Talk:Boulton and Park/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC: Limerick's appropriateness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article about two Victorian crossdressers currently ends with a limerick in which an animal being sodomized asks the perpetrator if he had mistaken the animal for the two article subjects. There are two questions for consideration: (1) Should this limerick end the article, as it currently does? and (2) Should the text of the limerick be included?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging editors who participated above: @Mattdaviesfsic, A. B., SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, Personman, SchroCat, Tim riley, LoomCreek, Ssilvers, and Serial Number 54129:--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Each of the Wikiprojects to which this page belongs have been alerted. Diffs: Wikiproject:Biography, Wikiproject:Human rights, Wikiproject:LGBT studies and Wikiproject: London--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Background

The end of the article reads (with some indentation modified):

Boulton and Park are also the subjects of a Victorian limerick which, according to Cohen, shows an "anachronistic conflation of sodomy and bestiality". The limerick was popular at the time of the case. The historian Catharine Arnold used the limerick to "illustrate[]" that Boulton and Park's "case lived on in popular culture". According to the historian Angus McLaren, the limerick shows that at the time "the popular belief that homosexuality and transvestism were inseparable".

There was an old person of Sark
Who buggered a pig in the dark;
The swine in surprise
Murmured: "God blast your eyes,
Do you take me for Boulton and Park?"

• Note: When the discussion above began, there was no context for the limerick. (See this version), which merely noted "Boulton and Park are also the subjects of a Victorian limerick:" before transcribing the limerick. updated per below The Cohen line was added before this RFC began, and, since this RFC began, the Cohen, Arnold and McLaren lines have been added. The above passage has been edited to reflect the most recent version.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

None of this really matters, but it's also not true. The Cohen line was actually added here, which is some six hours before the RfC was opened. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

