Talk:Wife selling (English custom)/Archive 1

Renaming proposal
Shouldn't this article be called "Wife-selling"? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. Modern use—certainly; but what was the typical usage in contemporary reports?  Some I've seen omit the hyphen. Parrot of Doom 20:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain either now, but whatever we decide on it needs to be consistent throughout the article, which it isn't. My impression is that almost all of the contemporary accounts I've come across don't hyphenate, so I guess I'm leaning towards that now. Smething else I've been pondering on is whether the title ought to make it clear this is about wife selling in England (which of course included Ireland at that time. Scottish law would obviously have been different, and I've seen no accounts of wife selling in Scotland, although it does seem to have spread to the American and Australian colonies. I'd be very reluctant for the scope to creep to include wife selling in China, India ... --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If we can get an image of a report, that omits the hyphen, I think it will become self-explanatory. I agree with the England part - write it into the lead and it should be fine.  This is clearly a local custom.  Although I did find a report from 2003 about a bloke selling his wife on Ebay :p Parrot of Doom 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence that it occured elsewhere based on English custom (say, American and Australian colonies) I would like to see that added/mentioned here. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The current title, Wife selling (English custom), is using disambiguation when it isn't necessary. I understand your worry about scope, but I'd say if there were customs called wife selling in other places then disambiguate this article if other articles ever get started, but right now this article should be moved back to simply Wife selling. And if there are sources about wife selling in English colonies then I would include that in the scope of this article, which isn't overly long at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wives are being sold today in India, for instance, which is why we wanted to make it as clear as possible that what's being discused here is the ritualised public auctioning of wives that grew up in England at the end of the 17th century. It may be necessary though just to add a bit about the practice in the English colonies. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems less than ideal to have wife selling redirect here to the same title but with an added disambiguation. Since the specific phrase "wife selling" is only being used for this article, and because it seems the English custom is the most common topic for this title anyway, this article should be at the title without disambiguation. If an article is ever made about selling wives in India or wherever else then a hatnote and/or a disambiguation page can be made. WP:PRECISION would be the policy for this. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Put like that, your proposal sounds entirely reasonable. We're coming from the angle of previous articles, where editors have attempted to extend the scope beyond what we felt was strictly appropriate (Moors Murders for instance, see its FAC).  Before you know it, you have to start dealing with editors who add details about Wife sales on Ebay, in Africa, some bloke in China who sold 23 wives in 1254, etc.  It seemed easier just to say at the outset, that this article dealt specifically with the English custom, as described. Parrot of Doom 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely understand why you wanted to add "English custom" to the article title but I'm not sure that's the best course of action to take. For one thing, it wouldn't be a big deal if someone did add information not related to the English custom. That could either easily be deleted or could be helpfully used to create a new article. I normally wouldn't bother arguing about this but I read that you will probably take this article to FAC, so it would be good to get the title right. Is the exact phrase "wife selling" definitely the most common name for this custom? Because if not you could rename the article to a less ambiguous name without having to use disambiguation parentheses. Maybe even "Wife selling in England" would be better. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely being persuaded. From what I've seen "wife selling" is the common description, so I'd have no objection either to returning the article title to "Wife selling", and deal with any needed disambiguation later if anyone does actually write an article on wife sales in China, India, or wherever. As PoD said, we were keen to make it as clear as possible that our scope was restricted to the ritualised public auctioning of wives that seems to have been fairly widespread in England during the 18th and 19th centuries. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a substantial account of the topic in China: . Shall we have a section which summarises the state of law and custom in other countries such as this.  If this grows to be substantial, then we may restructure accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about the English custom only. I have a feeling that other countries' customs should have their own article(s). Parrot of Doom 18:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its title does not limit its scope and we generally cover matters in a global way when the topic is international. A summary section about other countries might start as an appendix here and then be split off if it starts to overwhelm the content about the English custom. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the long run there should be separate articles, because this one is already well developed. In the short run it's probably best to incubate the new article here. Once we have a somewhat reasonable amount of material on three or more cultures, we can split this article into one on the general phenomenon and one for the English custom. The logical thing to do at that point would be to rename this article to wife selling in England, and move to intercultural stuff, including a summary of the English situation, back here to form a new article wife selling. Hans Adler 22:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Page
I'm busy with the two books I'm going through, but this might be of interest. Parrot of Doom 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Relatedly, I wrote up an 1861article on this for Wikisource some years back; it's here. Might be of some use... Shimgray | talk | 13:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. I've added a link to the wikisource article. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts...
Makes you proud to be British... Might I recommend this is nominated at good article nominations? There may also be a place for it on this page. J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, I think it'll be going straight to FAC. Shouldn't take too long. Parrot of Doom 14:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that; at first glance it looks like something I'd support. Someone gave it a C-class rating, which seems unduly harsh... Maybe once you get it through FAC you could put it up as a Featured Article on April Fool's Day? Lampman (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea. I'm sure lots of people would naturally think it's a hoax, but I promise that it's absolutely true. As for the C rating, well this will hopefully be at FAC soon, so it doesn't really matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * heh, two articles I've worked (that I can see) on are on that WP:ODD page. That clearly isn't enough! Parrot of Doom 14:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only got two there as well, although I fail to see what's so odd about this. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My neighbour, in the 70s, used to put Ferrets down his pants. If you've ever seen it done, you wouldn't ask that question :) Parrot of Doom 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll let you into a secret, but don't tell anyone else; I've got 12 ferrets. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't say anything about that on your biography :D Parrot of Doom 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell
18,000 veiws while at DYK! Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not bad, is it. These little by-ways of history deserve a bit of attention. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably 18,000 men all thinking "I wonder if this is cheaper than divorce?" Parrot of Doom 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PS imagine how many views you'd get were we to get Thomas Rowlandson on DYK, or the front page, illustrated with one of his ruder images at Commons. I've added it to my 'to do' list :) Parrot of Doom 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hadn't realised that he was the inventor of John Bull. I just came across the rather depressing workhouse, which although not badly written is woefully under-referenced. So much to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are that many views, the page also belongs here... J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

export
Quite by chance, I've discovered 2-3 pages about the exportation of this custom to the New World, in The Great Days of Piracy by George Woodward (1951). There are three examples; one in 1645 in Connecticut, one in 1736 in Boston, and on in 1887 in Sheffield (England). The first two are quite well explained, with accompanying reports. Worth including? Parrot of Doom 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Perhaps there's enough to expand the last paragraph of Distribution and symbolism into a new subsection? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

April Fools
This article is currently my top choice for the April Fools featured article. Could the editors here start putting together a suggested blurb for that day? Your goals should be to write a blurb that will make people think this is a hoax, but without saying anything that is untrue. Raul654 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And for the record, I really prefer this pic. Raul654 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 The English custom of Wife selling was a way of ending an unsatisfactory marriage by mutual agreement that began in the late 17th century, when divorce was a practical impossibility for all but the very wealthiest. After fetching his wife to market and parading her with a halter around her neck, arm, or waist, a husband would publicly auction her to the highest bidder. Prices paid for wives varied considerably, from a high of £100 plus £25 each for her two children, to a low of a glass of ale, or even free.

