Jump to content

Talk:John/Eleanor Rykener/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The use of a ligature

In section 2.3 Arrest, the fourth paragraph (which begins "Britby began his interrogation...") has a sentence (which begins "He was, after all...") in which the word "offering" is spelled with a ligature, thus: offering.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that ligatures are not to be used in English, but that they are to be used in those languages in which they are standard. I hesitate to remove this article's example, for two reasons:

  1. It may be preserving a ligature from the original Middle English text that it quotes;
  2. I don't know whether or not Middle English (in which ligatures are standard) is considered to be the same language as Modern English.

Someone who has more know-how than I should take a look, and make a decision. catsmoke (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Catsmoke: You're dead right about MOS:LIG. This is some sort of hanging skin-tag from a VE conflict (or something)—it was noted in the GAR/PR but I thought I'd caught them. Well spotted! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Category issues

I removed Rykener from the category of "gay male prostitutes." We're talking about someone who behaved bisexually all over. Whether even "male" is appropriate is up in the air. As tempting as it was, I didn't re-categorise Rykener under "bisexual people" either, in case that violates some self-identification rule, and I didn't want to start a tug of war over which letter in the alphabet soup gets to claim him. LGBT seems like a fair and neutral-ish category to put this person under. Snowgrouse (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Snowgrouse: well argued, np. We definitely want to avoid that whole bisexual erasure nest of vipers. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 16:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

John/Eleanor Rykener → John Rykener – WP:SLASH ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Probable support on technical grounds, rather than any other factor (and happy to change sides if there is a remedy). At the top of the page we have:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:John
The slash makes this act like a sub-page of John, rather than a standalone article. If there is a technical way round this, then I'd be happy to use it and keep with what the sources say, but if not, then it should either be John Rykener or Eleanor Rykener with a redirect to cover the unused alternative. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
​There is currently no technical workaround to prevent this AFAIK... and unlikely for solution in the offing. My hunch is that it's generally left because it is not obstructive and also not widely noticeable. This list gives pages with similar issue. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronoun trouble

The "Gender identity" section of the MOS clearly supports using the gender pronoun that the individual in question wished to use. Thus, the edits by BleakChimera seem constructive and appropriate, and should not be reverted. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, but aside from the pronouns, changing man to "person assigned male" etc doesn't help the article so BleakChimera's edits should be reverted. As we are now in a "difference of opinion" situation, the text should remain as it originally was until there is a consensus to change it. --John B123 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a dispute. The guidelines are quite clear. Some edits (such as the "person assigned male" edit you point out) may be disputed. But the pronoun issue has already clearly been decided by the Wikipedia community via the MOS. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute as editors are opposed to these changes. --John B123 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Edit to add: This is a featured article that has been appraised by many experienced editors. None of those have seen a problem with the wording. This is starting to remind me of the extremely long winded discussion on Trans woman when a few editor were pushing for the article to use 'PC' terms. --John B123 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The peer review did not discuss pronouns. The FA Review did, but got the solution wrong (and no one there ever consulted the MOS). Carabinieri was one of those who raised the issue. As for a "dispute", two editors can claim (without citing evidence or guidelines) that George Washington and not Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean there's a dispute. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The FA Review got it wrong as they don't support your viewpoint? What evidence have you got that they didn't consult the MOS? Another interpretation of the FA review is that as they saw no breach of the MOS so there was no need to comment on it either way. Going back to your original point "using the gender pronoun that the individual in question wished to use", I'm not sure how anybody knows what a person who died over 600 years ago wanted. --John B123 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this article is a candidate for rewriting to avoid pronouns, like James Barry (surgeon). (In fact, it's ironic that that article does avoid pronouns, since living as a man for his entire adult life is a much clearer "reflect[ion of] that person's latest expressed gender self-identification" than we can get from a document about one small slice of this person's [Rykener's] life.) -sche (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Any edit that is reverted is by definition disputed in WP:BRD terms. Once that is the case the onus is on those wishing to make the disputed change to seek consensus for it (in the mean time, status quo prevails). Citing the MoS is one valid argument, but the MoS is a guideline not a policy: it is an argument not a rule which must be followed (WP:EW, though, is a policy, and you're in flagrant violation of it). That the article's status quo is as it is after going through both PR and FAC is both an argument and a strong one.
For my own part I will add that applying gender identity style rules intended primarily to cater for the needs of articles on biographies of living people to an article about a person living 600 years ago, in a culture that is fundamentally different on every relevant aspect, will in effect be wildly misleading in addition to anachronistic. There is no indication of Rykener's gender identity because all the documentation we have is the court case and they didn't ask about gender identity because they had no concept of it. We have no idea whether he dressed in women's clothing and had sex with men out of preference or for more practical reasons (extreme poverty, for example, have driven people to far more extreme deviations from their innate preference), and we certainly have no idea how he viewed his gender identity. And we, as editors on Wikipedia, certainly can't infer anything about those issues from the reported facts: we have to rely on what the reliable sources have to say about the matter. Which the current article does. --Xover (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I'm agreed with your argument up to the point where you say "Which the current article does." You've made a very compelling case that the article should avoid pronouns at all—we have no idea why Rykener dressed in women's clothing or what concept of gender they felt internally. So describing Rykener as male is as inappropriate as describing Rykener as female.
It's simply not true that there was no concept of gender identity in the fourteenth century. By definition, gender identity is an internal feeling that every individual has. Different societies simply had different ways of categorising gender identity, though categories may have been inexhaustive or unnuanced: in the Indian subcontinent, it was male, female or hijra; in Western Europe it was male and female. Contemporary LGBT+ movements have many other categories.
We use contemporary terminology even for historical figures (for instance, it's not okay to describe any person from history as a "Negro", even if that's the only word that sources use); this includes pronouns. So it doesn't matter that sources use "he"—what matters is that we don't know Rykener's true gender identity, so avoiding pronouns is the best solution. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Something wonky with the days

