Talk:Wife selling (English custom)

What The "ſ": An Attempt to Reaſſeſs the ſucceſſleſſneſs of our Conſenſus

For the sake of clarity, I'd like to summarize the arguments for and against.

Arguments for modernizing long s in quotations (Fut. Perf., Rsl12, Peter Isotalo, Hans Adler, Pablo X, Goosclap Sinclair, Nev1):

• Wikipedia's Manual of Style implies that disused glyphs like "ſ" should be modernized where the glyph wouldn't be used in a modern text.
• almost universal modern practice to modernize in texts geared towards both academic and general audiences
• Style guides 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.) --see below.
• Readability suffers.
• Inconsistency within the article. One quote box has long s, the other renders an even older text without long s because it's based on a modern edition.
• It's a slippery slope -- next thing we know we will be discussing use of black letter, ligatures, illuminated initials, length of dashes, background colour, position of line breaks and whether we must write "sil-ly" because there was a line break in the source.

Arguments against modernizing long s in quotations (Parrot of Doom, Colonel Warden, Richerman, Malleus Fatuorum):

• Adds to charm
• People who read Wikipedia are smart enough to understand the long "s", and those that don't know what the long "s" is may learn something by seeing it.
• By quoting things exactly as they appear, there can be no room for confusion.
• It's a slippery slope -- after modernizing the s, people might want to change spelling and capitalization as well.
• The article got through the "Featured Article" process without attracting any comments about the long "s"

Dismissed Issues

• Editorial consistency suffers (it was noted that the requirement for consistency does not apply to quoteboxes) (This was noted but it makes no sense. Hans Adler 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC))
• Wikipedia's guidelines don't say that you MUST modernize the long s, only that you MAY. (Explanation in ampersand section of MOS suggests the word "may" was used to express the existence of contingencies, rather than merely permission to change as desired.)
• If the modernized s is to be used, a source should be found where the "s"es have been modified. (A source was found and cited.)
• No one has complained about the long "s" being illegible. (At least a couple of editors (Moby-Dick3000, GooscapSinclair) have expressed their opinion that the long "s" is confusing.)
• Exact quoting is especially appropriate for this article since it was the featured article on April Fool's (It was noted this this was a reason to do things correctly, not a reason to be eccentric.)

If this list is in error (particularly, if I've misplaced items into the "Dismissed Issues" bin), please correct.--Rsl12 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For good measure, a British style guide: http://www.mhra.org.uk/Publications/Books/StyleGuide/StyleGuideV2_3.pdf --Rsl12 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

re: "Arguments against modernising"

1. charm is subjective
2. there is no way of knowing how 'smart' (and more importantly, how aware of archaic typography) our readers are
3. this is not quoting things "as they appear". A scan of the relevant article would do that. Using html and a web browser all that appears is a faked attempt to display text as it once appeared when printed in ink on paper. However the computer used to view the article, the browser, the system fonts and the personal preferences of the reader will alter the way that the reader sees it
4.  non sequitur
5. and? Featured Articles are not necessarily perfect and should not be thought to be inviolable.

  pablo_hablo. 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as this discussion is being kept open, the article should be kept in the state it was before it started. As such, even though I am weakly against the use of the long s, I have reverted Glooscap Sinclair and Hans Adler. If the edit war continues, the article will again be protected. While I'm here, can we strike the slippery slope arguments? They just sound silly; let's focus on the issue at hand rather than scaremonger about what could happen if we change one article. Nev1 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The true issue has nothing to do with the long s. It's wp:civility and wp:ownership. Both of which PoD and his supporters are having trouble with. You, as a former admin, should be able to see this. BarkingPumpkin1981 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think BarkingPumpkin you should think carefully before you continue to make such accusations. If you really place faith in the veracity of your argument, then I suggest you take the issue further, perhaps to WP:ANI. Otherwise, I'd shut up before someone who cares more than I do about your opinion takes notice. I have my opinion on this issue, it hasn't changed, and engaging in personal attacks along with the others here will do nothing to further your argument. Parrot of Doom 22:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My interest is in this article. If people want to make prats of themselves by entrenching themselves so firmly in their position over something so trivial, that's their prerogative. When it spills over into a pointless edit war, that is unacceptable. That's what I see. You on the other hand have had little to contribute to this discussion, obfuscating the long s issue by insisting this is all about civility and ownership. If that is going to be the limit of you're contribution, I ask you to find something better to do while the rest of us discuss the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe my comments sum up the situation nicely. The fact that you don't agree, Nev1, doesn't detract from their validity. I shall continue to comment here as I see fit even if it irritates you. BarkingPumpkin1981 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the slippery slope arguments being silly. Hopefully no one objects to me deleting them.