!votes

• Exclude - There's no shortage of doggerel out there about Bill Clinton, the Kardashians, etc. but nobody's adding to their articles. Send it to Wikiquote. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. This is sourced to several reliable sources, including academic works, and is part of the cultural impact the events generated. We mention the novel they are included in, the plays they are part of and, obviously, the limerick they are the subjects of. We have other works that close with quotes or parts of poems, so what is the issue here: it is that some are offended by the words, which means it all boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the desire to WP:CENSOR something they find distasteful. If the text of the limerick was removed from the article, we would still have to refer to its existence, leaving readers struggling to understand why mention it but not include it: that does not serve our readers well.
  A very quick Google search on one of the lines shows numerous books, including academic works, that include the limerick in full. It seems odd to WP:CENSOR here what academics are happy to write about and publish. Looking through the various sources, there is possible enough material there to get a decent standalone article on the limerick itself - it certainly passes GNG, and that's a high enough threshold for inclusion for use in the article on its subjects. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Clarify on position: I also consider the present position is an appropriate one for a few reasons, but two will suffice here: it is a stronger ending than having the rather limp information about plays on the subjects; and if the biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography consider that it is not only suitable for inclusion, but also as an ending to their piece, there doesn't seem to be a good rationale for us not having it in the same position. One of the sources describes how "their case lived on in popular culture as illustrated by this limerick", so it seems apt to keep the subject present, particularly as it has been re-evaluated more recently from the gender studies field of study. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move/describe in prose: 1. No it should not end the article; 2. Narrowly no it should not be included. According to the sources we provide, the limerick is an anachronistic conflation of sodomy and bestiality. It's not clear to me why such an offensive conflation would be spotlighted as the last word on the article subject. I haven't seen any real arguments in favor of its placement, other than some vague invocation that FAs end in non-usual ways. I can't think of any other article that's ended by an offensive poem. As to its inclusion, I don't thin the current article established the significance of the work or the reason for inclusion, but I could be persuaded on that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Update: Changed vote to "Move/describe in prose": The popularity info on the limerick has pushed me to "lean include" in terms of mentioning the limerick. But I'd note that WP:CENSOR is not a sufficient argument for inclusion, and it's no argument for the current placement.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Update 2: I wanted to add what I said above because I don't think I've gotten a satisfactory response: I, for one, don't think that it'd be appropriate to, for example, end an article on a civil-rights activist with an "anachronistic" (i.e. modern-day offensive) poem concerning that person's race, and, while I could be persuaded, I'm not totally sure how different this is.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Update 3: I've seen a few people say that the article should stay in its position because it's "eye catching". But that response fails to interrogate why it's eye catching? Why is it interesting? In short: because it's offensive. I'm sure we can find plenty of old sources using homophobic slurs to refer to Boulton and Park, and ending the article with such a slur might give it some "pop", but that doesn't mean we should do it. So why are we using a homophobic limerick?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Update on sourcing: Just want to clarify that Cohen mentions this limerick in one sentence in a footnote of his entire chapter on Boulton and Park.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Given no-one has used the phrase "eye catching" at any point in this discussion, do you not think it inappropriate to pretend it's a quote, thus mischaracterising other people's arguments in this manner? - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I was using scare quotes, but wye catching does match the tenor and substance of the arguments. Still, you’ve provided an invaluable service: if it were not for you, perhaps the closer would have missed that no one *literally* used the phrase eye catching in this discussion about a homophobic limerick that some people think should end the article because it adds pizzazz.—Jerome Frank Disciple 14:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yet again you mischaracterise everyone's arguments; no-one has said anything remotely like "it adds pizzazz". If you could be a little more honest in your approach, it would be better. - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wow hard to believe you've ever had trouble avoiding personal attacks. But perhaps you should be a bit more honest about what your argument is: "it is a stronger ending than having the rather limp information about plays on the subjects".--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you can't see the difference between what I wrote and "it adds pizzazz", then the problems of mischaracterisation are well explained. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, by "less limp" you didn't mean "has more pizzaz" ... you meant ... eh, oh well. I guess I'll just have to settle knowing I won't ever fully realize the philosophical point behind your argument for ending on the homophobic limerick.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I see by your continued (but entirely correct) description of it as being "the homophobic limerick", your desire to see this removed really is just distaste about the subject - a WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach and a desire to WP:CENSOR it. Personally I don't the limerick either - it's rather abhorrent in its description of the two men, archaic in its conflating transvestism with homosexuality and homosexuality with bestiality, but that's just my personal view, rather than a neutral approach as to what the sources show was the reality of people's opinions at the time. As someone below has said, history is dirty, get over it, regardless of how repugnant the opinions were at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  You've referenced those before, and I and others have explained why they're not apt. If you'd like to address those points, reply to other users or to your !vote. But please don't bludgeon your points in replies. I'm not asking you any follow up questions; I agree we're done. --Jerome Frank Disciple 15:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  ~sigh~ It's not bludgeoning, but never mind. The reason I've linked them for you is that CENSOR is a policy, which is one of the positions I'm arguing from. Yes, you have referred to it before, but not in any way put any solid argument as to why we should ignore the policy simply because you don't like something. Anyway, I'm glad you agree we're done. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've already addressed it. You haven't responded to my point (which was also echoed by Snow Rise; if you'd like to respond now, I'd suggest responding there). I'm asking you to stop responding to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion seems a perfectly potty suggestion to me. Peer reviewers and FAC reviewers have been happy with the limerick as the peroration, and it serves that function perfectly, in a suitable tone in harmony with the rest of the article. A quick Google brings up four published books that quote the limerick verbatim. If it's all right for them to quote it, what possible justification could there be for censoring it in Wikipedia? In my opinion this RFC is a frivolous waste of time. Tim riley talk 14:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude per AB and JFD. Can't fathom a sufficient reason for its inclusion even if it can be sourced. Yes there can be room for people's legacies in popular culture, but this is unfathomably ridiculous, in my opinion. Describe in prose, per Rosguill and JFD. May well be a way to resolve the dispute... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. As I said above, this is an FA-class article, so it has been thoroughly reviewed by experienced reviewers, using high quality sourcing, and gives the reader a strong reading experience. In my experience of working on FA articles, it is usually good to end with something interesting, rather than just petering out with a legacy or IPC section that ends with "X was portrayed by Laurence Oliver in this film." In this case, the limerick is both a relevant and well-cited item to include in the "portrayals" section, and it also ends the article with a lively and interesting "button". IMO, the article is clearly better with it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep It's an interesting note to end the article on. ~ HAL333 14:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." I get that the passage offends certain present-day readers and editors, but we shouldn't bowdlerize this encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  And just to make it clear, I do support retaining it at the end of the article. It is the most vivid illustration of how the subjects have lived on in popular culture. Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Wehwalt. SN54129 15:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Describe in prose as analyzed by McLaren, Arnold and Cohen (although I note that it's not clear to me how Cohen arrived to conclude that the limerick is anachronistic; other scholarly coverage seems to consistently call it inaccurate but very much of-the-times--I was unable to access Cohen 1996 to figure out what they meant by it). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill, I'm intrigued: can I ask why describe in prose, rather than having the limerick? I'm struggling to see an advantage in that approach, so I hope you can explain. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the analysis of the cited sources is considerably more meaningful to the reader than the limerick itself, which can be read as rather disparaging to the subjects and is noted by the sources (at least the ones I was able to access) as an example of derisive contemporary views rather than the subject's primary legacy. Unless given extensive attention in biographies of the pair (in contrast to the current citations for the segment which are primarily about the topic of sexual norms in 19th century England), reprinting the limerick in full, and particularly ending the article on that note, seems UNDUE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the explanation. Personally I think having both the examination and the limerick the better course to take (which is what there is now). It's notable that the limerick appears in the biographies of the two men, including the OED biography where, it is interesting to note, the limerick is introduced—at the 'end of the article—as "Boulton and Park feature in Jack Saul's pornographic The Sins of the Cities of the Plain (1881) and are the subject of a Victorian limerick:", without any further "context" or examination. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable--my view would be to follow the lead of full biographies on the subject, whose inclusion of the limerick was not readily apparent from the state of citations and discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, Cohen probably didn't the term much thought. He wrote an entire chapter on Boulton and Park. He mentions the limerick once: in one sentence of one footnote in his chapter: "Another obscene rendering of the Boulton and Park case, likewise in pseudoliterary form, appears in a popular limerick that curiOUsly registers an anachronistic conflation of sodomy and bestiality:"-Jerome Frank Disciple 16:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, another editor helped me get a look at Cohen 1996--it seems Cohen is asserting that the specific conflation of bestiality with homosexuality was anachronistic, perhaps more associated specifically with the 1850s-60s which are the only other context bestiality is mentioned in the book (p. 81) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. The relevance is well-established by its analysis in reliable sources. Given how short it is, I don’t see a case for excluding the full text of the limerick. Trying to convey the content and tone in prose would be longer and less informative. I don't have a strong opinion on placement. Articles should be organized in a coherent way, without regard to whether the bit that comes last is deemed "offensive" or "interesting". In this case, I would keep Portrayals as the final section, but make it roughly chronological, so moving the 21st century plays to the end.--Trystan (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• obviously keep if cited by three reliable sources, I mean seriously? How long until we get an RfC on the notability/importance/significance of Catullus 16, I wonder. History is dirty, get over it.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning exclude/prosify. (Summoned by bot) As sometimes happens, this is one of those cases where some of the perspectives in support of inclusion actually played a much larger role (than did the exclude !votes) in sharpening my outlook on the matter and identifying some of the reasons why this content is probably not useful or encyclopedically relevant in this context, at least in its current form. Let's start by dispensing with the much weaker of the arguments advanced in support: the "It's a featured article: clearly it can't have an obvious flaw" argument. I couldn't even begin to estimate for you how many times I've edited an FA for an issue that was immediately apparent upon reading it, and yet made it through all the various levels of review (being retained in the article for who knows how long), and I'm just one editor. Indeed, it's almost a certainty that the time an article spends in the FA limelight will see a significant uptick in editing by virtue of the largely expanded number of eyes on it. Featured status is in no way a stamp of perfection, nor a guarantee even against non-trivial issues and arguing for preserving the current status quo on that basis is clearly a very low-quality argument. Honestly more an argument from authority than principled, a priori reasoning from relevant policies and facts.