Along with other English customs, wife selling was exported to England's American colonies, where one man sold his wife for "two dollars and half [a] dozen bowls of grogg". Wife selling persisted in some form until the early 20th century; according to the jurist and historian James Bryce, writing in 1901, wife sales were still occasionally taking place during his time. (more...) Parrot of Doom 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I took your suggestion, tweaked it, and posted it here where more people will see it. Raul654 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok Parrot of Doom 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Porn
Way to go wikipedia. You do an april fools article, and what do the internet trolls of the universe do? Put porn on it. Way to go. I have insufficient knowledge to fix the problem, but not to complain about it(username inthend9, not signed in) 64.136.202.74 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that you have insufficient knowledge to do very much. Who ties your shoelaces for you? Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you guys add to your already lousy reputation for verifiability? Oh wait, done already. After trying to figure out when the edit started, I got sick of looking at it. 64.136.202.74 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're quits then, because I'm sick of listening to planks like you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum: You're quite the condescending asshole. Who changes your diaper for you? Seems it's due.
 * Better to be one of those than American. By the way, we don't use "diapers" over here. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sale of husband by wife?
Whether or not this page is a joke, it ought to make sense. However, it seems totally garbled on the question of whether a wife ever sold her husband.

The Wikipedia main page says this: "Husbands were sometimes sold by their wives in a similar manner, but much less frequently."

Yet no support for this claim is in the article. The only apparent reference to husband-selling is in a paragraph that looks like it combines two unrelated ideas: "There were very few reported sales of husbands, and from a 21st-century perspective, selling a wife like a chattel is degrading, even when considered as a form of divorce.[42] Nevertheless, most contemporary reports stress the women's independence and vitality: 'The women are described as 'fine-looking', 'buxom', 'of good appearance', 'a comely-looking country girl', or as 'enjoying the fun and frolic heartily''."

The first clause (emphasis added) seems to discuss the sale of husbands, but after the comma suddenly it's about wife-selling again. The bold phrase should be deleted, or it should be expanded and substantiated.

Even if it's a joke. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is most definitely not a joke, but your ignorant comments clearly are. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is 4/1, and some of us never heard of this before. . . . Dloh  cierekim  03:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So talk to your school teachers, don't come whining to me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL Love the mock arrogance 64.222.113.237 (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no hiding that this page is an April Fools joke. None of the links provided for sources bear any relevance to wife-selling. A decent attempt to seem serious though The article on the User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War was a much better hoax IMHO.. I doubt any future hoaxes will compare with its veracity or quality of writing 64.222.113.237 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are unable to read. The sources do mention wife selling. Nev1 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LMAO!! Mock condescension too This is getting better by the minute 64.222.113.237 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and By the way, no they don't! 64.222.113.237 talk 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the most astounding claim on this page is the assertion that E. P. Thompson had psychic powers. The article states "From a 21st-century perspective, selling a wife like a chattel is degrading, even when considered as a form of divorce.", and gives as a footnote "Thompson 1991, pp. 458–459". How did Thompson, who died in 1993, know what twenty-first century attitudes towards wife selling would be? Inquiring minds want to know! &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming that opinion has changed since 1993, or are you just being a dick? Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it's a valid point. Saying '21st century views' is inaccurate, and changing it to 'late 20th century' or something similar would convey the same meaning (including the implication that views haven't changed/haven't changed much, whilst still being factually accurate. Danikat (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic article
A hearty congratulations are in order whoever had a hand in getting this up to such high quality as to make the front page. Vranak (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is well writ. Bravo. User:LeadSongDog come howl  04:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great article. I love how some think it's a joke one. NtheP (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I echo those sentiments - and hope similar efforts are invested in other articles about what might loosely be called "justice for harmony" (as opposed to the modern "justice as punishment" conception of norm enforcement). I probably should dust off my copy of my legal history textbook regarding these sort of quirks. A lot of people wouldn't realise the women often were in on the spectacle as well (otherwise she won't get 'sold' - really a means of publicising a change in relationships in the village).121.208.18.179 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Eddings
I'm assuming that this article is not a joke. I didn't want to mess with a featured article, but it might be of interest to note that Eddings (the fantasy author) used this custom in the Malloreon, and copied what is related here pretty closely. 98.209.109.70 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a joke. Its april fools dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.52.182 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Eddings got that name from Malleus Fatuorum. I know lots of authors are hacks these days, but stealing a Wikipedian username to title your work is just low. He should apologize on talk and atone accordingly. --an odd name 06:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April Fool's
If this is an April Fools it should be removed. However guys blatantly did sell their wives back in the day so if it is a Fools' then where is the proper article? After all selling your wife is not such an unbelievable idea. Cls14 (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Nice article, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.45.152 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason this article is especially funny for April Fools is that it's completely legitimate and in fact quite a real article (see the edit history -- it's been around for quite a while). Anyone claiming this article is a hoax or has been heavily tampered with for April Fools is the one being fooled.  Wikipedia has a history of posting ironic or strange articles on this day, but not fake ones (past years' articles include Museum of Bad Art, Ima Hogg, and Toilet roll holder).  --CapitalR (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense Cls14 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It definitely is real. I did a small search on Google and there are lots of pages on the internet about this practise. http://www.google.nl/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Anl%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=nl&source=hp&q=%22+wife-selling&meta=&btnG=Google+zoeken Daanschr (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a small search on Google and there are lots of pages on the internet about how the earth is really flat and we've been lied to by followers of Gallileo for the past 400 years. So that  mustbe true as well. 71.161.202.164 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is definetly a real article from what i got message. But The guardian states its april fools http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7543967/April-Fools-Best-jokes-from-the-tech-world.html As its a real article we should delete it. 124.176.37.202 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April Fools is over, so come on guys and delete the article. Otherwise youre putting fake information on wikipedia. 124.176.50.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Why don't you try reading this discussion page from the top and you'll see it's not fake information at all. The reason for putting it on the front page on April fools day is to make you think it might be fake as it's a quirky subject. Try reading the Sections "April fools" (the earlier one) and "something you amy wish to include" then, if you're still not convinced, try following up some of the references in the article. Richerman (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Take My Wife - Please!
This article is wry and witty, but it does appear to be an April Fool's Joke. Next year, we'll have a history of the Italian spaghetti harvest and the cultivation of spaghetti vines. And potato trees. And how to pick peanuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm now (perhaps wrongly!) convinced it's real. After all truth is stranger the fiction. Who would have thought you could buy and sell black people and make them use different drinking fountains and different school? Cls14 (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is called picking peanuts. Take it from someone who lives in a peanut area. And I'm also convinced that this article is real. (maybe wrongly, but oh well!) PrincessofLlyr (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would love to live to see the day when people won't believe anyone would sell (or buy) another human being.Danikat (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to have your wife, how much is she worth?Daanschr (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is definitely "real". Wikipedia's rules require every single entry on the front page to be true and properly referenced - even on April 1st. We merely seek to find weird and wonderful stuff - and perhaps to trip you up with some carefully phrased descriptions. However, because this is Wikipedia - and this is a proper Featured Article - you can look at the references at the bottom of the article that tell you where we got our information from - you can use those to check that everything we said is true. SteveBaker (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article
Clearly a thoroughly-researched and well-written article. WP needs more like this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Because its an excellent article, im expecting it to be proposed for deletion soon. 124.176.37.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