What I'm tempted to do, however, is move this issue to the MOS talk page. So far, no one has pointed out any particular traits of this quotation or this topic that would make them candidates for special treatment. Leaving aside the editorial consistency argument, everyone seems to be arguing the bigger question of, "should the long "s" be modernized in general"? Any objections to moving the conversation? (For that matter, does anyone know how such a move would be performed?) --Rsl12 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object to moving (or copying) this conversation. WT:MOS is already rather crowded. I have just started a new discussion there, giving a minimum of information from my POV.

And I don't think that my slippery slope argument is silly. Wikipedia's rules tend to get stricter and stricter all the time. If we now allow long s, and one of the arguments for it is that it's somehow more precise in a quotation, then we can easily get an entire group of people who advocate that we must always copy this obsolete glyph when it appears in a source, causing massive disruption. Hans Adler 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is silly as what we are doing here is trying to resolve the situation for an individual article, not the whole of Wikipedia. If anyone tried to use this situation as a precedent either way, it would just lead to restarting the debate. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing else we agree on, I'm hoping everyone agrees that the MOS says, 100% unambiguously, that:

• Spelling and capitalization should not be changed when quoting; and
• Hyphens, typefaces, and dash lengths in quotations should be modified as appropriate.

And while I think the MOS is clear on the issue of long "s", I'd even go so far as to say that the MOS could be clearer on the issue. The word "may" was an unfortunate choice--it leaves things potentially ambiguous. If the MOS had followed the wording of any of the style guides I quoted above, it would have been much better.--Rsl12 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also: I agree that moving the conversation wholecloth would be too much. Hans Adler's new thread on the MOS talk is along the lines of what I was thinking. --Rsl12 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have lost interest in this discussion as it's not getting anywhere, however, before I abandon it completely I would like to say a word or two about the accusations made by Barking Pumpkin. I am one of PoD's "supporters" but if you could point to any of my comments that breach WP:civility I would be very interested to see them. Secondly, as I haven't made any contributions to this article I can hardly be guilty of wp:ownership. The first time saw the article was the day before it appeared on the main page, and at that time I found a couple of references for it which I posted above - but I don't think any of them were actually used. The only reason I got involved with the discussion about the long s was that, as a member of the Greater Manchester wikiproject, I have worked with PoD and Malleus on a number of articles and I have great respect for their abilities. What really annoys me is when someone puts weeks of hard work into an article, taking it from creation to FA, and then someone else comes along and starts telling them what they don't like about it and making silly little style changes just because they can. The funny thing is that these people - who have probably never even created an article, let alone been through the trauma of getting one up to FA standard - then start shouting about "ownership". Well, I can assure you that, if you ever try taking an article through the FA process, you will certainly want to protect your hard work from being changed just to suit somebody else's taste. Richerman (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can find any eccentricities of a magnitude similar to gratuitous preservation of long s, you are welcome to remove them from pigeon photographer – before I take it to FAC or afterwards, it simply doesn't matter. Some things are simply wrong and need to be fixed when they are noticed by someone who knows they are wrong. In this case the issue was noticed and brought up here by Fut. Perf., a professional linguist. The fact that you have (presumably) never seen any modern edition of a text that uses long s, in spite of the fact that plenty of authors who are still immensely popular were originally printed with long s, should really tell you that something went wrong here.

