofeld and User:Cassianto, whose arguments have focused on procedural weight such as the article already having undergone review, and on the simplicity of approach. Brianboulton, who may be seen as the casting vote, has indicated he would be happy with a compromise change.


 * I'd therefore argue that as things are trending, we do have consensus that we should change on this matter. If we can all agree that, we can then move onto discussing the merits of the various possibilities. I'd finally point out the obvious myself; when a veteran reviewer like User:Brianboulton tells you that Maybe others will have views on the use of Josephine throughout, he probably isn't just making conversation. This was an implicit call for further review, not for the matter to be swept under the carpet. When this was raised at FAR, SchroCat swept it aside with It follows a comment made at the PR as if that is an actual reason, I think that, and the failure of other reviewers to challenge it, led us to this unfortunate position. It's what I meant by "hustling it through" in an earlier comment. It absolutely ought to have been picked up properly either prior to or during the FAC. The existence of unresolved editorial discussions at article talk or in previous reviews is something I always try to check for when reviewing myself. Unfortunately I wasn't aware of this one. Never mind. Can we all move on from annoyance, refrain from calling out each other's imputed motives or "attitudes" and get on with fixing this article? I don't think the status quo is an option.--John (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ( Upon further meditation, I've changed my vote to "Change".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Thanks for that. --John (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time I have had to ask you not to misrepresent my views, which you have done above. You also did so when canvassing on the various project pages too. It is a shame your standards of behaviour in this matter have fallen far short of anything I would expect from any normal editor, let alone someone who purports to act like an admin. Perhaps you should stop misrepresenting the views of others and step away from ta thread to allow it to take its course over the next 28 days or so that this RfC has to run. – SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * change I wouldn't refer to her by her first name only. If it's too confusing to transfer to just her last name, you could also consider first and last. looking at an article i worked on Adrienne McNeil Herndon again, it does get a bit confusing, especially since marriages usually go towards the end in the personal life section.Fred (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about Use common sense as a solution (though I realise this is difficult for the one-size-fits-all Wikipedians). This 'problem' doesn't arise with any other articles about notable women, does it, particularly when they have changed their name at the age of 23 before they were well known? My inclination would be to agree we should use "Butler", but that isn't a hard-and-fast rule. She was notable as Josephine Butler, so that is whom we should be writing about. There are several places where some of the Josephines could be substituted for "she", for example. And there are occasions when describing her early life when "Josephine" makes perfect sense. Sionk (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change No article, except one on a professional entertainer, should refer to someone by their first name alone, unless its one of those cases where a literary or arts figure makes a point of being known that way. It is always condescending.  It seems to be  an established convention among performers (but I think even there it infantilizes them, and part of the convention is to do just that--to contrast it with their usually very clear sexuality and to call them the way an intimate would do). Regardless of such hypotheses, using the first name certainly has that effect with an adult. It is more noticeable with women, because our society has tended to try to infantilize those who are public figures, regardless of the presumed dignity of their profession. When I see it used in an article, it reminds me of the 1950s. Her name during her entire professional career was Butler, and that's what she should be called. If necessary to distinguish her from her husband or children, then the full name is appropriate. This is just what is normally done with male bios.  It's particularly striking to use just the first name here: her primary notability  was as a  feminist-- it looks like a denial of her importance.  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change to "Butler" throughout or her surname at the time each sentence is about. It is bothersome that only women seem to get this first-name treatment.  If this article were about Ringo Starr, would we even be having this discussion? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let GOCE figure it out. Seriously, flag it for GOCE and everyone here can take a breath knowing it'll be handled by us in a MOS aware yet reader friendly style. This isn't a new issue. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, I've raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Do you have any opinion yourself, or, if it "isn't a new issue", can you point to any previous discussions you're aware of? I mean, we already have Manual of Style/Biographies, but that wasn't clear enough for the group wishing to keep the first-name convention, hence this RfC. --John (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of the GOCE coordinators, our role isn't to be the Supreme Court of style disputes. As long as I'm here, though, I'll offer my personal opinion, which is to Change to the use of the last name, per the reasons others have stated. I follow MOS style absent a compelling reason not to. "Her name changed when she married" is not an unusual situation, and readers would not be likely to be confused. And given that even when name changes aren't an issue, it has been my experience that women are more likely to be referred to by their first name in Wikipedia articles, it seems that there is something gendered going on that should be countered. Tdslk (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Change per DGG, following Sionk's suggestion Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment, you said on 11 December 2017 that this was a "pointless waste of time". On 13 December you asked for more time to "to allow it to take its course over the next 28 days or so". Now that the time has passed and the consensus is clearly to change, do you want to change it yourself, or shall I do it? --John (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe SchroCat has better things to do. I'll do it myself around midday tomorrow, if nobody has any objections. --John (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's taken care of now. I hope lessons have been learned by those who promoted and approved this sexist language. Not one of our finest hours. Never mind, onwards and upwards. --John (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Contagious Diseases Acts
You might wish to mention that the Contagious Diseases Acts also created a force of centrally appointed policemen that were not in uniform, and were entrusted with the task of keeping an accurate and up-to-date list of all working prostitutes. To accomplish this task, they were allowed to arrest any woman they had "good cause to believe" was a common prostitute. There was no actual definition of what constituted a prostitute, and the policemen were not required to justify their reasons for arresting particular women. This violation of constitutional rights was one of the main reasons why Josphine Butler fought so hard against the C.D. Acts. I got this information from E. Moberly Bell's biography on Josephine Butler. There is a rather detailed chapter on the C.D. Acts, (see pages 70-75) and Josephine's reasons for going against them. 24.159.217.110 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (Ph34rtehk4t, sorry, I wasn't signed in.)
 * "Constutional rights" in Britain? I'm missing something here... GRBerry 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josephine Butler. 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/20090722112208/http://www.josephinebutler.org.uk/ to http://www.josephinebutler.org.uk/