In popular culture
I recall this practice being referred to in "Sharpe's Waterloo" perhaps worth a mention in the article. 82.17.231.193 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Great article! Probably the best-known example in popular culture is Thomas Hardy's "The Mayor of Casterbridge" - any chance of adding a reference in the article?Elegend (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's odd; it was certainly in the article at one point. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops!Elegend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

So is it in april fool's day to hide the shame of the English?
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athinker (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its possibly why the guardian claims its april fools http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7543967/April-Fools-Best-jokes-from-the-tech-world.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.37.202 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh fucking lol at The Guardian for printing that! Parrot of Doom 11:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! - you conned the Grauniad with a double bluff. What a pity they don't give the option for comments on their article. Richerman (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone know an alternative to "webcite"? Their site is down right now and I wanna get an online grab for posterity.  Might be useful in a "history of 1 April articles" type thing on here. Parrot of Doom 13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above link Seems to be working. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Guardian seems to have conned us all by being the Telegraph. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Something you may wish to include
I've just found this from a newspaper of 1797:

Oracle and Public Advertiser (London, England), Monday, November 13, 1797 Women appear to bear but an indifferent price in the markets of the North. A person at Newcastle who exposed his wife for sale with a halter about her neck, could not, after haggling some time, sell her for more than half-a-guinea – rope included

The italics are from the original article. There are also some bits in the newspapers - as it says in the article - saying how depraved this country practice was. Richerman (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the depravity aspect is more interesting, as there are already a few examples. What does it say? Parrot of Doom 11:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Evening Mail (London, England), Monday, July 17, 1797.

On Friday a butcher exposed his wife to Sale in Smithfield Market, near the Ram Inn, with a halter about her neck, and one around her waist, which tied her to a railing, when a hog-driver was the happy purchaser, who gave the husband three guineas and a crown for his departed rib. Pity it is, there is no stop put to such depraved conduct in the lower order of people.

That must be one of the longest sentences in the English language :) Richerman (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 'tis already in the article kind sir :) Parrot of Doom 11:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh bugger! so 'tis. These stories seemed to get copied verbatim from one newspaper to another - still, I can at least confirm it's real! I also found one from The Morning Post, Friday, January 13, 1815 in a column called "Disgraceful Transactions" Richerman (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK another one for your delectation which puts a different slant on things:

The Ipswich Journal (Ipswich, England), Saturday, July 22, 1815

One of those scenes which occasionally disgrace even Smithfield, took place there about five o’clock on Friday evening. Hitherto we have only seen those moving in the lower classes of society thus degrading themselves, but the present exhibition was attended with some novel circumstances. The parties, buyer and seller, were persons of property; the lady (the object of the sale) young, beautiful and elegantly dressed, was brought to the market in a coach and exposed to the view of her purchaser with a silk halter around her shoulders, which were covered with a rich white face veil. The price demanded in the first instance was 80 gs. but that finally agreed on was 50 gs. and a valuable horse on which the purchase was mounted. The sale being complete the lady, with her new lord and master, mounted a handsome curricle, which was waiting for them, and drove off, seeming nothing loath to go. The purchaser in the present case is a celebrated horse-dealer in town, and the seller a grazier of cattle, residing about six miles from London. The intention of these bargains is to deprive the husband of any right of prosecution or damages. Richerman (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not from Ipswich it's from Bolton 64.222.113.237 (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Palindrome of Ipswich would be NOTLOB!

I see you got that one too but that's the full story Richerman (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, you know Malleus and I and these funny articles. We trawl the depths of depravity :) Parrot of Doom 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A modern perspective. Wife for sale on net Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
There has been much vandalism by IP's, I suggest semi-protection. 70.171.224.249 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay! Can someone put a semi-protected top icon on the page though? 70.171.224.249 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's rather unusual for the main page article to be protected on the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I've ever seen it before, so I expect it'll cause another ruckus. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Dark Side of the Moon had the same protection while TFA. In this instance, I place practicality above principles.  If anon IPs can't behave like adults, they deserve to have their toys taken from them. Parrot of Doom 17:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're being serious, no, no it's not. It makes perfect sense actually.  The main page article is highly visible, and if left unprotected would literally face an onslaught of vandalism, or edits to replace the entire contents with a pornographic image, etc. every minute of the day.  The protection is removed after the attention dies down a little.  Besides, it's only semi-protected so if you register for a free and anonymous account you can still edit it.  --WayneMokane (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense to me too, so much so that I don't understand why all TFAs aren't semi-protected for the day. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 ┌ This is a perennial topic. The page is left unprotected to invite new users to edit. It is semi-protected if the the vandalism becomes excessive or overwhelming. Today's is just to inviting a topic. Dloh cierekim  18:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And that wasn't predictable? There was even lobbying against its choice. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Woah, what's all that text in the edit box? Anyway, I'd like to see some statistics on the constructive edits made by anon IPs to TFA articles.  I am willing to bet fifty pounds that they number in the tiny minority. Parrot of Doom 18:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected. Paul August &#9742; 18:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering the high level of vandalism the article was attracting, I think protection was appropriate. Yes, it is unusual, and I'm ambivalent about the show-piece of a project that claims to allow anyone to edit being protected, but in this case it was justified. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been argued over repeatedly, with the consensus being for unprotection. Paul August &#9742; 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm also betting that the consensus was formed mainly from editors who float around in Wikispace, rather than article space. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really-- it's the consensus of the Wikiproject FA people, I suppose. Dloh  cierekim  18:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More info on this can be found at Main Page featured article protection and the linked essays. Dloh  cierekim  19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that there's a significant body of "FA people" who consider TFA to be a mixed blessing. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The amount of time and energy wasted on fixing vandalized WP articles is mind-blowing. The resistence to protecting articles is just idiotic. I've quit wasting my time trying to fix high-profile/current event pages experiencing heavy vandalism, because it just wastes my time. Registering is simple and easy and there's no reason unregistered people should be running around butchering articles left and right. No, I don't want to hear about the 'spirit of Wikipedia'. If the spirit of Wikipedia is inaccuracy and wasted time, Wikipedia's spirit needs fixing. Senor Vergara (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Duke of Chandos bought his second wife, Maria, from an ostler in about 1740.
The article says that "the most high-profile case was that of Henry Brydges, 2nd Duke of Chandos, who is reported to have bought his second wife, Maria, from an ostler in about 1740". But the article about Henry Brydges, 2nd Duke of Chandos, says that his second wife (the one he bought) was Anne Wells. So what was her name? Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to correct the Henry Brydges, 2nd Duke of Chandos article, based on the source provided here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I would, but the Henry Brydges, 2nd Duke of Chandos article is pretty specific about his second wife's name and origin: Anne Wells, daughter of John Wells of Newbury and a chambermaid at the Pelican Inn, Newbury. I am reluctant to replace that detailed description with mere Maria. Besides, there are sources which confirm that as well. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are conflicting reports about this sale, and all of the accounts I've seen are from well after when it was supposed to have happened. I simply quoted from the one most recent in time to the event. The name of the Duke's second wife is in any event hardly relevant in this article, so I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the DNB has Mary as the first wife and Anne Wells as the second, retelling the same tale about the latter being sold. MLauba (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The story is appropriately sourced, and the name is immaterial. If there's something significant you'd like to add to the article, then please feel free. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, just thought it worth mentioning that some sources may have the wives confused. Which is which? Doesn't matter in this article, but since it's the same lady mentioned in the first citation in the section, I just thought I'd bring it up. MLauba (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They may well do, wouldn't be the first time. Anyway, I've removed her name from this article, as it's really not important here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Great April Fool's Joke!
Kudos to whoever thought up this article. This is the funniest April Fools Joke i've read in a long time. :) 64.222.113.90 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a joke, it's perfectly true. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's true, Then how come it's metioned as one of the top 10 april Fools jokes of 2010 By thetelegraph the independent AND