The best way to keep one's face after making a blunder is to simply accept the fact, learn and move on. Pretending it was right only makes everything worse. And it gets even worse if you have "friends" who support you uncritically and don't understand what they are doing. Hans Adler 23:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I've "made a blunder" thanks very much and I really don't think that the long s got in there by mistake - it was a deliberate decision made by the person who added the quote. It's merely a matter of style, and if something had "gone wrong" as you put it, I'm sure it would have been picked up in the FA review. I certainly don't support anyone uncritically and I can assure you that PoD, Malleus and myself have often made changes to each others work. Anyway, we will just have to agree to disagree because, as I said, I've lost interest in this discussion so this is my last word on the matter. Richerman (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed Hans. "Eccentric" isn't the same as "wrong", and the opinion of a "professional linguist" is irrelevant when discussing whether or not the long s is consistent with our manual of style. I really couldn't care less either way, but I am very seriously beginning to wonder what the real agenda is behind this incessant nonsense. Get the MoS changed, and the article will have to be changed to meet the FA criteria. It's as simple as that. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The flawed logic is on your side. The MOS doesn't have to state that we don't ape old sources by using long s any more than it has to state that we don't spell all politicians' names backwards and don't make all numbers bold. I can understand that the first of these ideas has a certain appeal (definitely more than the other two), but the fact that nobody else does it even though there would be plenty of chances to do so is reason enough for us not to do it either. Using long s in the 21st century is so eccentric that it isn't a matter of style but, in the context of a collaborative encyclopedia, just plain wrong. The only reason we still have to discuss this here is a well known cognitive bias. The editors who brought this article through FA apparently missed the fact that long s is perfectly normal for 18th century sources but never seen in modern edition, and that this indicates that normalization is a standard procedure that needs to be applied. That can easily happen and is no reason to be ashamed. But at some point you need to stop the irrational escalation. Hans Adler 02:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans, you have an opinion, but don't deceive yourself into believing that you're "right". And, if you can, please stop personalising this discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree--no one here has disputed the fact that the practice of modernizing the long s is nearly universal for texts addressed to the general public and for academic publications. Universal not merely through custom, but formally recognized by every single style guide I found that addressed the issue outright. Given that fact, I feel the burden of proving that this article warrants a special exception should have been on the side arguing against what was mainstream. But never mind, we'll get this fixed and move on. It seems like such a waste of time when the ultimate end is so obvious. --Rsl12 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This discussion should be taking place at WT:MOS because it concerns a stylistic issue that could affect hundreds of articles. There is now a section at that talkpage devoted to it. See also my vote in the above RfC, though. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Everson's view

I was asked by someone to comment, since I like Unicode characters a lot, and have indeed added various long esses to the standard. My view is that long esses should be used where relevant to the content only, and it is hard to think of many instances in which it is relevant. Should the citation of the preamble to the US Declaration of Independence have the long s? It's in the original. No? I for one think No. Then the long s should not be used generally in citations in Wikipedia articles. It doesn't add information and interferes with reading even when people say it does not. I pronounce Congreſs as [ˈkɔŋɡɹɛfs] even though I know better. This probably does belong at MOS. -- Evertype·✆ 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