@Serial Number 54129: Regarding this edit. Something is wonky here. The day of the week does not change between Old Style and New Style dates, only the day of the month does. Further, Karras and Boyd's English transcription of the document only says that Rykener was questioned on "11 December" in the 18th year of Richard II's reign (i.e. 1594), and that the incident in Soper Lane happened on "last Sunday night" (that is, the Sunday that occurred previous to 11 December). 11 December 1594 (Julian calendar) is 21 December 1594 (Gregorian calendar), but the day of the week in both calendars is Wednesday. Which makes "last Sunday" 8 December (Julian calendar) and 18 December (Gregorian calendar). I get no "Friday" from any variant, correct or incorrect, here.

Since Lady Day isn't a factor here, and England didn't switch to the Gregorian calendar until 1730, the date on the document should be unambigiously 11 December 1594 (Julian calendar); but, of course, it wouldn't be the first time historians had quietly converted a date, or quietly converted it incorrectly.

Can you unconfound matters? --Xover (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The year is 1394 (Fri) not 1594 (Wed) in the article. Fri – 2 days = Wed (5 – 3 = 2). Q5968661 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Q5968661: Ah thanks, and my apologies for flubbing the year: guess which era of history I specialize in! :)
But still… The text originally specified the day of the week as different depending on the calendar in use, which so far as I know is not the case. And the text of the deposition as translated/quoted by Karras and Boyd specifies that the interview with the Mayor happened on 11 December 1394 (Julian), a Friday, regarding an incident that happened on the previous Sunday, which would then be 6 December 1394 (Julian). In the proleptic Gregorian calendar these dates would be 19 December (interview) and 14 December (incident).
PS. Wikidata has interesting associations for your username: IBM 37xx (Q5968661). --Xover (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: 240E:D6:8801:E77D:B480:DC69:9FA6:E95F (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't edit-war to change the date. I've posted a concern above that may well turn out to be just me being confused (to wit, I flubbed the year by two centuries). Until the discussion here is concluded—which will involve someone familiar with the sources and/or the issue to take a closer look first—the status quo should prevail. Even if there is an issue with the dates it's not something that needs urgent correction as nothing really depends on the dates. It's just one minor detail that could be clarified or, at worst, corrected. --Xover (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is fairly clear (eg [1]) that the examination before the Mayor and Aldermen was on Friday 11 December 1394 (18 Richard II). (I find it difficult to believe that this sort of judicial examination would have taken place on a Sunday, as this article currently seems to suggest.)

The account relates that the events took place on the previous Sunday, which would have been 6 December. That is the date explicitly given in this source: [2]

