Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wife selling/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010.

Wife selling (English custom)

 * Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no hoax. For about 200 years it was popularly believed in England that publicly auctioning your wife was a legitimate alternative to divorce. Hopefully this little historical backwater will be of interest to some. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Post-promotion note, the article was changed from Wife selling to Wife selling (English custom) on February 21, 2011; I've corrected the link above. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments This made Did you know about a week ago. Good to see it here this soon; just make sure the technicals are tidy. --an odd name 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Two dab links; no dead non-subscription external links.
 * Alt text looks good, and it made me read about architrave. Shows how much I know.
 * Ref dates mix Day Month Year and ISO style; use one for consistency. Couldn't find any prose dates.


 * Thanks. I think I've got all the dates and fixed the two dablinks. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No dab links. Ref dates are all Day Month Year now. --an odd name 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments: I'll sign off on CPI being the correct measure here for the worth of money over time, even though a £100 wife seems more like a luxury good than part of the unskilled consumer bundle :). The low sums indicate that wives were clearly being treated as consumption goods, and their productive qualities assumed (or at least treated as standard or defrayment of operating costs). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review: after some corrections and tidying up, images are verifiably in the public domain (although the status of File:Contemporary wife selling print georgian scrapbook 1949.jpg is dependent on the claims of a Master's thesis). Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose for inciting my wife to knock my head for "Don't get any ideas!" while reading this article. Support for writing this fine article that highlights the status of women in ole English society and the early evolution of their rights.  Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Missing refs Finlay 2005, p. 15 &bull; Ling.Nut 04:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorted Parrot of Doom 09:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support excellent article. Oh, the good old days {:  15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)


 * Comments -
 * Newspapers and magazines in your references need to be italicised.
 * Current ref 53 lacks a publisher
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All fixed Parrot of Doom 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a tweak; William Murray was commonly known simply as "Lord Mansfield"; you might want to change that. Other than that, consider this a support. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find where the article says this, so maybe Parrot of Doom's already sorted it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, that's the point. See the image tag "William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield viewed wife selling as conspiracy to commit adultery." and the paragraph next to it "Lord Chief Justice William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield...". It is normally just "Lord Mansfield". Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment : An engaging read in which I found a few relatively minor issues for consideration:-
 * The lead contains the statement "I do not think I have a right to prevent it". This is part of a statement which is cited in the main text and therefore does not need to be cited in the lead. Likewise, the statement about cases of local Poor Law Commissioners forcing husbands to sell their wives rather than having to maintain the family in workhouses is cited both in the lead and the text, as is the story that in 1913 a woman claimed that she had been sold to one of her husband's workmates for £1.
 * True, but I went with the principle that extraordinary claims need extraordinary citations. I'm quite happy to remove them if it's a blocker for you. My understanding though is that quotations have to be attributed immediately after their appearance. Happy to to be proven wrong though. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right about quotations being cited on appearance. What I would do is put an uncited paraphrase in the lead and put the quote, cited, into the text. That avoids have double citations for the same information. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, there are now no citations or quotations in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the "James Bryce" quoted is Lord Bryce, the English jurist, he should be linked.
 * He is linked. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "the wife's consent was a necessary condition for the sale" is a slightly odd statement, bearing in mind that the sales were not recognised in law. Perhaps it should be preceded by "by common agreement..."
 * I don't see the issue here. The wife wasn't dragged unwillingly to the sale, and several of the accounts make it clear that if she onjected to her purchaser then the sale didn't go ahead. Whether that was "legal" or not seems irrelevant, as the law itself was at that time eqiovocal. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is that "necessary condition" is a legal, or at least legalistic, phrase, and its use implies the existence of rules governing wife selling procedure. These "rules" were by common agreement, not law. This should be clarified, hence my suggestion above.
 * OK. I've changed it to the simpler "the wife had to agree to the sale". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Of the 158 cases in which occupation can be established, the largest group (19) were involved in the livestock or transport trades, 14 worked in the building trade, 5 were blacksmiths, 4 were chimney-sweeps, and 2 were described as gentlemen..." That accounts for 44 out of 158. It is hard to imagine what the remaining 114 different occupations might have been - just curious.
 * Do you intend to respond? Can you think of 114 different occupations each so different from one another that none can be classified as a group? Perhaps the quoted figures are incorrect? Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've checked, and the figures are exactly as Thompson gives them. He's only analysed certain occupations into groups; the remainder, such as pauper (2), pensioner (2), gingerbread hawker (1), woodward (1), returned from transportation (2), etc., aren't categorised. The point he's making is that it wasn't just a rural peasant custom. Even gentlemen and at least one Duke bought a wife. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this section confusing: "The lengths to which some of those involved in such sales would go to legalise the trade is demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum.[nb 3] It is contained in a petition in 1768, to a Justice of the Peace in Somerset, presented by a wife who about 18 months previously had been sold by her husband for £6 6s "for the support of his extravagancy". The petition does not object to the sale; rather that her husband returned three months later, and demanded more money from his wife and her new "husband"."
 * First, the wording "The lengths to which some of those involved in such sales would go" sounds POVish rather than neutral
 * I'm not sure how you can infer a POV here. The phrasing implies that people sought to make the ritual and sale as legal as possible, which was the case. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, your wording implies that the steps people would go to to legalise the trade were extraordinary. That's the POV. Otherwise you would simply say "Those involved in such sales took steps to legalise the trade, as demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum" or similar neutral wording. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Those involved in such sales sometimes attempted to legalise the transaction, as demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondly, what does "it" refer to in "It is contained..."
 * "is demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum.[nb 3] It is contained in a petition" - perfectly clear to me that "It" refers to the bill. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The last object mentioned before "it" is the British Museum, so "it" should be replaced by "The bill..."
 * Nobody will assume that the British Museum could ever be found inside a petition. Parrot of Doom 18:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to "The bill is contained in a petition ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, I can't see that what follows indicates "the lengths to which some would go..." etc
 * Drawing up a bill of sale, akin to a legal document, is a pretty clear indicator that the ritual was seen by many as perfectly legitimate, and not merely an archaic ceremony for a bit of fun. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, reads OK if the "lengths" phrase is removed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this is dealt with now, as above. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I look forward to supporting if these points can be ironed out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the responses and am pleased to support the article now. Hope to see it as TFA someday soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you even begin to imagine the mayhem? Thanks Brian. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I intend to nominate it at the earliest appropriate opportunity. Brianboulton (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "all but the very wealthiest" Is "very wealthiest" idiomatic (not a rhetorical question)? Seems to me that "wealthiest" gets the point across without the intensifier. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to get across is that divorce was really only an option for the super-rich, the wealthiest of the wealthy. I think "very wealthiest" is OK, but I'm not wedded to it if others object. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave it be; I'm not too bothered. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, a minor inconsistency: "paid 7s. 6d." (dots are there), but "She was sold for 2s 6d" (no dots). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been such a long time since we used £sd that I had to check whether or not it was usually written with dots, but it seems that it was, so I've added them where they were missing. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.