Talk:Sabrina Sidney

Currency conversions / inflation rates
It might be worth using Inflation for the currency conversions/inflation rates, although these seem to return quite different values from the ones in the article, since (according to ) it seems to use the RPI increase rather than the average earnings increase. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with using the template, I hadn't realised it existed. WormTT(talk) 08:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What does the ref say?
Third paragraph, second sentence, says:
 * "Sabrina then had a number of moves between boarding school, a dressmaker's, and eventually was employed as Day's housekeeper."

If I knew the correct name for the place where a dressmaker or dressmakers work, I would insert it after the word "dressmaker's". As it is currently written the dressmaker's something is missing - studio, shop, salon, parlour or whatever. Does the ref mention this? Must say this is an interesting article. Moriori (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Moriori, I believe the book said mantua makers, a term I hadn't heard of so I used dress makers as an equivalent. I'll be getting the book back out from the library when we push the article for Featured, so will be absolutely certain then. Perhaps a "dressmaker's family" would be better? She stayed with the family as an apprentice. WormTT(talk) 07:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Sabrina Sidney, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Moulding into a perfect wife
My link to child grooming was removed, with rationale "I don't feel that's an appropriate link". I on the contrary feel that it very neatly summarises the situation when a minor is "trained" to be someone's "perfect mate".-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:B07C:73B3:20CA:811D (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Linking that article is not adhering to a neutral POV, especially to do so in the first sentence of the article. It is a modern day concept and did not exist at the time of this historical article. Further, I would say the edit done by a different IP a few days ago that introduced "sometimes cruel" into the lead is also not neutral. Yes, it very well may be but it is not stated anywhere else in the article and is adding opinion. I will be interested to see the views of others on these. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 07:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And the rationale for your opinion being what, exactly? If you'd read the article, Sabrina Sidney herself was not exactly rapturous about this "arrangement"... And yes, the mores of the era were more permissive for this kind of treatment of minors. Of course it was also the time when child labour was completely unregulated in most nations and drawing and quartering was considered an acceptable punishment.
 * Granted, the child grooming article suffers from recentism and hardly gives any pre-20th century example.
 * And no, I can't be held responsible for edits by different IPs - no more than all registered users could be counted for a single editor. -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:39D6:17ED:9882:2585 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For that matter, while I agree that the characterization 'sometimes cruel' added by that other IP sounds a bit judgemental, it's quite justified vis à vis what he was doing - calling it just "unusual and eccentric techniques" sounds too much like whitewashing of his actions. Shooting blanks against her? Non-consensual "wax play"? Really, that Day fellow must had been some serious perv.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:29CF:71A1:BF28:D37D (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So if there are no relevant objections (besides your initial "personal feelings") and in the discussion here there were no more objections, can I possibly restore the link to the child grooming article you'd rather frivolously removed?2A00:1028:83BE:4392:287D:988C:62A6:D502 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to her by last name
Per MOS:SURNAME, the subject of an article should be referred to by the surname, so why does this article use "Sabrina" all over the place, instead of "Sidney"? — howcheng  {chat} 19:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"their strict upbringing meant they would not have rebelled excessively"
I'm not sure about having this line in wikivoice, but I'm not touching it myself because I can't proclaim to know exactly what the source says or how better to paraphrase it. Certainly a strict upbringing is no guarantee against rebellion, 'excessive' or otherwise. Is there a way to phrase this that respects the statements of the source, but simultaneously doesn't make sweeping and controversial pedagogical claims in wikivoice? Vaticidalprophet 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Have to say, though, it's a good read aside. Props to you. Vaticidalprophet 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)