So, what is the source for this article still saying that Rykener was apprehended on Sunday 11 December 1394? 213.205.240.250 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case or at all events, the fact is that 11 December 1394 (Julian) is a Friday not a Sunday！ Q5968661 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources to support what the article currently says about the dates? If not, please can someone edit them in line with the discussion (and the sources) above: he was arrested in Sunday 6th December, and examined on Friday 11th.
All of the changes made to the article over the last day or two - good, bad or indifferent - were reverted summarily,[3], and any changes to the dates have been reverted - for exmaple, [4] - and now the article is semi-protected. 213.205.240.250 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There was a mass revert and semi-protection applied due to significant disruptive editing while the article was on the main page as TFA. If there were any significant good edits that got thrown out with the bathwater then please do list them and I'm sure someone will reapply them. The date thing is a minor issue—nothing depends on the precise timing, having the exact date does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding, and if we turn out to have shown the wrong date by about a week or so no one will fail their OWLs on that account—and it is still possible the article is correct as it stands. Until the article's main contributors (who are presumably best familiar with the sources and the text in the article) have the time to look into it, it's best to leave the status quo in place. --Xover (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Be patient. It's not even been 48 hours since it was brought up, and this is in no way a critical issue. Give the article's main editors time to look into it and chime in. Based on my own understanding it seems the date currently given wrong, but I hold it entirely likely that I'm just confused: I want to hear from Serial Number 54129 before drawing any firm conclusions. And until we do, the version that was in the article when it went up as TFA should stay in place. This is in no way a critical issue. --Xover (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I am perfectly patient. That's not the issue that I was attempting to raise. The blanket reversion of IP edits, including the seemingly valid ones, and the subsequent protection of the article is an utter disgrace, and a stain on what is otherwise an exceptional article. Not only were the attempts to resolve the date issue via editing reverted, but no response by the people doing the reverting was posted to the open talk page discussion. Is this a "featured" article, or the personal domain of a small group of editors? I wish certain people would come off their high horses, on occasion, and admit their mistakes. RGloucester — ☎ 19:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems a correction has now been implemented, which is appreciated. However, you ought apologise to the IP for your behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh please. IPs—or logged in editors for that matter—repeatedly making a change to the article when a discussion has been opened on the talk page is edit-warring and disruptive behaviour. Reverting to the status quo is the normal and mandated response. There's no deadline, and a single possibly incorrect date does not constitute any kind of emergency. If the article's main contributor was unable to chime in within a given 48 hour window, the timing of which they had no control over, that's just the normal state of affairs on a volunteer run project. On the other hand, throwing around characterizations like "an utter disgrace" and "a stain" and demanding apologies skirts pretty close to the line of a personal attack (and I'd give you dollars to dimes which side of the line it'd fall if push came to shove). The actual content issue seems to be resolved, so any further complaints belong elsewhere. --Xover (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Reverting without so much as a response on the talk page, or an explanatory edit summary, is indeed a disgrace, and also contrary to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and principles. I suggest the editors that mindlessly reverted think hard about their behaviour, and offer a heartfelt apology to those that attempted in good faith to improve this article. RGloucester — ☎ 22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

So that's it.[5] 120.36.248.89 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Week day table for Julian calendar
Day_of_the_month Month_of_the_year Year_mod_28 N Day Mutiple_of_28
01 08 15 22 29 Jun 01 07 12 18 1 Mon 028 056 084
02 09 16 23 30 Sep Dec 02 13 19 24 2 Tue 112 140 168
03 10 17 24 31 Apr Jul Jan 03 08 14 25 3 Wed 196 224 252
04 11 18 25 Jan Oct 09 15 20 26 4 Thu
05 12 19 26 May 04 10 21 27 5 Fri
06 13 20 27 Aug Feb 05 11 16 22 6 Sat
07 14 21 28 Feb Mar Nov 06 17 23 00 0 Sun

Day of the week = (N for date + N for month + N for year mod 28) mod 7

For 11 December 1394,

N for day 11 = 4,
N for Dec = 2,
Year mod 28 = 1394 - 1120 = 274 - 252 = 22,
N for year 22 = 6,
Day = 4 + 2 + 6 - 7 = 5 = Fri.

For 14 February 1400 (leap year),

N for day 14 = 0,
N for Feb = 6,
Year mod 28 = 1400 - 1400 = 0,
N for year 00 = 0,
Day = 0 + 6 + 0 = 6 = Sat.

For 11 December 1594,

N for day 11 = 4,
N for Dec = 2,
Year mod 28 = 1594 - 1400 = 194 - 168 = 26,
N for year 26 = 4,
Day = 4 + 2 + 4 - 7 = 3 = Wed.

Q5968661 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks people...

I just want to say, thank you to the people who mounted and worked on this article. Compared to the tedious deluge of obscure minutiae about Australian cricketers, dreadnought battleships, and American coin stampings, this article stands out as a gem, like one precious ruby in a mound of machine made ball bearings.