Now, to the meat and potatoes. Meaning no offense to anyone, I feel like many of the !votes supporting inclusion here are examples of what we might call reverse pearl clutching. By which I mean, rather than a reflexive response being driven by a perception of obscenity or other form of moral outrage, we're seeing a conditioned reaction in support of WP:NOTCENSORED (a cornerstone value which we rightly have habitual need to invoke across a broad swath of articles) that is overshadowing and obfuscating a rather fundamental question about the content itself: what actual educational/informative value does it add to the article? Are we really telling the reader anything particularly novel or contextually significant by noting that people in 19th-century England were happy to engage in a bit of smarmy, casual bigotry against a pair of publicly outed crossdressers and homosexuals? Limericks were the Victorian equivalent of memes, and frankly inclusion of this example feels roughly analogous to discussing a certain old joke about a certain celebrity supposedly putting gerbils in a certain orifice (which I just double checked to make sure we in fact do not do in his article).

Well, ok, let's pretend for a moment that we all entertain that such a factoid has some encyclopedic value significant enough to justify inclusion. The analysis must then shift to "What encyclopedic value do we get from actually sharing the very specific details of what that limerick consisted of?" What does the reader get out of seeing the specific set-up and punchline here? Maybe if this was an article that touched more upon themes of changing mores in base humor, rather than being a biographical article about two queer persons who were famously hounded and publicly castigated for their orientation, I might see the point in elucidating upon the very specific wording of this specific piece of invective. But I'm sorry folks, I just struggle to see any good argument for the particular encyclopedic value to this article in exploring the precise cleverdick phrasing of the limerick. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep — in article and where it's at. It is relevant and significant to their notoriety. I found multiple hits for the limerick in Google Books. It is WP:NPOV and with the weight of the multiple sources, it is not WP:UNDUE. If I might suggest a small tweak to the last three sentences preceding the limerick:

According to historians Angus McLaren and Catharine Arnold, the limerick shows that at the time there was a "popular belief that homosexuality and transvestism were inseparable", and the Boulton and Park case "lived on in popular culture". The limerick was popular at the time of the case. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• Keep - This is sourced well enough to justify inclusion. I agree with Snow Rise that being a FA article doesn't automatically mean the article is perfect, but there doesn't appear to be a strong enough argument to justify a removal. Nemov (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep well sourced and relevant to the article.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep sourced material. And suggest a moratorium of 12 months on the subject. Too many editors are treating this like an all-day buffet, where they can keep coming back for another round. Now, there has been much discussion here regarding WP:CIVIL, and I'm sure no-one will mind me quoting our illustrious founder when I say this whole campaign is beginning to look like, quote/unquote, utter and complete bullshit ... Utter fucking bullshit :D SN54129 11:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

How many times has this issue been raised, and in what period of time, if I may ask? Also, and this completely besides the point to anything being discussed here, but I wonder why Jimmy's account is showing as blocked in the account summary, but his block log does not reflect it? Does it have something to do with the recent devolution of his special veto powers--anybody know? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Hadal in 2004 for "impersonating User:Jimbo Wales" small jars tc 04:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. They came for Roald Dahl, now they're after SchroCat. This kind of censorship is the written equivalent of pulling down a statue of an 18th-century philanthropist because it doesn't conform to today's woke standards. Leave it alone, it's an appropriate ending. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:B11B:F03C:F035:12AE (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Enough