PC WORLD 64.222.113.90 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that last year's front page was listed in numerous sources as being full of fabrications... everything on the main page is true... just convoluted.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not my brother's keeper. Work it out for yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * you'll have to ignore his serious tone, He's pulling your leg. It is  a bogus article, albeit A very well written one. Check back tomorrow, You can be sure it'll be gone. 64.222.101.251 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Care to make a bet on that? Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll wager £100,000,000 that as soon as old Big Ben strikes 12, This article will be erased from the pages of time. 64.222.101.251 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I want in on that wager!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's practically stealing, but so do I. Nev1 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No kidding, you would think that people would check references or do a websearch before wagering £100,000,000.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Count me in. I can quit my job and edit full time! Dloh  cierekim  23:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Something MUST be wrong... the article hasn't been deleted yet... perhaps somebody needs to tag it for CSD?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit?
I don't think wikipedia deserves that subtitle... 189.113.254.155 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you telling me? I don't run wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * are you sure ? :P64.222.101.251 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when the TFA against vandalized, it tends to draw protection. And really, Malleous dos not run Wikipedia. The decision to protect this was made after much soulsearching, and the net positive seemed to rest in protection. Dloh  cierekim  23:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm quite sure. It would be very different if I did. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @64.222.101.251: No single person rules Wikipedia. If the article, such as this, was subjected to persistent vandal edits, it's perfectly all right to semi-protect it for some time, which was not easily reached resolution. There is no cabal.:-) --ja_62 (t 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with semi-protecting this article, but I do have an issue with the main page telling people they can edit it. Saying one thing and doing another is not good communications. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a PP template should be applied. Would the clarity be worth the loss of aesthetics ? Anyway, I suppose the matter for this article is soon to be mooted.  Dloh  cierekim  00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey look, it's gone from the front page. It must have been a hoax after all! Richerman (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we have to delete the thing and all who edited it must vanish. Dloh  cierekim  00:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you can't get rid of Malleus - he runs wikipedia! Richerman (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well he sort of pootles it along at a sedate pace. he's getting on a bit now. Definitely into Grumpy Old Man territory.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Grumpy Old Man territory? - he's the King of the Grumpy Old Men. BTW 189.113.254.155 (talk) is just pissed off because he can't vandalise the front page - have a look at his "contributions". Richerman (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How dare you Fred! I'm going to open one of those ... what are they called? ... etiquette thingyabejigs? Or I might just invite you for a beer once the weather warms up. Your choice. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and I'll bet you'll make him pay for the beer too! Richerman (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He'll have to teach me how, I can't say I'm too knowledgeable on that procedure. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well obviously not everyone can edit it. You need access to a computer and the ability to type. Apart from that who do you think cannot edit it oh faceless IP number? Cls14 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it all depends on what one defines as editing. If it means adding "penis" or "poo" to any random article, then yes anyone can edit. If it means linking together more than one sentence consisting of at least one three syllable word then no I don't believe anyone can edit. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Protected again
It's been protected again citing vandalism immediately after POV/OR edit. 'adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism' per WP:VANDAL. Regards, SunCreator (talk)
 * I don't know about the POV edit. I reprotected after seeing a series of vandalism reversions. Since I made the mistake of unprotecting the thing, it seemed like the correct response. Since it is no longer TFA of the day, semi protection is probably warranted till the vandalism subsides. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  02:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * this, this,this, ah, I see the pov. It did not belong in the article or talk. It is wholly off topic and a lecture about the sickness of a joke that is not a joke but a legitamate article. While not vandalism per se, it is unconstructive. Dloh  cierekim  02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I do accept that the first two edits pointed out are genuine vandal edits and glad that was the reason. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Past sentence of Lead
The last sentence of the lead needs help:
 * Giving evidence in a Leeds police court in 1913, a woman claimed that she had been sold to one of her husband's workmates for £1, one of the last reported instances of a wife sale in England.

I'm not sure how to reword it and am reluctant to try on a feature article on the main page, but that sentence is awful. I was thinking something along the lines of:
 * One of the last reported instances of a wife selling in England was documented by a Leeds police court in 1913. At the time a woman claimed that she had been sold to one of her husband's workmates for £1.

What say you all?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Author!, Author! Seriously, looks good. Dloh  cierekim  22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Suddenly everyone's a critic! ;-) I've rewritten the offending sentence, hopefully to the satisfaction of the audience. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notes + notes
I don't really understand why switching "Notes" for "Citations" is met with such deliberate opposition. Separating commentary notes and reference notes is extremely rare outside of Wikipedia, so what's the point of actively reverting attempts to explain it? "Notes" and "Footnotes" are pretty much identical synonyms (though I'm pretty sure that no ever actually uses the latter as a heading in print). It would be so much clearer if we used headings like "Annotations/Comments" and "Citations/References" respectively. The current usage is no different than calling the notes sections "Notes A" and "Notes B".

Peter Isotalo 09:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. I don't know either. WP:OWN maybe? -- &oelig; &trade; 02:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There appear to many things you don't know, and neither do you appear to have read the guideline to which you refer. I quote: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack". Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I didn't want anyone to feel attacked, I just wanted to provide a possible explanation. In fact, when I referred to WP:OWN I meant it more in the context of an editor taking enough pride in his hard work that he jealously guards it, rather than inferring violation of policy. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Etiquette disputes aside, what's the reasoning behind reverting an uncontroversial clarification of headings? The edit summaries describing it as "pedantry", "messing about" and "bullshit" weren't all that enlightening.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's so controversial about the present system, apart from nothing at all? Parrot of Doom 12:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, I suppose one could equally ask why it was thought necessary to change them in the first place, after all the article got through the Wikipedia's most pedantic peer review process with the original headers so it is reasonable to presume that there is a consensus that they are just fine as they are. Nancy  talk  12:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles can still be improved, especially when it comes to formalities, and there's nothing in the guidelines that recommends this odd usage of reference terminology. I think I explained myself quite clearly in the first post.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained problem in my first post and the only coherent argument so far is that the issue hasn't been raised before. Is this the only valid reason to oppose change?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this change can be contentious, but I am not motivated for yet another silly fight here. I think this is not the only article using this strange convention, so I suggest that you start a discussion about the practice in some central place. Perhaps there is even explicit guidance one way or the other in the MOS or somewhere? Hans Adler 17:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevant MoS section is here if anyone is seriously interested in learning something instead of imposing their personal preferences on everyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. "'Citations' may be confused with official awards or a summons to court". Why didn't I think of that. Of course, it's obvious in retrospect, that people might think we are listing citations to court that people got for wife selling. Hans Adler 18:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the MoS. If you want it changed, then I suggest that you and Peter raise the issue on its talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be really nice to hear a motivation that didn't amount to "I want things this way and the rules don't say I'm not allowed to". I fail to see any benefit in doggedly resisting minor changes of this sort, and especially not when it's done through ruleslawyering. It's certainly not making you any friends.
 * I have, however, tried to bypass another round of personal insults, tart sarcasm and edit warring by bringing the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. Dunno if I have to extend it to the MoS page, but I don't mind moving the discussion there.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the use of the term citations is confusing because it can also refer to intext citation. If a source attribution occurs at the end of a work, it's generally referred to as a footnote or a note—this according to MLA style and the Chicago Manual of Style. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of friends Peter, so I don't feel that I'm losing much that your not amongst them. You're behaving like a complete pain in the arse over absolutely nothing, just because you want everything your own way. That's the unpalatable truth whether you like it or not. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Peter--if Parrot of Doom had skipped the responses of "pedantry", "bullshit", "What's so controversial?" and gone straight to "Here's what the MOS says", a lot of time could have been saved. Some people prefer thoughtful argument as a means of persuasion. --Rsl12 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a two-way street Rsl12. Peter's position appears to be little more than "I don't like it, I want to change 'Notes' to 'Citations', and I'll stamp and scream until you let me". Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something then. The first argument I see Peter presenting is this:


 * "'Notes' and 'Footnotes' are pretty much identical synonyms (though I'm pretty sure that no ever actually uses the latter as a heading in print). It would be so much clearer if we used headings like 'Annotations/Comments' and 'Citations/References' respectively. The current usage is no different than calling the notes sections 'Notes A' and 'Notes B'.'"


 * That sounds like a thought-out argument to me. Not much of an argument, in my opinion, but certainly more thoughtful than "what's controversial about the way it is now?"  If Parrot of Doom had said "see the MOS" early on, I would have been more sympathetic.  I apologize if I've missed part of this debate.  No need to fill me in--I don't really want to get involved, I hope you understand.  --Rsl12 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand perfectly well, but I have clearly come to a different conclusion than you have. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some people also prefer not to be confronted with bullshit arguments and personal attacks Rsl, and that includes the comments you just made. As I recall you "went" to the MOS, lied about what was written there, and then ignored what I said when I highlighted that you were inventing support for your argument.  Do me a favour, leave me alone, I have better things to do than reply to childish bollocks like this. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I apologize if I've offended you Parrot. I seem to have a habit of doing that.  For the record, Parrot is referring to these topics:  here, here, and here.  --Rsl12 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, making minor tweaks to articles is the way Wikipedia works. Changing minor typographical issues might not build up articles, but it's a part of normal improvement. In this case, I'm merely concerned about clarity and abiding to standards of referencing. I believe it detrmintal for Wikipedia to invent its own standards and use terminology incorrectly. It might not ruin article quality, but then again, neither do spelling errors or grammatical oddities, but we do tend to correct those without snapping at each other.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact is that the style of referencing in this article is consistent with many others and with the Manual of Style. It is merely your opinion that changing "Footnotes" to "Citations" would be an improvement, and it is an opinion not universally shared. If you feel strongly about this issue, then the correct thing to do is to have a discussion on the MoS talk page to see if your suggestion can achieve a consensus. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to push your personal preferences here; this article meets the current MoS guidelines, as it is required to do. Malleus Fatuorum 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Still a Skeptic (Sceptic)
I suppose we'll have to accept that this is not an April Fool's joke, despite the date, since great pains have been taken to point this out. But it stands as one of the most improbable encyclopedic entries I have seen. How come something so counter-intuitive is not common knowledge, not part of the folk lore of history? Everyone knows of cuckolds' horns, penalties for adultery, jumping over the broom-stick, running away to Gretna Green, the Scarlet Letter, eloping to Reno etc. You'd think wife-selling (it definitely requires that hyphen) would have been the theme of many historical novels and movies. The entry on Marriage Law makes no mention of this in its History section.Luke Line 10:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources for you to check. It really isn't hard to do that.  BTW the Marriage Law article is pants, so I'm hardly surprised it doesn't mention Wife selling. Parrot of Doom 10:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Little-known facts are exactly the kinds of things that reading an encyclopedia for pleasure can teach you. That this little known, somewhat horrific, and thankfully, outmoded, practice has been brought to so many people's attention is a testament to the value of the Wikipedia front page - on April 1st or any other day.  This is precisely the reason Wikipedia needs to exist.  Great stuff! SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Long s in quotations
April 19 2010 NOTE: Since this article has been protected, I'm adding a link to an old version of the quote so people can see what is being discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wife_selling&oldid=356734000#Changing_attitudes --Rsl12 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am still in favour of removing the "long s" (ſ) characters from the 1797 Times quotation, in favour of standardised modern s. Silently modernising this glyph variant is the almost universal modern academic practice, both in philological text editions and in historians' quoting from such sources. A case could be made for authenticity and sticking closely to sources, if the presence of long ſ was an (idiosyncratic) property of a modern edition we were quoting from, but in the present case it isn't – it's merely copied from a mechanic reproduction of the original primary source. Just because we happen to cite this item from such a reproduction, while the other contemporary quotes are presumably from modern editions, isn't a good reason to introduce this piece of typographical inconsistency. Because that's what it is: all the other 18th-century quotations most certainly used the long ſ in their originals too, and the fact that our modern secondary sources have silently omitted it just goes to prove how universal this modern editorial convention is.

Thus, by insisting on the use of long ſ in this item, we are gaining nothing in authenticity, but losing considerably in both readability and editorial consistency. This is not an issue of philological authenticity, but just a pedantic affection of such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem reading the long "s". I'm unwilling to change quotations as you suggest.  If the sources used want to do that, then that's their perogative.  What next, inserting full stops to make it more readable?  Maybe we should change spellings also, after all words are spelt differently these days? Parrot of Doom 10:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the primary source used long s, that's not a compelling reason for us to do the same. All primary sources did at that time. We should do what reliable secondary sources do today, including all of those you are quoting in this article. Current academic editorial practice does silently modernise long s. In doing so, it is treating the distinction between the two s glyphs as essentially a mere issue of typeface/glyph variants, not an issue of different letters. Insisting on the preservation of long s is thus not much different from insisting on the use of exactly the same typeface as used in the source. On the other hand, modern practice does not routinely change word spellings, thus your analogy is off. And as for you having no problem reading the long s, that may well be true, but is irrelevant here – other people, i.e. the people we write for, certainly do find the long s more difficult to read (me included, and I'm a professional linguist and philologist studying 18th-century English). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So find a source that has already modified the quote, and use that, instead. I don't believe its at all appropriate for Wikipedia to revise quotations in the manner you suggest.  From changing the long "s" its only a short stop to modifying punctuation.  Then, it's "why are we spelling this 18th-century British-English word with a z, when today it's spelt with an s?  Its confusing, we should change it.  Lets also change the Capitalisation of some Letters in this Quote because they don't follow Modern Rules".  Quote things exactly as they appear in the source and there can be no room for confusion.