Without Wikipedia, people like Rykener would be lost to history, and we would be lesser for it. This tells a story of who we were, and who we are. Well done! 184.69.174.194 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


At the risk of cluttering the talk page, I'd like to concur. I personally *am* very interested in articles on, for instance, American coins, but agree that this is truly excellent as well. The interactive map in particular really goes above and beyond the call of duty. 65.51.41.254 (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I was quite pleased with that myself, mainly because that kind of technical imagery, coding stuff is well out of my comfort zone  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Well done from me as well. Nice work.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close: although the nominator was apparently unaware, there was an RM about this just weeks ago (two sections above this one, on this page) which determined this page should not be moved to their proposed title. -sche (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

John/Eleanor Rykener → John Rykener – It was noted in the FAC by User:Juliancolton that the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject is actually just "John Rykener", based on incoming searches and scholarly sources. I also find the current name highly unusual, in that it attempts to combine two separate names into one. Generally we don't do that, and suggestions such as Football (soccer) and Burma (Myanmar) have always been rejected in the past. We should just call him by his more common name and note that the "Eleanor" name also exists in the lede. The present name appears to have come about as a result of an undiscussed move last year which I suggest should be reverted. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: This has already been discussed (see section above, RM 4 November 2017). ——SerialNumber54129 14:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: apologies, I didn't notice that when I filed this... I had always intended to come back and visit this once the FAC was over to avoid disruption, but it really does need to be moved back to its long-term title, as the current title doesn't meet our naming conventions. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for reasons mentioned in the previous discussion:
As mentioned by User:Serial Number 54129, "[sources] generally refer to the subject as John/Eleanor."
As mentioned by User:John B123, "WP:SLASH starts with 'Generally', imho this is a valid exception as the current title is both WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE."
As mentioned by User:-sche, "the current title seems better from both a precision standpoint and a search-and-findability standpoint (I came here after reading an article that lead with the name Eleanor rather than John) than the proposed title, and SLASH is not an absolute rule, as John says."
So, yeah. Oppose. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Striking bad faith accusation at Amakuru, apologies. ——SerialNumber54129 15:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Huh? Where did I say you're a liar? I'm just saying that it was mentioned at the FAC that the common name is John, and that a GBooks search backs that up. If you have evidence to the contrary then please present it so we can discuss. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Mostly. ——SerialNumber54129 15:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the reasons stated in the previous discussion which was closed 7 weeks ago. I would also request that this discussion is closed, or are we to continually have these discussions until those who want to change the name get what they want? --John B123 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but this month, I'm occasionally pinging FAC nominators and supporters for help dealing with complaints about blurb text. If you see anything in the blurb you don't like, please say so. Pinging: Serial Number 54129, Usernameunique, SchroCat, J Milburn, Iridescent, Ceoil. In particular, there's a complaint at WT:Today's_featured_article/January_2019#Jan 10 about this blurb: "I really hope this is meant to indicate that charges of sodomy were pursued in ecclesiastical courts. Might the article summariser be trying to shock or cast aspersions?" Examples in reference works, along with the results of Google searches, show that the word "sodomy" generally means "a criminal charge of various sex acts" or "the moral offense of various sex acts". On top of that, the sentence being complained about says "There is no evidence that he was prosecuted for either crime; prostitutes were not usually arrested in London during this period, and sodomy was pursued in ecclesiastical courts."; it's hard to see how a reader could fail to connect "crime" to its referent "sodomy". But I'm fine with changing the text if necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Fixing ping on Iridescent. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Pinging Kevin McE‎. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as foolishness. As you point out, Dank, the current wording is what is commonly understood. ——SerialNumber54129 14:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
There were other occasions, particularly Oxford: "five weeks before the feast of St. Michael's last [he] was staying at Oxford and there, in women's clothing and calling himself Eleanor, worked as an embroideress; and there in the marsh three unsuspecting scholars.... ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There are two problems with "transvestite", particularly as one of the first words on the Main Page. It's arguably inaccurate, because a common definition is one who "derives pleasure from" cross-dressing, and it's hard to know what he was feeling 600 years later. The bigger problem is that this word, like many old-fashioned words connected to gender issues, is now widely considered offensive. GLAAD broadly recommends against it, and AHD says "the term is sometimes considered offensive". How about "who dressed in women's clothing"? - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Well that might be OK, and I'll defer to Serialnumber to make a make a decision on that one, but given that it is the term used in the actual article, and which passed the FAC (albeit that nobody specifically queried it) it seems to me that we should be able to include it  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not massively bothered either way myself; although I—wishing to tread shall we say delicately in matters I generally don't focus on—only used the word because the sources do. For example, Ruth Karras's article—Ut cum muliere: A Male Transvestite Prostitute in Fourteenth-Century London—of course, uses it in the headline and throughout, and she's a leading historian of sex and gender n her own right. So my view is if it's good enough for someone of that calibre, it's good enough for me; but, pace, that might not be good enough for others :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    My partner and I have some experience with gender language issues, and he's ready to divorce me if I put "transvestite" on the Main Page, so I'd rather not :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Back to the original point on "sodomy was pursued ..." I think that as it is connected to the courts makes it clear to most people what we're on about. It's certainly clear in BrEng and, I guess from the number of AmEng speakers here, it's OK for them too. There will be some people that are confused by it, but only through a lack of knowledge of what "pursued through the courts" actually means, but we can't just dumb down for them so I suggest we leave it as is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We have recent scholarly sources using the term "transvestite" so I don't see the problem with that term, but didn't he find work as an embroiderer in addition to sex work? (Incidentally, something seems to have gone wrong with the talk page archiving: the box above links to /Archive 1, which is a redlink, but some old material was moved to Talk:John/Eleanor Rykener 1 - I suggest that page is moved to /Archive 1.) 213.205.240.166 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Johnboddie told me this morning that the article sources that use "transvestite" in their titles are from the 1970s and 1990s; the term wasn't widely considered offensive at the time. If we need to do more digging on this, we will. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
      • There are some examples in the last 10 to 15 years - "recent" is a relative term - but I accept the terminology can shift. Much of the scholarship derives from the work of Karras, who it seems started the "John/Eleanor" convention, and also started using the term "transvestite" but more recently has decided that is too specific and narrow, and now seems to prefer to consider the subject as transgender or genderqueer (meaning: not complying with initially assigned gender roles and expectations). This is not the only historical person that we have collectively struggled to fit into 20th or 21st century pigeonholes. The Chevalier d'Éon is another case in point. I don't see a pressing need to pick out a few descriptive but potentially misleading nouns and adjectives. We are on much safer ground if we simply recount the reported facts, rather than trying to retrofit a modern interpretation on them. He was a man who from time to time dressed in women's clothing, seems to have passed as a women when he wished, and had sex with men and women, sometimes for payment. Is there a simple one or two word term to encapsulate all of that? Would say "cross-dressing embroiderer and sex worker" be any better? 213.205.240.166 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
        • My personal experience is that the vast majority of transvestites don't find the word offensive. A vocal few do, but the main objection comes from non-TV's seeking to make the English language 'PC' and patronisingly making themselves 'guardians of the rights' of minorities. --John B123 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope y'all find this helpful. Generally, we humans get into trouble with naming. Usually much better to say "who liked to dress as a woman", than "was a transvestite". "Accepted money for sex" is better than "a prostitute". A description of their activities sticks to the facts, which is what we are about here in WikiLand. Naming is always a slippery slope prone to difficulties over time, as the connotations and usage of words morph. The man didn't call himself a transvestite, why should we? 184.69.174.194 (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The word "transvestite" is not offensive nor outdated. It is a fairly common word for a man who dresses as a woman, much more common and more accurate than "transgender," which falsely implies that a person's gender can be changed. GLAAD is a far-left extremist fringe organization whose purpose is to spread homosexual propaganda and thus cannot be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heftyuppy1 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns and descriptions