This is an awful comparison, considering that the outrage was over the idea that Dahl's works could be edited, and on Wikipedia, that's kind of the whole point. Your argument is a roundabout version of WP:OWN. small jars tc 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Sorry small jars, but I really do object to that comment. An IP has an opinion and there is absolutely no need to start throwing around baseless OWN accusations based on a third party comment. You may not agree with it, but try not to demean the commentator or their opinion please. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC) I find nothing objectionable in small jars's comment, and I'd second it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the trolling: I have zero interest in your opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC) It only seems to be OWN because you cannot get your way. If the RfC had have gone in your favour that would be consensus at work, would it? 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:90A4:7808:AB57:E364 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC) I haven't even voted in this RfC. I am objecting to a specific argument. small jars tc 16:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC) What's that got to do with price of fish? I was referencing your lazy OWN slur 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:8553:A430:EA27:D964 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC) 12AE literally used the fact that SchroCat had written the article to imply that other editors shouldn't change it. Though I can assume that 12AE is not SchroCat, the relevance of WP:OWN is obvious. small jars tc 23:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC) He did write the article, and it is entirely correct that extra care should be taken on featured articles by drive-by editors who want to add or adjust things. It comes down to editorial respect. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:ED3E:F210:3A53:7DBF (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) I'm afraid respect for truthful representation (reduced to the consensus of RSs), the subject, and the reader, are all more important than "editorial respect". Again, this is the point of OWN. small jars tc 04:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) See WP:FAOWN and stop throwing the word around quite so lightly and with so little in the way of good faith. Trying to use a comment from an IP to cast aspersions on a different editor who has not made any claim that respect is going over the NPA line, so I'm going to hat this before it goes any further and I have to open an ANI thread. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) It's not trolling? (Please remember WP:AGF.) I legitimately think that the IP's editor was, on top of comparing you to Ronald Dahl, suggesting that we shouldn't edit your articles. It was an absurd comment.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC) So much for “Fair enough! I have no further plan to comment unless I'm specifically mentioned”. If only you’d have stuck to that pledge. And it’s not “my” article. Time for me to notch up the ignore feature on my troll-o-meter and move on. Tatty bye. - SchroCat (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC) WP:PA, WP:AGF. Seriously, cut it the fuck out.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Oh, the irony of drinking Wikipedia's WP:AGF Kool-Aid while simultaneously directing a pejorative at someone. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:90A4:7808:AB57:E364 (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC) The only absurdity here, Jerome Frank Disciple, is that several productive editors have been forced to spend 17 days of their life arguing about the usage of a c.150-year-old victorian limerick, that the large majority of people won't have heard before, and likely, wont remember until the next time the come to read it. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:90A4:7808:AB57:E364 (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Per SchroCat and Wehwalt. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep in original form per SchroCat, Trystan, Ssilvers, and WP:NOTCENSORED. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Good grief. Talk about overkill in opening an RfC on this. We do not WP:CENSOR our content. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Five editors have objected to either the placement or the inclusion, on various grounds. Even assuming for the sake of argument that WP:CENSOR applies to their arguments regarding inclusion, it has nothing to do with placement.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• @SchroCat:: I understand you want the limerick in the article, but please be careful when adding sources to support its use. For example, this is an extremely misleading description. You wrote: According to the historian Catharine Arnold, the limerick ensured that Boulton and Park's "case lived on in popular culture". I checked that, and here's what Arnold actually says: "Boulton and Park sank back into relatively obscurity, although their case lived on in popular culture as illustrated by this limerick:". That is clearly not the same thing as saying the limerick is the reason (or ensured) that the two lived on in pop culture.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to try and give advice, make sure your version isn't garbled and equally misleading. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In response to me pointing this out, SchroCat first responded Oh just hush, will you? before deleting the comment. [1]. Maybe I'm naive, but given how clearly Schro's text overstated the significance of the limerick relative to what Arnold actually wrote, that's pretty shocking. It makes me somewhat concerned that the description of the other sources contains errors.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Take the WP:BAITING elsewhere - I'm not interested. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You badly misdescribed a source and you've said nothing to acknowledge that. I am interested in accurately describing sources, which is why I said the above. If you take pointing out your mistake and questioning whether there are others as BAITING, that's a choice, but the comment isn't really meant for anyone who would make that choice..--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Take the WP:BAITING elsewhere - I'm still not interested. - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring to keep open a closed piece of baiting? PMSL! Take the WP:BAITING elsewhere - I'm still not interested. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• • @SchroCat: tried to hide this portion of the discussion—including me pointing out the initial error that he introduced—by calling it off topic baiting. As to off topic, that's obviously wrong, and SchroCat knows it: He added the wrongly described passage to the Background section of the RFC [2]. And given that it was wrong information, it deserves to be noted down here. SchroCat, I'm okay if you want to hat everything after that comment, but if you try to hide the first comment again, we'll need to go to WP:ANI.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Take the WP:BAITING elsewhere - I'm even less interested than I was before.

And stop pinging me on this thread. I obviously have the page watchlisted. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's fine! As long as you don't hide the first comment, I don't care if you're not interested.

And will do as to the pings.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat you've got several editors like myself that showed up here as a result of the 2 WP:ANI threads. I don't know for sure but I suspect Jerome Frank Disciple is like me - someone who never had a dog in this fight. I'd never heard of Boulton and Park -- I just thought more eyes from experienced editors on a developing dispute might calm the waters and bring content clarity.

In any event, in those times we disagree with you, we're not your enemies. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have had interaction with Disciple before, so I am used to their various tactics. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:: I wanted to flag that I reverted your edit. Upon further consideration, I do think your reading of Arnold is possible, but, separately, because it's only possible (and therefore we should use the weaker and claim) and because I think it's the less likely meaning, I think we should stick to SchroCat's most recent language. Here's the full text of what Arnold says:

Boulton and Park sank back into relatively obscurity, although their case lived on in popular culture as illustrated by this limerick: [the limerick].