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) 14:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Nontransparent piped links in intro
I submitted the following edit to the intro:. This edit fixed the following nontransparent piped links (see WP:EASTEREGG):


 * "purchased a 13-year-old girl", which points to Eliza Armstrong case;
 * "her father", which points to John Grey (land agent);
 * "her husband", which points to George Butler (1819–1890), a link that already appeared earlier in the intro and so is probably not necessary to repeat;
 * "one of their colleges", which points to Josephine Butler College, Durham.

None of these links is transparent—a reader cannot understand from the link text what article the link points to. This is exactly what WP:EASTEREGG is about.

The same edit made a couple of more minor changes too:


 * for the phrase "Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral", which points to Liverpool Cathedral, the word "Liverpool's" was moved inside the link text to make that text more clearly describe where the link points (it doesn't point to an article entitled Anglican Cathedral);
 * I added a serial comma in a list, and perhaps that wasn't appropriate to do.

My edit was very quickly reverted by User:SchroCat with the terse explanation, "Piping links is not 'Easter eggs'." I don't understand the argument here, because piped links are precisely what WP:EASTEREGG is about (it is a section of Piped link).

What's the argument for not improving the transparency of these links? —Bkell (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are good reasons for piping, which the suggestive guideline (not inflexible policy) of the MoS does not aadequately address; this is often the case with the lead, where as much information as possible is put forward at the expense of detail. The Armstrong case, for example, bloats the text unnecessarily. Describing her father as such is all that is needed: we do not need to know in the lead what his name is, nor the actual name of the Durham college. And if you refer to "Liverpool cathedral", most people with a general knowledge of the city will wonder whether you are talking about the Anglican or Roman Catholic cathedral, so we neatly pipe the link and explain all in the most efficient way.
 * And no, you shouldn't introduce your preference on punctuation with the serial comma when the rest of the article eschews the practice. - SchroCat (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I will point out that my edit did not change "Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral" to "Liverpool Cathedral" but to "Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral", which takes up exactly the same amount of space and avoids the ambiguity you describe while improving the transparency of the link. —Bkell (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of first name, rather than surname
''The following thread was copied from the peer review of September 2016. As it explains the decision to use the first name throughout, the justification may be of interest to future readers. - Gavin (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)''