Several edits (including my own) to remove gendered language from the article have been reverted. There is academic dispute as to what is correct, so why is Wikipedia taking a stance on this? wizzwizz4 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

See previous discussion --John B123 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I've seen that, and all I've got from it is that removing gendered language would either be pointless or a good idea – I've seen no reasons to oppose it (that haven't been demonstrated to be flawed in some way by subsequent talkers). If you have any, please do provide them. wizzwizz4 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The use of "they" instead of "he", "them" instead of "him", are neologisms that are not supported by the reliable sources. Additionally, in British English, which this article is written in, "they" is plural or can be used in a singular form when referring to an unidentified person. Its use is incorrect when referring to an identified person. --John B123 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, in British English it's generally considered more correct. And I didn't think the article was in British English, since it's got spelling mistakes by the British English dictionary. "They" as singular is fine whenever, and in fact forms part of several British idioms.
My edit was rather clumsy, though (despite also fixing bad sentence constructions and missing words that I came across during the course of proofreading). Ideally I'd build off it and reword sentences to use pronouns for Rykener less often, but it was a start. Would you have an objection if "they" wasn't used? wizzwizz4 (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree over the use of "they" is more correct in British English. The article uses British spelling, offence not offense, fictionalise not fictionalize, recognise not recognize etc.
I'd have no objection to rewording to avoid using personal pronouns and thus sidestepping the issue of traditional usage against more "PC" terms. However, I would remind you this is a featured article so needs be carried out carefully. Also, as this is an FA article, I'd like to see other people's opinions. --John B123 (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
You can see other people's opinions in the previous discussion – it appears that such a change is both generally supported and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I'll work on rewording to avoid using personal pronouns. However, it'll be much easier to start from the gender-neutral version I made earlier; am I allowed to do that? (I'd rather not fork and merge, since I'm not certain I'll be able to do it all at once like I did last time, and I don't want to accidentally revert any edits other people make in the meantime.) wizzwizz4 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree the change of pronouns was generally supported, there was no overall consensus to change, avoiding personal pronouns, whilst not universally supported, was not opposed, so I can see no objection to changing to implement that. How you work to achieve that is your call. I would suggest you add the {{In use}} template to the top of the page when you start editing and remove it when you have finalised the changes. This should act as a warning to other editors not to edit and avoid any edit conflicts, or reversions before you're finished. I would remind you again that this is an FA article, so any edits should be made with care. (Apologies if that came across as casting any doubts on your editing abilities, but a lot of effort has gone into this article by another editor and I would hate to see it lose its status through edits by others). --John B123 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Rewriting to avoid pronouns is certainly an option, and one some other difficult articles employ, such as Chevalier d'Éon. It takes skill to do in way that doesn't read awkwardly, but it can be done. I'm happy to help, if necessary. I went ahead and implemented the change from describing Britby as "another man" to "a man", since "a man" is correct in any case (while "another man" is debatable), independent of pronouns. -sche (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article so as to remove quite a few pronouns, although several remain, which I will try to remove later, or which you're welcome to beat me to. Wizzwizz4, if you want to work from your version and overwrite my changes, that's OK, as I can use look at the diffs and restore any of the non-pronoun-related changes I make which got lost in the shuffle — although I think that if the goal is removing pronouns, it's probably easier to work from the version where I've already removed many than from the version where they were only changed to "they". (There are, incidentally, a few articles which use they/them pronouns, but all that I can think of are cases where the subject's pronoun "preferences", if I may use that word, were clearer than they are here.) -sche (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll see if I can merge the versions. I think that'll be easier, since I did some disambiguation when I replaced the pronouns and I think there's one minor edit otherwise that still isn't in the current version, but that's not worth throwing away your existing improvements. I agree that removing pronouns entirely where possible (and still readable) is a good plan. wizzwizz4 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
one of those was a good edit, many thanks ——SN54129

