Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Laws


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Still seem to be a hoax, but it is the Laws not the article that's the hoax.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laws

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a hoax Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks possible on first inspection - on the first page of gnews hits is this link Cornell University : Blue Laws of the old States which refers to original colonial laws as 'Blue Laws' and refers to a 'Governor Eaton' in 1655. Now the text (which seems to be a review of one of the references for the subject article - casts some doubt on the details, but does not debunk them either. MadScot (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Essentially a content dispute that needs further work to get information and show the status. probably a notable hoax. Some secondary literature is needed. DGG (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, with rewrite to indicate they are not an accurate statement of actual laws WP:V is a basic hurdle for such an article to pass. We have a modern ref, cited by the nominator, which says these are a hoax, created by a Rev. Peters in 1781, and the article cites old print refs which are not readily available. This creates the need for someone with access to a good research library to determine if these old print references  say what is claimed, and for the community to see if there are other reliable sources which evaluate whether the old print references are reliable and accurate. Wikipedia has seen seemingly well documented hoaxes before, such as the nonexistent "Upper Peninsula War," and numerous hoax towns, generals, battles and laws. The Eaton book of 1656 and its 1858 reprint are in a few libraries, per Google Book Search, but is not available online. Someone could check it. The Andrus book is available for limited search via Google Book search and does not contain several particular ones of the laws quoted that I searched. The Connecticut Code of 1650 is discussed in De Toqueville, Democracy in America(1835), page 41,, where he described peculiar laws based on holy writ, lending some credence. A key reliable source is "The American Catholic Quarterly Review" (1877) which analyzes the Peters version of the blue laws in detail and says that many of them cannot be substantiated based on the historical record, but that many Connecticut records form the 1640's and 1650's are suspiciously missing, as if cleansed. Some of Peters' claims did appear to be in accord with the actual practice of the 1650's. All in all, there is SOMETHING notable here, even if it is a "controversy." Connecticut had some theocratic blue laws in the 1600's which were extreme in their requirements of adherence to the religious beliefs of the majority, and Peters may have exaggerated or fabricated some examples, and likely never even saw a printed list of the laws he reports. But the Catholic Quarterly Review says "it is hardly possible to call Peters's Blue Laws forgeries, for too many of them have a real basis" (p494) but "Peters cannot be cited at all as authority; that many of his clauses are palpable invention"(p 496). Editing needed by someone with a taste for this sort of thing. Edison (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to blue law ; if kept, this needs to be renamed to something else, like Blue laws (Conn.) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a content issue.  Richard Pinch (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolute keep Content issue, and the Connecticut laws are their own distinct little nasty creature (trust me--ex CT guy here). rootology ( C )( T ) 14:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.