 * It's worth mentioning that the "other people" to whom you refer can often have problems understanding even the most basic of phrases. I don't believe in catering for the lowest common denominator; most people who read articles here are intelligent enough to figure things out for themselves, and who knows, by seeing the long s they may just learn something about how the English language has evolved.  People who blithely pass by things they don't quite understand learn nothing. Parrot of Doom 12:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument is like saying "if the original text used blackletter, it should be quoted in blackletter too." Changing the font for legibility isn't such a bad practice.  When is the last time you saw Chaucer reprinted with thorns intact?  When was the last time anyone reprinted Shakespeare with long "s"es intact?  It may happen for some specialist audience publication, but for publications targeted towards a general audience (as Wikipedia is meant to be), I think changing a long s to a modern s is perfectly kosher.--Rsl12 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny then that of all the complaints about this article, not one mentioned the long "s". You'd think, with so many people apparently struggling to read it, there would be a wealth of commentary.  Perhaps most people have more intelligence than you credit them with. Parrot of Doom 13:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And in fact, if I hadn't seen this discussion on the talk page, I don't think I would have given it a second thought. But since the matter has been brought up, and because I generally enjoy arguing common sense when others are stubbornly holding to a contrary position, I hope to correct your errant ways.  :)  Some quotes from style guides:


 * "Obsolete typography — the 'long s' (the one that looks like an f), 'running quotation marks' (those that go down the lefthand margin), ligatures like ct and st — should almost always be changed to reflect modern usage. If you decide to modernize the spelling in any other way, though, you should indicate it somewhere. The English Language: A User's Guide"


 * "Retain original capitalization, spelling, and punctuation in titles and quotations from early modern sources, except for the long s. Do not modernize. --Chicago Manual of Style"


 * If you know of a modern style guide that says "always retain the long s", I'd love to see it.--Rsl12 (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the article was about typography, keeping the long s would make sense, as is done on Wikisource. On Wikipedia, though, the point is to convey content, not literary nostalgia. Considering that not even academics keep archaisms like this, I see no point in arguing the issue further.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, because obviously I'm going to pay attention to US-British sources on a British-English article. Here I thought we tended to follow guidelines and rules within Wikipedia, and not random sources pulled from the internet.  I'm quite sure that WP guidelines are fairly specific about original research when it comes to primary sources.  As I've already stated, you're all talking about legibility.  Why has nobody suggested that we also modify the punctuation of the quote, to make it more legible?  While we're on the subject, who are all these people that are so confused by the long "s"? Parrot of Doom 14:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia's manual of style: "Although the requirement of minimal change [of quotations] is strict, a few purely typographical elements of quoted text should be conformed to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment. This practice of conforming typographical styling to a publication's own "house style" is universal." The manual of style notes that an example of an acceptable change is that "disused glyphs and ligatures in old texts may be modified according to modern practice". Again, if you know of a modern style guide that recommends leaving in the long "s"es, I'd love to see it--Rsl12 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Though it's sad that we won't fully meet the style guidelines, as we were unable to accomplish this typographical change 'without comment'. I had hoped common sense would have been enough.--Rsl12 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Won't fully meet the style guidelines"? Sorry, which part of that guideline says that these disused glyphs must be changed?  Are you reading the same MOS that I am? Parrot of Doom 15:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have presented multiple sources that say that the long s should be converted. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is reasonably clear that "quoted text should be conformed".  But assuming that it doesn't explicitly say they "must" be changed, I think I've presented enough evidence to conclude that the preponderance of style guides would rather you change the long "s".  That being so, perhaps you could explain why this particular quote warrants an exception to the rule?  I have yet to see you present any evidence of the sort other than continually affirming that people are a) smart enough to understand or b) not smart enough and need to be educated.--Rsl12 (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources that are in US-English, and whose reliability might be frowned upon on were they used in an article here. You're drawing inferences from the MOS that don't exist, and ignoring the parts of my argument that don't suit you.  I've already explained exactly why I feel the long "s" should remain, an explanation which I feel is perfectly adequate.  If you want to ignore it, that's your problem, not mine. Parrot of Doom 16:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This may give more insight into the intransigence being shown towards you PoD, at least Rsl12's anyway. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, shopping around for support isn't exactly welcomed. Parrot of Doom 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) "Find a source that has already modified the quote"? Easy: it's printed with modern s in Stone (1990: 147), one of the main secondary sources of this article. But I'm questioning your very premise that this is a "modification" at all: in fact, it is no more of a "modification" than to transfer the text from its original roman font into a modern sans serif, or to omit the ligatures between "ct" and "ſt" – all of which you evidently felt quite free to do (and rightly so). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have inserted those ligatures if I knew how to. Parrot of Doom 13:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The usage adds to the period charm and veracity of the quotation and so should be retained. But the footnote supporting this currently leads to a paywall which is not so interesting.  Perhaps we might improve the footnote to briefly explain the usage and link to Long s, for those who wish to know more. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my asking for help the quotation discussion was bad manners. Still, shall we focus on the substantive issues? If I may summarize:

Arguments for modernizing long s in quotations (Fut. Perf., Rsl12, Peter Isotalo):


 * almost universal modern academic practice to modernize
 * Wikipedia's manual of style says typographical elements of quoted text (including disused glyphs and ligatures) should be conformed to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment.
 * Manual of style guides that were found that state that long "s"es should almost always be silently modernized. No style guides were found that suggested that long "s"es should be kept.  (NOTE:  These were not British guides, but no British guides were found, must less a guide with anything to say on the issue.)
 * losing considerably in both readability and editorial consistency.

Arguments against modernizing long s in quotations (Parrot of Doom, Colonel Warden):
 * It's a slippery slope -- after modernizing the s, people might want to change spelling and capitalization as well.
 * Wikipedia guideline's don't say that you MUST modernize the long s, only that you MAY.
 * If the modernized s is to be used, a source should be found where the "s"es have been modified. (NOTE: a source was found and cited.)
 * By quoting things exactly as they appear, there can be no room for confusion.
 * We shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator--people who read articles here are intelligent enough to figure things out.
 * No one has complained about the long "s" being illegible.
 * Adds to charm

If this is an inaccurate summary, please correct.--Rsl12 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hearing no complaint, I will assume this is an accurate summary. It seems to me the first issue to resolve is whether Wikipedia's Manual of Style imply that the long "S"es should be modernized or if they may be modernized. Since we appear to be at loggerheads, I will bring this up on the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style.--Rsl12 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not many comments atWikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, but to summarize what was said there:


 * The MOS says that disused glyphs and ligatures may be changed.
 * If the average reader would not know what the symbol means, it should be changed.
 * Modernization may occur when the the particular glyph is irrelevant to the point in question.