I've rewritten the article by taking my version, adding virtually all the changes from -sche's version (except in the couple of cases where I thought my wording superior), reverting some of my original changes where they were in error and making some more. (-sche picked up on some things that I'd missed, and vice versa; I couldn't have produced this version without those edits.) I had to read a lot of Wikipedia policies to make sure that I was doing the right thing (they're not easily searchable) but I think I can justify every decision I have made. wizzwizz4 (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done for rewriting to avoid personal pronouns, but it's disappointing that where this isn't possible he/his has been changed to they/their, which was objected to and the reason the earlier edits were reverted. --John B123 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It's a compromise. I restrained myself from changing them all to "she/her", which I could've done, because Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information. Even though there are enough sources to justify "she/her", Wikipedia shouldn't take sides in an academic dispute until it's good and settled, and it should still take note of the historical dispute if it's still relevant.
And by the way, that isn't "where this isn't possible". It's where I wasn't able to, given the time I allocated to the task – a different thing altogether. I'm fully confident that most, if not all, of the personal pronouns currently used to refer to Eleanor can be removed from the article. View the present presence of "they" as an incentive, if it helps. :-p (And thanks for the proofreading.) wizzwizz4 (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not the way it works. As per the principles of WP:BRD, the compromise was to change the text to avoid personal pronouns where possible, it was not to avoid personal pronouns in some instances and to change them to they/their for the remainder. --John B123 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
However, "they" was already a compromise – as far as I can tell, the use of "he" is actually incorrect, both by modern and historical uses of the English language in Britain as well as modern and contemporary understandings of gender. The original Latin document that mentions Eleanor in the first place uses mostly neutral language, with both male and female gendered language used where proscribed by contemporary convention, and she lived much of her life as a woman. Though describing her as a trans woman probably isn't strictly accurate (see ISBN 9781843844273 p113), it's better than describing her as a male transvestite which she probably wasn't. So, options:
  • Change pronouns to she/her. Inaccurate, but more accurate than changing them to he/him.
  • Change pronouns to a gender-neutral neopronoun, preferably ze/hir as used in academic contexts. Will probably be widely objected to.
  • Change pronouns to they/them, the British standard-English gender-neutral singular pronoun.
You object to the third one, but which of the other two would be preferable? wizzwizz4 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
My preference is he/his, which has been used since the articles creation in 2006. I can see no reason to change it to suit whatever is politically correct at the moment. Putting other considerations aside, there are numerous direct quotes in the article that use he/his which and can't be changed. To use a different convention in the rest of the article is inconsistent. Btw, the "British standard-English gender-neutral singular pronoun" is "it" not "they". --John B123 (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It's become more disputed since 2006. Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Direct_quotations says quotes can be changed using square brackets; thanks for bringing that up, because I hadn't thought of it. And as far as I know, we don't generally call adults "it" in Britain ("it's a girl" and other descriptions of babies aside); it's considered rude.
And this isn't political correctness. It's correctness. "He" is not accurate to describe this person. The original Latin document uses predominately gender-neutral language. The individual in question spent most of their life living as a woman. There is not academic agreement that "he" is correct. I don't think "the article has been this way since 2006" is a relevant argument, considering that the position of academics was different then. wizzwizz4 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