That's it. There's no other analysis. So, my read of that passage is that the limerick is merely an example—an "illustrat[ion]"—of how pop culture still made references to Boulton and Park after their popularity diminished. But it sounds like you're reading it to say that Boulton and Park lived on through the limerick. I think that's a possible meaning (though I personally consider it the less likely interpretation) but not at all a certain one.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing of limerick

I think that many of the voices describing the sources here have overstated the limerick's significance. There are three scholars cited: Cohen, Arnold, and McLaren.

• Cohen wrote an entire chapter on Boulton and Park. How much attention does the limerick get? He notes it in one sentence at the bottom of a footnote.

Another obscene rendering of the Boulton and Park case, likewise in pseudoliterary form, appears in a popular limerick that curiously registers an anachronistic conflation of sodomy and bestiality:

• Arnold discusses the two in her book from pages 259–264. She concludes the discussion by saying:

Boulton and Park sank back into relatively obscurity, although their case lived on in popular culture as illustrated by this limerick:

• • This was originally paraphrased as "According to the historian Catharine Arnold, the limerick ensured that Boulton and Park's 'case lived on in popular culture'." As I indicated above (and as I think is obvious), that's quite misleading. Even now, though a much closer call, I think the current passage overstates the significance relative to what Arnold wrote: "According to the historian Catharine Arnold, the limerick showed that the Boulton and Park case 'lived on in popular culture'." By my reading, the limerick was an example—an "illustrat[ion]" of how the two continued to be referenced in pop culture after their personal popularity faded. The paraphrase seems to suggest the limerick single-handedly showed their continued relevance.
• McLaren's chapter isn't on Boulton and Park, he's discussing sexual norms (and society pushback against "deviancy") in Europe generally. He mentions the case in one paragraph and ends it by noting the limericks reflection of:

the popular belief that homosexuality and transvestism were inseparable

Just want all this noted.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This is third or fourth time you've referred to my paraphrasing of Arnold, which is now becoming trolling. What detracts from your faux outrage at the re-working, is that your version wasn't that much better and was grammatically garbled.

If this was an AFD, then your comments on whether this meets GNG may have some merit, but it's not. It's dealing with whether a limerick appears in a wider article - so your points miss the mark entirely.

What is clear is that these sources all deal with the limerick (and quote it in full), as do many others. Again, we don't CENSOR just because you don't like it, but follow what the sources say. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Because I found that the above discussion of Cohen seemed to assume more prominence than what was reflected in the book, I wanted to note all of the sources and compare them side by side. (I'm also not sure what your logic is with your "What detracts from your faux outrage...." statement. "Yes, I wrote something flat out wrong, but you didn't state the truth eloquently enough!! So ha!" ... okay.) And you're once again bringing up CENSOR without addressing why I and others have said it's not sufficient. Since I've already asked that you stop replying to me (you'll notice I didn't name your or even include a diff to your edit above), I'd encourage you to debate its merits with another user who brought up the defects of that argument rather than just restate it over and over again perWP:BLUDGEON--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, please don't use quote marks if someone hasn't said what you are 'quoting': it's dishonest and needs to stop. In this case it's also untrue. Again, it is not bludgeoning to respond to a new comment in a new thread, particularly when it is a flawed comment that needs to be put into context (you can't write nonsense and expect no-one to point it out).

I'll add a few more locations of sources that deal with the limerick (and, indeed, quote it in full): Google Books, Google Scholar and Internet Archive (although there is obviously some overlap in sources in these). I could add more, but as this isn't AFD where we're trying to prove GNG, this is about as pointless as the rest of the thread. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Using {{tq}} when I'm quoting someone. Hope that helps (and if not, check out our article on scare quotes!). And you're right, I'm not arguing AFD. I'm arguing, in part, WP:MINORASPECT. That said, I do agree the limerick should be in the article, I just think it shouldn't end it and it should probably be described in prose.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Described in prose?

"Boulton and Park are also the subjects of a Victorian limerick that was popular at the time of the case. Cohen considers it shows an "anachronistic conflation of sodomy and bestiality". The historian Angus McLaren judges that the limerick shows that at the time there was a "popular belief that homosexuality and transvestism were inseparable". According to the historian Catharine Arnold, the limerick showed that the Boulton and Park case "lived on in popular culture". The limerick concerns an elderly man from the island of Sark who "buggered", or sodomised, a pig one night (or possibly morning). Astonishingly the pig could talk and, somewhat surprised by the sexual assault, cursed the man, saying "God blast your eyes, Do you take me for Boulton and Park?""