I'll acknowledge that the MOS says literally that the glyphs may be changed, not should, but I don't think that the change is up to the poster's discretion. Since this doesn't really bring much new insight to our questions, I will put in a request for comments.--Rsl12 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC Removed, issue has been settled. --Rsl12 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Should long "S"es (ſ) be modernized when quoting from old sources?Rsl12 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. And as the project is getting more mature and the totally clueless feel that they need to shift their activity from writing one-sentence articles about "fish", "tree", "mountain" etc. towards wikilawyering against experts in order to retain a sense that they are leaving a mark on the encyclopedia, it is time that we start enforcing common sense via WP:COMPETENCE blocks. Hans Adler 18:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No it shouldn't - it adds to the charm and authenticity of the old quotations. As to what the last contributor is trying to say I have no idea. In the context of this article who are the "totally clueless" you're referring to, and who are the wikilawyers? I don't see what any of your comments have to do with this article and I don't see that this discussion belongs on the talk page for this article as the outcome will do nothing to improve this article. If you have a problem with the MOS take the discussion there. Richerman (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it's eccentric, I could agree with this, since I am a bit partial to the ſ myself. But not in an article that also quotes another, earlier source without the ſ because for that it is relying on a modern edition that doesn't render it. That's unacceptable inconsistency. Hans Adler 20:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the inconsistency is in modifying one quotation and leaving another. This article is consistent in its quotations because it modifies nothing, which is as things should be.  It isn't our place to modify quotations - that's something only a trusted publisher can do. Parrot of Doom 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Everybody "modifies" quotations in this way. It's trivial to do and there are no original research issues at all. There is no valid reason to depart from universal practice. (And I am talking about English practice. In some other languages it is even standard to update orthography to varying extents, which could lead to OR problems.) Hans Adler 21:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't modify quotations, I leave that to the reliable sources we quote. The Everybody you talk about are allowed to publish whatever they like, but we're not.  This isn't a bureaucracy and there is nothing in policy that requires anyone to modify a quotation to make it "more readable", and I'll not be budging on this matter.  Its the long s now, it'll be capitalisation next, then it'll be punctuation, then it'll be spelling.  Perhaps, to make your point clearer, you could show me who amongst the 300,000+ people who read this article, found the long s difficult to read?  Oh and while you're at it, I'd like to know to whom your first comment in this thread was directed. Parrot of Doom 21:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not at all about dumbing things down or making things easier to read. I have read things like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in the (Middle English) original. I love reading 17th century French texts in the original, beautiful typesetting with its long s. The point is (1) intra-article consistency and (2) standard editorial practices. (1) It's jarring if for one source we eccentrically use an approximation to the original typesetting while for another we don't, merely because for one we have used the primary source and for another we have gone through a later edition. (2) Everybody else modernises the typesetting (your earlier insistence – "Yes, because obviously I'm going to pay attention to US-British sources on a British-English article." – that it might be a US thing is an obvious red herring), and if there is any overarching principle in our rules then it is that we don't use eccentric conventions.
 * As to slippery slope arguments, it's not as if I can't do them as well. In fact, one has come up before (black letters). And how about hyphens? I guess the next step would be endless arguments about reassembling words that were hyphenated at a line break in the original. And then suddenly we must retain the original line breaks, precise lengths of dashes and background colours.
 * The long s / short s distinction is of the same type as ligatures. There are (almost) mechanical rules for this, and this has always been considered a fine point of typesetting as opposed to an integral part of the text. Hans Adler 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointless, ignoring the questions you don't like. I tell you what, this is simple: you have your opinion, I have mine.  Neither will be changing anytime soon. Parrot of Doom 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The requirement for consistency applies within the body of the article; the long "s" that it's suggested is "jarring" occurs only in one quote box. Personally, I couldn't care less whether it's changed to a short "s" or not, but PoD clearly does, and has explained his reasoning. We do already routinely change dashes, typefaces ... so I do accept your point though Hans. I just don't think it's anything worth making a big deal over. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in using long s in this or any other quotation. The point of the text is to convey its content, and any typographical styling is only to assist the conveyance thereof. Long s is a long-outmoded glyph and its use here jars; readers who have not encountered it before will be baffled. pablo hablo. 19:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeez! Is this discussion still dragging on? What does it matter for God's sake? Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can tell you why it matters: It's an excellent example of the fundamentalism that is running rampant at Wikipedia. Some editors insist that we have to do the most absurd things, based on a fundamentalist, extremist reading of policies. Quotations must not be changed? OK, so we absolutely must retain ligatures etc. Verifiability, not truth? OK, then we absolutely must repeat any nonsense that a source may write about Wikipedia as if it was the truth, even if our logs prove it's wrong. Wikipedia is not a dictionary? OK, then Wikipedia absolutely must not have any articles about words, not even for those for which it makes sense. No original research? OK, then we must write everything that a "reliable" source writes, even if it's only in passing and obviously sloppy and incorrect. Ignore all rules? OK, then let's just ignore this one silly policy, so that we don't have to use common sense when applying the others. Hans Adler 22:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, the people who put the time and effort into getting this article up to FA standard decided to put the long s in an old quotation. The article got through a rigorous FA process and then thousands of people read it without comment, but a couple of people aren't happy with it and feel it must be changed to suit their personal taste. I would say that the consensus is to leave it as it is. Richerman (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what it's a good example of Hans: pedantry gone mad. Yes, let's address the issues you mention, but for God's sake, to make a poster child of the use of a long "s" in one quotebox in this article is bordering on the obsessive. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, to argue against a practice so universally acknowledged strikes me as bordering on the obsessive.--Rsl12 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing against it; I have said quite clearly that I couldn't give a damn. The point you and Hans are repeatedly missing though is that this long "s" appears only in one quotebox, and I'm inclined to agree that there it may perhaps lend a certain period charm. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, those who haven't may learn something, surely the point of an encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye lad, and if we rewrote t'article using phrases like "a feller could twat his missus and flog her to another bloke if he were sick of her mithering" people would learn something ... or maybe give up.  pablo hablo. 19:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the article? You might find that helpful. For instance, it contains this quotation, not in a quotebox: "'e [the husband] turned shy, and tried to get out of the business, but Mattie mad' un stick to it. 'Er flipt her apern in 'er gude man's face, and said, 'Let be yer rogue. I wull be sold. I wants a change'." Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not in a quotebox, but it is a quotation. And her husband didn't turn ſhy about the busineſs (and good for him). I see your point but there's a difference between altering spellings of quoted material and a half-arſed attempt to ape the typography.  pablo hablo. 20:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In truth Pablo, as I said earlier, I couldn't care less, but PoD does, so I don't really see the problem here. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes: long s should be modernised - see this discussion for my explanation. BTW, this article's talkpgae isn't really the place to discuss stylistic issues that potentially affect hundreds of articles.  The talkpage I linked to is the place to hold such discussions, since this is a MoS issue.  Thanks  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's modernize the long s
Personally, I found the long s a little confusing. I carefully read the arguments for and against changing and I found the no-change group a bit stubborn for no rational reason. To me it seems like WP:OWNERSHIP. Also WP:MOS says we may change the long s :

"Disused glyphs and ligatures in old texts may be modified according to modern practice."