"I don't think "the article has been this way since 2006" is a relevant argument, considering that the position of academics was different then." Exactly my point, we shouldn't have pander to the whims of academics which frequently change. The sad thing is, it's not the people it effects (tv/tg etc) who have the issues with the terminology, or even the general public, but a small minority with an agenda. No we don't usually call people "it", but, as you point out we say "it's a girl" not "they is a girl". --John B123 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wizzwizz4:The original Latin document uses predominately gender-neutral language. Could you please elaborate on why you think this? Below I have coloured masculine forms of pronouns and adjectives used for Rykener blue, feminine red (note that both instances of the feminine occur within indirect discourse). Cheers, gnu57 19:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Undecimo die Decembris anno regni regis Ricardi secundi decimo octavo, ducti fuerunt hic coram Johanne Fressh maiore et aldermannis civitatis Londoniensis Johannes Britby de comitate Eboracum et Johannes Rykener, se Elianoram nominans veste muliebri detectus. Qui die dominica ultimo preterita per quosdam dicte civitatis ministros noctanter inter horas octavam et nonam super quoddam stallum in venella vocata Sopereslane inventi fuerunt iacentes, illud vitium detestabile, nephandum, et ignominiosum committentes, pro seperali examinatione coram dictis maiore et aldermannis super premissa fienda et audienda etcetera.
Qui quidem Johannes Britby inde allocutus fatebatur quod ipse per vicum regium de Chepe die dominica inter horas supradictas transiens, dictum Johannem Rykener vestitu muliebri ornatum, ipsumque mulierem fore suspicantem fuerat assecutus, petens ab eo, tanquam a muliere, si cum ea libidinose agere possit. Qui ab eo argentum pro labore suo petens sibi consentiebat, invicem transeuntes ad illud complendum usque stallum predictum. Ipsi tamen tunc ibidem per ministros predictos in eorum maleficiis detestabilibus capti fuerunt, carcere vero mancipati hucusque, etcetera.
Et predictus Johannes Rykener in veste muliebri hic adductus de materia predicta allocutus cognovit se fecisse in omnibus prout idem Johannes Britby superius fatebatur etcetera. Quesitum fuit ulterius a prefato Johanne Rykener quis ei docuit dictum vitium exercere et quanto tempore, in quibus locis, et cum quibus personis masculis sive feminis illud actum libidinosum et nephandum commisit. Qui in animam suam sponte iuravit et cognovit quod quaedam Anna, meretrix quondam cuiusdam famuli domini Thome Blount, primo docuit ipsum vitium detestabile modo muliebri exercere. Item dixit quod quaedam Elizabeth Brouderer prius vestivit ipsum veste muliebri; quae etiam conduxit quandam Aliciam filiam suam diversis hominibus luxuriae causa, ipsam cum eisdem hominibus in lectis eorum noctanter absque lumine reponens et eandem summo mane ab eisdem recedere fecit, monstrando eis dictum Johannem Rykener veste muliebri ornatum ipsum Alianoram nominantem, asserens ipsos cum ipsa sinistre egisse. Item dixit quod quidam Philippus, Rector de Theydon Gernon, concubuit cum eodem Johanne Rykener ut cum muliere in domo cuiusdam Elizabeth Brouderer extra Bisshoppesgate, quo tempore dictus Johannes Rykener asportavit duas togas ipsius Philippi. Et quando idem Philippus illas petiit a prefato Johanne Rykener, ipse dixit quod fuit uxor cuiusdam hominis, et si ipse illas repetere vellet faceret maritum suum versus ipsum prosequi. Item dictus Johannes Rykener fatebatur quod per quinque septimanas ante festum santi Michaelis ultimo elapsum morabatur apud Oxonium et operatus est ibidem in veste muliebri in arte de brouderer nominans ipsum Alianoram. Et ibidem in marisco tres scolares ignotos, quorum unus nominatur dominus Willielmus Foxlee, alius dominus Johannes, et tertius dominus Walterus, usi fuerunt sepius cum ipso abominabile vitium supradictum. Item fatebatur prefatus Johannes Rykener quod ipse die veneris proximo ante festum sancti Michaelis supradictum venit apud Burford in comitate Oxonium. Et ibidem fuit commorans cum quodam Johanne clerc atte Swan in officio de tapster per sex septimanas proximas sequentes, infra quod tempus duo fratres minores, quorum unus nominatur frater Michael et alius frater Johannes Barry, qui sibi dedit unum anulum aureum, et unus frater carmelitus et sex diversi homines extranei commiserunt cum illo vitium antedictum. Quorum quidem fratrum et hominum supradictorum quidam dabat dicto Johanni Rykener .xii. d, quidam .xx. d, quidam .ii. s. Item fatebatur idem Johannes Rykener quod fuit apud Bekenesfeld et ibidem idem ut vir concubuit cum quadam Johanna filia Johannis Mathew, et etiam ibidem cum ipso concubuerunt ut cum femina duo fratres minores alienigenae. Item fatebatur dictus Johannes Rykener quod post eius ultimum adventum Londoniae quidam dominus Johannes quondam capellanus ecclesiae sanctae Margaretae Patyns et alii duo capellani in venellis retro ecclesiam sanctae Katerinae iuxta turrim Londoniensem commiserunt cum illo illud vitium antedictum. Item dixit dictus Johannes Rykener quod ipse sepius concubuit cum quampluribus monialibus ut vir, et etiam concubuit modo virili cum quampluribus mulieribus, tam maritatis quam aliis, quarum numerum ignorat. Item fatebatur dictus Johannes Rykener quod quamplures presbiteri fecerunt illud vitium cum illo ut cum muliere, quorum numerum ignorat, et dixit quod citius cepit presbiteros quam alios quia plus vellent sibi dare quam alii.