Just out of curiosity: why is she referred ro as Josephine here and not Butler or Grey? 77.20.251.243 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, and thanks for your comment. It follows a comment made at the PR. There is often a problem with the use of the surname for married women: to call her BUTLER through her pre-marriage years confuses most readers (particularly when she meets her husband, who we then have to use the first name for); to call her GREY is the same in reverse but worse, because she is known to history as Butler; to use both GREY in her younger years and BUTLER post marriage is confusing. This is the way we can keep the naming consistent throughout. (see Isabella Beeton and Bessie Braddock for other examples of this.) Cheers - Gavin (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense - perhaps leave a hatnote at the top of the article to clarify the usage? 77.20.251.243 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we need to explain how people should be reading the page (and it would be an uncommon step to take on any article). What I'll do is to copy this thread onto the article talk page so that any future reader can see the question has been asked previously and can see the explanation for it. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand this discussion but I am uneasy with it. It seems a little chatty to refer to her by her first name throughout. --John (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems an excuse to me; after her marriage (which was early in her life), she was only "Butler", but even then, the article is inconsistent, with one caption calling her Butler and another in the same section calling her Josephine. Other people who change their names (or have stage names, etc.) are only known by one, why not this? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I edited the caption in question, so that particular example is no longer there. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an "excuse": there is rhyme and reason behind it. It comes from this comment from at the PR. As I mention above, Isabella Beeton and Bessie Braddock, among other articles, also follow this practice. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As counter-examples, I offer Malcolm X, Ringo Starr, and Carrie Nation, all of whom changed their surnames, and none of whom is referred to by first name alone in their Wiki-articles (with perhaps occasional exceptions for the circumstances). That this first-name practice seems to be applied to women only is problematic. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I too find it problematic. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well some do, some don't. Proof that you can't please all the people all the time, I guess. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Very true. How do you feel about losing the star? --John (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh John, that's a rather silly thing to threaten. The naming has not changed since before it was promoted last September: in other words it has gone through our featured candidature process using the name "Josephine". If you really, really want to try and force the issue, go ahead and take it to FAR, but it would be a rather petty basis on which to try and de-feature an article that the community has already reviewed where this non-problem was already present. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. You can't please all the people all the time, I guess. I wasn't all that pleased to see sexist claptrap on the Main Page. Astonishing that this passed a review. That's why we have review processes I guess. --John (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ""? What bollocks are you on about here? There was absolutely no "sexist claptrap" anywhere. Take it to FAR if you want to, but don't spout such sanctimonious and misleading crap while you do so. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry you can't see what seems obvious to me. Let me help you. Why do only women receive this treatment, to be called by their first name like a pet animal? Should we extend this practice to people with foreign or difficult names? What about black people? Or should it remain a women-only practice? It was raised at FAC and never dealt with. I will certainly take this to FAR if it is not addressed properly in the next seven days. --John (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See you at FAR then. You may as well complain why women were forced to change their name on being married. As JB campaigned against coverture, I see no reason why she should not be called by her name. I may as well accuse you of supporting the misogynistic nonsense of name changing for all the sense you're making. "pet animal"? what bollocks! There are thousands – millions? – of biographies of both men and women that use their subjects' first name, so stop with the idiotic, trite and misguided accusations of sexism. It is also disingenuous to claim that "It was raised at FAC and never dealt with". An IP raised it, it was explained and that person went away happy with the explanation, saying "That makes sense". To clarify the obvious that is being dealt with (it was also copied at the time onto this page, where it remains at the opening of this thread), so please try not to misrepresent events just to somehow score points. Either way, enough of your threats and misrepresentation: if you want to try to use FAR as a bludgeon to get your own way, I suggest you carry on, there is little point in further discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, how saddening it is to see someone resort to virtue signalling of this kind.  “Sexist claptrap” this article is certainly not.   Cassianto Talk   12:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to all: FAR is not for dispute resolution. If what name to use is the only thing people take issue with, and there are no other concerns with regards to the FA criteria, I'd suggest an RFC or some other form of DR would be more appropriate than FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's try that before we take it to review. It really ought to have been addressed by an effective FAR though. --John (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or you could find something useful to do on any of the other 5 million + articles, rather than trying to bludgeon your way against the consensus if the FAC process. It's crap like this that makes me wonder why I bother. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Overlinked
SchroCat, so how is WP:OVERLINK? Rupert Loup (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please do not edit war. Per WP:BRD, if your first edit is reverted, you don't force it back in, you come to the talk page to discuss.
 * Much of what you did was pointless: swapping Anglican divine for Anglican divine is needless; linking the single point of " the right of women to better education" to two articles is just poor. Linking to common terms such as British law, medical examination and prostitutes is gross overlinking: we don't need to smack readers round the head by covering every term in the lead to a blue link as they will understand what the terms mean. There is research that links slow reading and interfere with understanding, so we should use them where they are needed, not just because we can. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * British Law and medical examination are not coomon term, there are not things that everyone know. Readers that are not British may don't understand about British Law. Prostitution is already linked. I don't see how link to two relevant articles to what is being talked about is "poor". You didn't give any good reason to revert my edits and don't demostrate how is WP:OVERLINK, which is your rationale in the summary. Please stop the disruptive editing and don't engage in WP:WAR. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I previously reverted almost exactly the same edit while the article was TFA; my justification for doing so was also because of over linking. British law and medical examination are easily understood common terms whereas workhouse, a link that is being removed, may not be familiar to many readers. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 16:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I see you have just reverted again while this discussion is taking place, please self-revert. Thanks. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 16:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How is WP:OVERLINKED? You are not explained this. How British Law is a common term? WP:LINK state pretty clearly what should be linked. So please tell in which part dissagre. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been explained. I cannot think that someone who reads the words "British law" will struggle to understand that it means the law of Britain; its a very common term! workhouse isn't, as workhouses came to an end several decades ago. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * British law is a legal technical term. THe link is helpful to readers that don't are familiar with it. See MOS:ULINK, it's not an every day word so it's not a common term. And this doesn't explain why you are reverting the edits. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you are having trouble understanding this. "British law" is not a technical legal term, nor is it being used in this way. Any reader coming across the commonly used term "British law" will grasp that we are talking about the law of Britain. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a technical legal term. As already explained, these are very common words and easily understood by readers. MOS:OVERLINK clearly states: "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" should not be linked. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 16:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * British law isn't even the proper title for the article, it's Law of the United Kingdom (this is important, you might think there's no difference but Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds most definitely do). And that's a different topic, talking specifically about the legal system in the UK, what it entails and what it doesn't (such as, say, not calling the British judiciary Enemies of the People), whereas in this context, "British law" is a generic term where a link to the full article may not be what the reader actually wanted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)