English Standardisation

See WP:ENGVAR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article doesnt seem to be in American English. It needs changing to meet the standard wikipedia and international standard of American English. Otherwise its confusing for foreign readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.50.16 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is international and does not standardise on American English, especially not for non-American historical usage -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Why should an article on a British topic be written in American English (see WP:ENGVAR)? Americans are not the only people who use Wikipedia. The differences between the two are not that great, I'm sure you'll get over the confusion. Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC) It should be written in american english, as this has become the international standard and is what most of the world understands. The reason its the international standrard is because hollywood movies are shown through out the world. Whereas not many people understand british english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.50.16 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC) But where does that leave me? I'm British and I don't understand a single word of American English. Rothorpe (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC) We need to try and find a translator, as I can't understand a word of what 124.176.50.16 is saying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Well, if you think Americans are justified in dictating English to the country that invented the language and gave Shakespeare to the world, and where people know how to spell and use punctuation and capitalization, feel free to start a discussion to overturn the Wikipedia style standards at Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English. Best of luck :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't waste too much time on this berk troll. This is the person insisting that the article be deleted now that April Fool's Day is now over. PS shouldn't it be "capitalisation"? :p Brits use the s. Yanks use the zee. I still think that is due to a typo when someone, somewhere hit "e" instead of "d" --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS shouldn't it be "capitalisation"? - I was being considerately international ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Fair enough as he/she/it was decent enough to use the UK variant of standardisation. What he, she or it doesn't understand is that American English (a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one) is as a result of semi-literate people incorrectly spelling the usual English words. Hardly a reason for the world to use American English as standard. Incidentally, British English is the International standard, after all the world has only known there was a US for about 250 years.Their idea of historical is something older than 30 years. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Oh, I don't really agree with that. The English language is a living and growing thing which develops in different ways in different parts of the world. British English, American English, Indian English, SE Asian English, Australian English, and all the rest are equally valid in my view - I just strongly object when someone claims that their own version is the only correct one. -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Ordinarily I would agree, but in any variant of English "English" means pertaining to England and as you say, languages are ever evolving, so at which point does it cease to be English? Incidentally, historically speaking, American English did come about by semi-literate people starting to have to convert speech into writing, as such they did it phonetically. This is of course how a lot of English words came about. Though I'm still not sure how tyre became tire but remains the same as tire (exhausted), or how pavement became sidewalk and road became pavement. I just put that down to whacky-baccy ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I'm still not sure how [...] pavement became sidewalk - Too tired to look for a reference now, but I have heard that "sidewalk" was original and that "pavement" came from French sometime later. Not sure if that's true, but many American words are apparently closer to earlier English than are current British ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC) True. "Gotten" is a good example of that. Not uncommon in England once, but you'd look twice at anyone who said that today. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, that is a good example. I'm British, but I like "gotten", as it seems more regular and in keeping with "forgotten", "begotten", etc -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC) This user is a rather pathetic troll. Just look at his contributions. I suggest we do what should be done to all trolls; let him flounder in his boredom. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Ive started a discussion on the english styles page regarding standardisation of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.50.16 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I hate to ignore my own advice but you haven't made a good start, considering your spelling of "standardisation". Parrot of Doom 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC) What I really find funny is that this pillock's I{ geolocates to Australia :)--Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Hmm, sorry, but we have to deduct marks for the following: "Ive" should be "I've" (It's a contraction of "I have") "english" should be "English" (It's a proper noun) "wikipedia" should be "Wikipedia" (Another proper noun) Still, only 3 errors in a 13-word sentence - probably not too bad for the kind of American person who thinks they can teach the world English :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC) This debate needs to stop right here. Wikipedians have been through this debate a gazillion times before - and some very strong rules have emerged from that. The rules have stood the test of time and are very unlikely to change in the future. Articles predominantly about one particular part of the English-speaking world are written in that dialect. Articles that are not predominantly local to one region are continued in the dialect that the article was first written (or greatly expanded) in. Try to use region-independent language where you can. That's the rule - and it means that British English is required for this article and Australians, Americans, South Africans and others have to try to adapt - or at least not complain when British English speakers "fix" their spelling, word use and grammar to match common British English conventions. If you don't like those rules and wish to contest them...Well, good luck with that! You are the gazillion-and-one'th person to attempt it! Please take your arguments to the discussion page for our manual of style - but only after you've read: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. SteveBaker (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Totally agree with the chap above. Besides who really cares if the article is in American English or 'British' English (whatever that is) anyway Cls14 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC) "'British' English (whatever that is) anyway" - shame on thee! Parrot of Doom 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC) He does have a point though, because British English is actually just English. Everything else is the derivative hence the need for the qualifier. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC) That's a very good point. From now on I will only refer to British English as English. That should confuse a few :) Parrot of Doom 22:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC) It appears that the original poster is a troll, but I would like to comment on this: "Fair enough as he/she/it was decent enough to use the UK variant of standardisation. What he, she or it doesn't understand is that American English (a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one) is as a result of semi-literate people incorrectly spelling the usual English words." — I find this comment a little bit ironic. I use the 's' spelling, but arguably this is the "semi-literate" form because the 'z' spelling is the original and etymologically correct spelling that was previously used in Britain. Although the 's' is now the most common and perfectly acceptable British spelling, the Oxford English Dictionary actually advocates using the 'z' spelling—when it is etymologically correct—over the 's' spelling. The thing is, Americans apply the 'z' to words it should not be applied to, as well. Therefore, perhaps both varieties are "wrong". Languages change, and therefore arguing over which variety of English is more correct than the other is ridiculous; if you want to speak English properly, speak Anglo-Saxon. – Hayden120 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the only words that must have -ize in British English are the monosyllables prize (as opposed to prise), size and seize. [1] Rothorpe (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC) For en-GB, yes. Not for en-GB-oed, though. For example, en-GB-oed says 'globalization'. Contrary to popular belief, this is the original spelling. The Americans did not invent it. Hayden120 (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I changed it to the new European Union English standard. However the cluebot keeps reverting my change. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC) There's always one in every class... who doesn't know top from bottom, or German from English. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC) So, how do we propose standardisation as per the new EU standard for English? I got sent an email outlining the guide, and the changes that will take place in the next few years.124.176.26.4 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC) We don't. Now disappear back under your bridge, there's a good troll. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I say we translate the entire article into Cockney slang and let everyone fend for themselves. --WPaulB (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC) This is something bigger than this talk page discussion. It's about a British subject-- British English rules. Though, gov'nor, Cockney might be a'right. Ich bin kein East ender Dlohcierekim 20:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminder of discussion at WT:MOS