- WP Manual of Style

I counted the number of users for and against modernizing the long s. Below are the results:

Change to modern s:
 * 1) Fut Perf
 * 2) Peter Isolato
 * 3) Rsl12
 * 4) Hans Adler
 * 5) Pablo X
 * 6) GlooscapSinclair (me)

Maintain long s:
 * 1) Parrot of Doom
 * 2) Fred the Oyster
 * 3) Colonel Warden
 * 4) Richerman
 * 5) Malleaus Fatuorum (sometimes neutral)

This means there are more people in favor of using the modern s rather than the long s, especially when you consider Malleaus Fatuorum is sometimes neutral on the issue. I'm going to make the change but I'm going to need the help of the other users who support the change because I'm sure the no-change group is going to revert me. GlooscapSinclair (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly there's been a lot of fuss here about nothing. Does it matter either way? No, the quotes are perfectly legible with long s, but modernising them is a little more user friendly. Neither side is particularly strong. In balance though it is is not compulsory to change the long s, I think think they should be because it's common practise in academic circles and it will (albeit very slightly) help the reader. Finally, GlooscapSinclair the last sentence of your post appears combative and indicates that you are prepared to edit war. Whether you are in the "right" or not, such an attitude is not acceptable, especially when you consider how unimportant this issue really is. And if you canvass support as you did with these edits     you risk being blocked. Nev1 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'm still somewhat new to WP. I didn't know canvassing support was against WP policy. I'll remove the links I placed on the users' talk pages I posted earlier. GlooscapSinclair (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The problem isn't with letting people know, it's with letting only one side know. You posted to those who supported the change, but not to the others. The reason the policy exists is to prevent people gathering support from sympathetic people to create what appears to be agreement and to drown out the opposition. Nev1 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll keep that in mind for the future. The links are gone. GlooscapSinclair (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You should also be aware of wp:wikipedia is not a democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion Richerman (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote-counting is probably the only thing keeping long s in the article. Our own guidelines recommend against it, most readers would likely to be confounded or bothered by it, and academics avoid it. So far, the most convincing reasoning seems to be about a diffuse literary "period charm", something most people would not expect from an encyclopedia, commercial or user-generated.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do the guidelines recommend any such thing? They say it may be replaced, not that it should.  If you're going to give a lecture on reasoning, you could at least take care to get your own case in order. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidelines don't talk specifically about long s, so they have to be a bit more careful. Also, in situations where an author uses typographical conventions idiosyncratically, e.g. anachronistically, it may be better to preserve that. Even so, if the passage in question was talking specifically about long s, it would no doubt recommend replacing it when there are no special circumstances. There are no such special circumstances in this case. It's just your whim to do things differently from everybody else. Hans Adler 13:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hans. This is obviously based on the whims of a few tenacious editors most of whom are primary contributors. The cherry picking seems only to confirm it.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And now your arguments descend into plain insults. Why did I expect more? Parrot of Doom 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can easily prove that your position is reasonable. Just give us one modern edition of an old text that is not a facsimile and preserves the long s. From a mainstream publisher, preferably. Hans Adler 15:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, first I'm insulted, then I'm asked to jump through hoops. No, I'll not be doing anything for people like you. Parrot of Doom 15:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a good prima facie case that you are being unreasonable. I have shown you a way to prove that you are not. If you are unwilling to do that, it's your loss. Hans Adler 15:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, I'm "totally clueless", lack common sense, am guilty of making an article "inconsistent", am a "fundamentalist", "idiosyncratic", "eccentric", "clueless", whimsical, and now I'm unreasonable as well, for not jumping to your command while you ignore many of the points I've raised. Congratulations, you've just been added to my list of "Wikipedia editors who can't debate points without issuing insults", and are therefore not worth bothering with. Parrot of Doom 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, there are special circumstances in this case &mdash; that the article has been widely considered to be an April fool. Accurate sourcing is therefore especially appropriate.  Secondly, when considered as a matter of style, it is our general principle that, where there is no firm guideline, the style of the original editor is preferred so that we respect his choice and do not waste time and energy edit-warring over a matter of taste.  And thirdly, the RfC has only been open for a few days and 30 days is normally allowed for this.  The attempt of GlooscapSinclair to close the matter so soon was therefore premature.  As opinions are still evenly divided, we should allow more time to see if a consensus emerges. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

.
 * That's not special circumstances. That's a reason to do things correctly, not a reason to be eccentric. And modernising the long s is not a matter of taste, it's what everybody does, except the most clueless and the most eccentric. If you really don't believe me, look at the title page of the first edition of Robinson Crusoe. Of course it uses long s. Have you ever seen an edition of Robinson Crusoe with long s? I haven't. Nobody does that. Just like nobody reproduces the original line and page breaks or the old custom of having the first word of the following page at the bottom of each page. Hans Adler 15:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Describing this a matter of style distorts the issue, and so does the invocation of the feature date. That the article received a bunch of attention in outside media and was perceived as an April Fools' joke is very nice, but it doesn't amount to a virtual beatification of minor oddities in the article, whether they are intentional or not. Valid, coherent complaints raised outside of an FAC are still relevant and the content of the article is still subject to the same principles as any other promoted article. Most impotantly, though, Wikipedia is not the place to promote editorial idiosyncrasies. Peter Isotalo 22:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You, PoD, of all people should not be complaining about insults. Here's a little jewel I found on your talk page.


 * I don't bother reporting people for incivility (and I've had some pretty strong stuff thrown my way), its called having a thick skin and a bit of life experience.

I've also noticed how you and your buddy user:Fred the Oyster (who was just blocked) think nothing of insulting other editors. Also, you complained rather quickly for someone with such a "thick skin" because I don't see how either Peter or Hans insulted you. GlooscapSinclair (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you probably understand little or nothing of Fred's situation and the reasoning behind his block, and secondly the comment you quoted was in regard to my attitude on the reporting of incivility, and not about my complaints to other editors when they engage in hypocrisy. I'd suggest, therefore, that "I don't see how" is the only part of your post which is accurate. Parrot of Doom 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that Parrot of Doom, Richerman, Nev1 and Malleus are all very active on the Talk:Greater_Manchester page. Are you all from Manchester?--Rsl12 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am, and what of it?
 * Anyway, why the fuck is there an edit war going on? This is a very trivial issue, have you lot nothing better to do? Nev1 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I looked a bit more closely in the MOS, and it turns out it says a bit more than we have heard before. Somewhat counterintuitively it is under WP:&:

I think that's pretty clear: Even the ampersand "should be" replaced with the word and where it wouldn't be used in a modern text. This is explained with reference to "disused glyphs and ligatures", which, so the obvious unstated assumption, will of course also be replaced with the obvious equivalent in Wikipedia, just like any modern edition of an old text does.

In other words, replacing long s by normal s is so bleedingly obvious that it simply goes without saying.

That's the problem here: Editors find something outrageously eccentric to do (like using long s or spelling all common names backwards), and then of course there is no explicit rule against it. So they can claim it's a content conflict. As I said initially, that kind of thing asks for a WP:COMPETENCE block. Hans Adler 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't think this edit war has much to do with the long s. This is a control issue for Parrot of Doom. He helped create this article (which is actually pretty good) but he can't stand to see any changes made to his precious creation. However, when somebody does, he stubbornly argues for his version and is sometimes rude to the editor who made the change. He's got to learn Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that he needs to be polite to other users. BarkingPumpkin1981 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion, or are you just going to needlessly stir shit up again? Nev1 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't bother Nev, he's either a sockpuppet, or a new user without a clue what he's talking about. Either way, he's another example of an editor who thinks he can abuse others, while preaching about civility, and I shall therefore be ignoring him. Parrot of Doom 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)