Ah yes, that's so much better than having the original - I'm sure people won't go off searching for the proper version and wondering why Wikipedia has not included it. Brilliant, utterly brilliant. 🤦‍♂️ - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've already asked you to stop responding to me. I'd also ask that you adhere to WP:CIVIL. Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want me to reply, stop responding with half-truths and nonsense. There was nothing uncivil in my last comment: I was showing what a poor option it is, even if trimmed down to something else - it will still have people leaving WP to look up what the limerick actually says, rather than us rather coyly describing it and not quoting it, despite the fact that many sources do have it in full. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, utterly brilliant. 🤦‍♂️ If you need to take a break to see why that's uncivil, you should take one.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not uncivil. It's not polite, but it's not uncivil. - SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop responding to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What is this time-wasting nonsense in aid of? We have a consensus that the limerick is appropriate, well sourced, widely quoted in the sources and should remain in situ. I do wish Jerome Frank Disciple could find something more useful to do with his/her time. Tim riley talk 20:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There's an open RFC that I began after four editors suggested the limerick should be moved or removed. Even if you're saying there was at one point consensus, it's absolutely fair to test WP:CCC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Tim riley: the limerick is appropriate, well sourced and should remain at the end of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Tim, Jerome has a point: RfCs typically last for 30 days, and this one has been running for two. I personally think the writing is already on the wall and he is probably wasting his time, but then again, I've seen RfCs make much bigger swings in the other direction than would be needed here, so who knows? Anyway, nobody is required to engage with him here if they feel his arguments are weak.

Jerome, on the other hand, you have been warned more than once in recent time about a propensity to bludgeon discussions, so go with caution here. Most of the length of these subthreads is you and SchroCat sparring, and he's been pretty quick to respond to just about every one of your posts, so I'm not saying you are in fact unilaterally bludgeoning here, but when you are in the minority in a discussion that has become contentious, you need to be mindful of the fact you can quickly be perceived to be in WP:STICK territory by pushing too hard too fast. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! I have no further plan to comment unless I'm specifically mentioned--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Schro, I don't really want to get in the middle of this dust up, but for my part, that comment very unambigously is uncivil: it serves no descriptive or functional purpose other than to underline that you think Jerome is being thick, and drips with sarcasm and contempt. It's just not helpful in any way and easily perceived as hostile, so yes, please do try to take it down a few notches here. I get that you think Jerome is being tendentious here (not sure that I agree, but I'm not looking to debate the point either), but if that's the case, and you think it is becoming a real problem, you should take the matter to an admin or ANI, not vent your frustrations with a stream of passive aggression here. Those are your options. Jerome, for your part, you can't really tell SchroCat not to respond to you in a content discussion; this as an open space for discussion of any editorial matters pertaining to the article. But yes, any response does need to be kept within the bounds of our behavioral policies. I'm not looking to stake a claim here as to who is driving this contest of wills, but it is starting to get a little disruptive. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Not much of a test when you insist that the main editor, who took the article through FAC, is not permitted to reply to your assertions. In England we have an offence called "Wasting police time". I feel something of the sort is called for in Wikipedia to address the problem of what in other surroundings would be called vexatious litigation. Tim riley talk 20:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a completely absurd comment for several reasons. 1. I'm not somehow prohibiting him from participating in the debate or even responding to points I made; I told him to stop responding to my particular comments after he became uncivil (see Snow's comment). That has nothing to do with the integrity of the RFC. And 2. ... oh wait, that was your only argument. You just spent the remainding 2/3 of your comment specifying your vexatious-litigation theory. Well, if you'd like to convict yourself of the offense you're suggesting, feel free.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No need to get aerated! If, per impossibile your interminable RFC decides to remove the limerick all reasonable editors will accept it with a good grace. Most of us understand the concept of consensus, and do not suppose that everybody else is obliged to agree with our opinion. O si sic omnes! Tim riley talk 20:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frederick William Park (section)

The final paragraph in this section references Park and his father, yet alludes to one of them cross- dressing. Was it a family affair, or was this very much Park the younger? Cassianto^Talk 05:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Good spot. I’ve split the para and tweaked the wording for clarity. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)