Since this article's protection will soon expire, let me remind everybody that there is a discussion on the use of long s at WT:MOS#Long s in quotations from primary sources. There is currently a clear consensus that long s should not be used in the absence of very particular reasons that are not present in this case. (The remaining question is only whether MOS should mention this universal practice or remain quiet about it.) I hope that anyone who does not like this will take part in the discussion on the MOS talk page and push for a change there, rather than here. Hans Adler 12:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:FORUMSHOP and forum shopping. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest that you think about whether your quick response made sense. If you then wish to withdraw it, you may remove mine as well. Hans Adler 13:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• It seems like a perfectly reasonable reminder to me Colonel; the way forwards is clearly for the MoS to offer guidance on the matter, as this is an FA and it must therefore conform to the MoS. The discussion is clearly wider than just this one article, and nobody wants to see the silly edit warring over the long s resume here. I certainly don't anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• WT:MOS is the logical place for this discussion to take place, accusations of forum-shopping are ridiculous.   pablo_hablo. 14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1753 marriage law

The following from the current article:

Until the passing of the Marriage Act of 1753, a formal ceremony of marriage before a clergyman was not a legal requirement in England, and marriages were unregistered. All that was required was for both parties to agree to the union, so long as each had reached the legal age of consent,[8] which was 12 for girls and 14 for boys

contradicts the article on the 1753 Clandestine Marriages Act

The common but mistaken assumption that a simple exchange of consent would suffice is based on later, erroneous readings of ecclesiastical case law: such an exchange created a binding contract to marry rather than a legal marriage.[4]

I'm a complete laymen though so I don't feel comfortable changing either article, although the current article does use an Edwardian source. 83.244.230.115 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. it isn't just Bryce (the "Edwardian source") who says that an exchange of consent was all that was required, many others do as well. Here's a paper from the spring 1999 edition of Law and History Review, for instance, saying exactly the same thing:

The only thing necessary for a legal marriage was the free consent of both parties, as long as they were of age (twelve for girls, fourteen for boys), were not within the forbidden degrees of kinship, and were free of any other marriage. Neither the consent of parents nor the presence of witnesses were required. A marriage could be established by verba de praesenti, that is, the statement of consent by both parties, or by verba de futuro, a promise of marriage in the future, followed by sexual intercourse. Because such things happened in private, various types of evidence came to be accepted in disputed marriage cases, such as letters in which the man wrote, or referred, to the woman as his wife, "habit and repute" (that is, the couple cohabited and were considered by their neighbors and relations to be husband and wife), and so forth.

If you read Probert's paper (cited in the Marriage Act of 1753 article) that an exchange of consent was insufficient for a marriage then I think you'll see that it's not really saying anything different from what's quoted above, and is not quite stated as strongly as it is in the Marriage Act. There was quite simply a practical legal difficulty in proving that an exchange of consent, if it happened in private, had ever happened at all. The issue isn't that it wasn't sufficient to establish a marriage, but that it might become necessary one day to prove that the exchange of consent had taken place, perhaps in the case of a separation, or death of one of the partners. By and large though, in a time when most had no property to leave to their descendants anyway, it probably didn't make much difference to the majority of people. So, in summary, the Marriage Act article is wrong to say that an exchange of consent wasn't sufficient to create a contract of marriage. What it ought to say is that an exchange of consent wasn't sufficient to prove the existence of a contract of marriage, unless it could be shown that the exchange had in fact taken place, or there were reasonable grounds for believing that it had. Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

French print?

I'm helping out with some copyediting of the Swedish translation of this article (currently an FA over at sv.wiki), and I came across a slight ambiguity concerning this image. The Commons description has been edited to say that it's an English caricature while the original claims it's French. Is there any reason we should doubt Vaessens French description?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that it's a French print caricaturing this English custom, so no reason to doubt Vaessens French description as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling Not Category:Sexism??

While the Sexism article needs beefing up to explicitly include force marriage, wife selling, trafficking in women, etc., the section Sexism#Legal_status makes it clear women had few rights in that period. Please explain why wife selling isn't sexist. Therefore Category:Sexism is appropriate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

To equate wife selling with trafficking in women is to fundamentally misunderstand the idea that for almost everyone in that period divorce was a practical impossibility. Women were almost never impressed into the arrangement, and not infrequently initiated it. The English law of coverture (is that also sexist in your view?) meant that a man became responsible for his wife upon marriage, to the extent that the two became a single legal entity. To many, both men and women, it therefore seemed quite natural to dissolve an unhappy marriage by going through some public form of separation, which is all that wife selling was in the overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed the agreement of the woman was almost invariably required. It seems a strange custom to us now, and it even seemed strange to the middle and upper-classes of the later 19th century, who increasingly tried to stamp it out, but for many it was preferable to remaining in an unhappy marriage.