Apparently I can't read those tables on Wiktionary. Good catch, and sorry for spreading misinformation. I still don't think we should be defaulting to "he", though; I can't find any writings that suggest it's correct, but I can find writings stating that it's incorrect. (I think my ability to find such things should be cast into doubt, though, considering I didn't even double-check my Latin.) wizzwizz4 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Though I have little experience in Wikipedia editing, I'd like to contribute to this discussion, seeing as there has been very little accomplished in ameliorating this article for some time. To summarize, barring some new discovery or academic consensus, Rykener's gender and appropriate pronouns will never be known. As such, the continued use of male pronouns for Rykener is heavily misleading and should be amended, especially given this page's thoroughness in other areas and former status as a featured article. Whether it be through the near-total avoidance of pronoun use, such as in Chevalier d'Éon, or through use of they/them/theirs (which may be an arguably modern usage of the term, but remains a more accurate descriptor than he/him/his given how little concrete knowledge exists about Rykener), this article is in dire need of a rework. Perhaps a request for assistance should be made on a noticeboard? CuriousChoice (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we're making progress. Rewording has removed a lot of the pronouns; it's just a matter of finding ways to reword what remains. Some clauses can simply be dropped — for example, even separate from any question of pronouns, in the sentence Rykener's clients at this time included two Franciscan friars—whom he named as Brother John and Brother Michael, I think "whom he named as" could simply be dropped: the only reason I can think of for having it is so we're not stating definitively that they had those names, since the only evidence we have is Rykener's statement, but then, that's all the (not currently qualified) statement that Rykener slept with two friars is based on, too. -sche (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
That's good to hear. Thank you for working on it. CuriousChoice (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Why are we removing pronouns from the page of someone with a clearly expressed identity? If we held cis people in the past to the same dubious standard, we'd never be able to use pronouns for anyone. It's obvious that Eleanor Rykener 'called herself Eleanor' that's right there in the original medieval latin document. Why on Earth are we then bending over backwards to refer to her as a man, or with no pronouns at all (with references to he/him that I recently caught and removed)? Cavegirlsmash (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
We're removing pronouns because we can't form a consensus otherwise. I am still not sure why we're using “avoid pronouns, but use he where that's not possible” as our compromise, though; it's not a terribly good one, since it's factually inaccurate and doesn't even meet the golden mean heuristic. However, it's what we've got at the moment; I recommend focusing your energies towards removing gendered language without using the singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun instead, saving that as a very very last resort. (And don't go changing the pronouns to “she/her” again @Cavegirlsmash:, since Academia's not formed a consensus yet. The job of Wikipedia is not to replace Academia in forming that consensus, but to document what's already there.)
That said, why is the article focusing exclusively on the views of people who work at universities? We've got a section on literature adaptions, so why not add a section on the views of contemporary, non-academic writers? (Not a rhetorical question: I don't know Wikipedia's policies, and am not advocating somebody going out and adding it until they know why it's not there already!)
Also, we need to keep “John” in the article somewhere, since iirc there are some academic writings that refer to a John Rykener without saying Eleanor. wizzwizz4 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John/Eleanor_Rykener/Archive_1&oldid=949244463"