Talk:Mop Fair

I think the origin attributed to the name of the mop fair might be untrue. According to the entry for "mop" on Brewer's dictionary (E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.): ''In many places statute fairs are held, where servants seek to be hired. Carters fasten to their hats a piece of whipcord; shepherds, a lock of wool; grooms, a piece of sponge, etc. When hired they mount a cockade with streamers. Some few days after the statute fair, a second, called a Mop, is held for the benefit of those not already hired. This fair mops or wipes up the refuse of the statute fair, carrying away the dregs of the servants left.''

It looks like a statute fair was held first, and then, another fair, the Mop Fair, was held later, for those who had not already been hired, and the term "mop" would come from the fact that the fair moped or wiped awat "the refuse of the statute fair".

--Irea888 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
While the precise relationship between Hiring Fairs and Mop Fairs might be the subject of an interesting debate, there seems to be no doubt of some kind of linkage between them. To have two different Wikipedia articles seems to me to run the risk of duplication of effort, as well as to raise the possibility of divergence of accounts of relevant details. Both are as yet short articles so there is room for plenty more information to be added, much of which is likely to be found to be common to both articles. Where there are clear distinctions between the two types of fair then again in my view this would be better brought out in a combined article rather than requiring the reader to switch between the two for comparison.

Although at present the articles are cross referenced, it would seem better to me to go the whole hog and to merge them - initially perhaps by simply introducing the Hiring fair article as a new section in the Mop Fair article. I suggest merging this way around simply because there are fewer sections and no Talk page associated with the Hiring fair article, so this would involve less effort. Perhaps at the same time the combined article could be re-titled - something along the lines of "Mop Fairs and Hiring Fairs".

I am quite happy to do the spadework of the merger myself, unless someone else has a burning desire to do so, but would like the views of others before commencing the editing. Inspeximus (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the articles need to be merged as they are about what is substantially the same topic. A quick "Google" gives 34600 results for mop fair and 36200 for "hiring fair" so neither title is particularly dominant. The latter article is better referenced and, reading some of the "hits", the term mop fair seems to be more of a slang term but as long as a redirect to the revised title is made then the move seems very logical.--Harkey (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, on reflection I think that my proposed merger is probably in the wrong direction in terms of the current state of the articles - but to reverse the proposal now would I think create more confusion. Instead I now suggest renaming the merged article as "Hiring and Mop Fairs", pasting in the Hiring Fair content at the top and and then moving the Mop specific elements lower down the article. This would then help a general flow of time from earliest references to the present day from top to bottom through the article. Inspeximus (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to OED there doesn't seem to have been any clear distinction between events called Mops or Mop Fairs, and other hiring fairs. One of the definitions they give for the word 'mop' is: "An annual fair or other gathering at which servants and farm labourers are hired; a statute fair. Also mop fair." The earliest instance they quote for the words appearing in print is 1677, and the confusion is already there: "In the Northern part of Oxfordshire...it has always been the custom at set times of year, for young people to meet to be hired as servants; which meeting, at Banbury they call the Mop; at Bloxham the Statute."(1677 R. Plot, Nat. Hist. Oxford-shire, 203)
 * In The Times the earliest usage I've found is 1851, and again they don't distinguish between the two:“...a statute fair or “mop,” where men and women congregate together at the fall of the year, on particular days, for the purpose of being hired, chiefly as farm servants, day labourers, waggoners, ploughmen, dairymaids and maids of all work.” (The Times, Monday, Jan 13, 1851; pg. 5; Issue 20697; col D )  But they weren't even always autumn events, they seem to have sometimes taken place in spring too: The Times refers to a hiring fair held in May 1862 at Leominster as a "Mop Fair".
 * Of course I suppose we should be aware that references in print would probably come from the sort of people who didn't actually frequent these fairs or know much about them from the inside, so to speak. In this case the 'educated' usage might for that reason be looser and less precise. But, on the whole I think a merger would be a good idea. RLamb (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

An entry by a correspondent of Notes and Queries, Vol 7 Second series June 4 1859, p.454 suggests they were lively affairs: "“These “Mops” are one of the veriest curses of those places in which they are unfortunately held... Better would it be for the morality of the country if the holiday terminated with the daylight; but it too often includes the night as well; and when young country girls, after a day’s excitement, finery and sight seeing, and with their last year’s wages in their pockets, pass the evening in a public house drinking and dancing with a pack of young men, who are only too ready to abuse any confidence reposed in them, the sequel may be as easily guessed as as it will be bitterly lamented." Please note this correspondent is also speaking of a May Mop. In the earlier reference to the Mop held at Leominster, the paper was covering a breach-of-promise case where a farmer's son had met a yeoman's daughter at a Mop; they became engaged but then he came into money and promptly went off and married someone else. The girl he abandoned subsequently gave birth, hence the suit. (She got £200 damages. I thought you'd want to know.) RLamb (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)