TBH though I really don't care much about categories anyway, so if you want to flaunt your evident misunderstanding of the legal and social history of 17th and 18th-century England then go ahead. As a general point I'll simply say that your shrill insistence that sexism only applies to females does your general crusade no favours whatsoever. Sexism applies just as much to men as it does to women. Should Hanged, drawn and quartered be tagged as sexist because that form of execution was only applied to men, for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Do sources say women liked it? The fact it was the wife and not the husband who was being sold to get around the law shows it was sexist. And it's not like the woman had a choice in who she was sold to. And that women "rescued" other women being sold shows women didn't like it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You could always try reading the article you know: "There were very few reported sales of husbands, and from a modern perspective, selling a wife like a chattel is degrading, even when considered as a form of divorce. 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'". To put it as simply as I can, the law of coverture made it inevitable that it would more normally be the woman who was sold rather than the man, but there were cases of husbands being sold. That's no more sexist than observing that the law similarly made it inevitable that more men were hanged, drawn and quartered than women. Wife selling was a straightforward response to the legal framework in place at that time, nothing sexist about it at all. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll also see if you take the trouble to read the article that women usually did have to agree to the sale, and to whom they were sold. Indeed the evidence suggests that the purchaser was very often the wife's lover, and the transaction was arranged in advance. Not in every case of course, but almost certainly the majority of cases. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If women largely agreed to it, that belongs in the lead - with a reference, which is as far as most people get. It certainly didn't stand out in a quick skim. Nevertheless, it still was a result of a sexist legal system and therefore is inherently sexist. Just like selling Jews was inherently antisemitic when done within the structure of an antisemtic legal system. (Ever read the book THE SLAVE by Isaac Bashevis Singer?) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than "a quick skim" I suggest that you take the time to actually read the article. The very first sentence says "The English custom of wife selling was a way of ending an unsatisfactory marriage by mutual agreement". How much clearer do you want it to be? And citations are unnecessary in the lead, as everything there is cited elsewhere in the article. Did the Jews have to agree to their sale? No. But in the vast majority of cases the wifes did. Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wife-selling was sexist even if it was an alternative to another sexist and classist practice, because, generally, the proceeds went to the selling husband and not to her, it was not a sale only of services which could presumably be withdrawn by the service provider and so it was a sale very much like a sale of property if distinguishable at all, her consent was not a legal requirement when the procedure itself was illegal even if widely practiced, her extralegal consent could probably be forced by way of beatings and near-starvation and the man was better positioned to execute either tactic than she was to him, and if she objected to a price being too low as undervaluing her full worth her opinion need not matter or might even push the price down (I recall reading of a husband selling at a deliberately low price to make a point). However, I didn't see any of that in the article. Therefore, a better approach might be to properly source a critique like this one, especially if contemporary sourcing exists, and add it to the article, then to add the Sexism category. On the other hand, I think the Sexism category, like some others, probably should not be Wikipedia categories, for reasons I stated in my category discussion post of 2-21-11 4:20a UTC. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be entering a realm of fiction and imagination. There is very little, if any, evidence that wives were commonly coerced into a sale by either "beatings on near-starvation", quite the reverse, and in fact there are recorded cases in which the wife effectively bought herself by providing her purchaser with the money to buy her. The transaction was simply a way of publicly transferring the legal responsibility for the wife from one man to another; as has been made very clear repeatedly the law at that time considered a husband and wife to be a single legal entity. Whether or not that's sexist is a matter of interpretation rather than fact. I'd argue that it's no more sexist than the law that only allowed men and not women to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Some prominent legal experts argued that the law of coverture was in fact more beneficial to women than it was to men, so even if sexist it was not necesarily anti-feminist.

The bottom line I guess is that I think this sexism category is rather silly, very biased, and entirely unhelpful. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what would be helpful, however, would be some effort to increase the diversity of viewpoints presented in the article. There are several sources on wife selling that portray the practice as degrading and inhumane (Hill for example), yet the article seems at pains to whitewash the custom as a quaint and harmless affair. As both viewpoints are presented in reliable source, both should be reflected in the text. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling in China

Wife selling has a long history in China. Shouldn't the scope of this article be expanded to include more than just the English custom? Kaldari (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to write an article on wife selling in China then please feel free to do so, but this article is about the custom that originated in 17th-century England. When you've written your article we can rename this one to something like Wife selling in England. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)