Talk:Wife selling (English custom)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Any more info on how the practice ended? (NT)

no text. TCO (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was always illegal, the authorities began to clamp down on it more and more as the 19th century wore on, public opinion turned against it, and it just died out. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If say that in article, it might help give a bit more of a conclusion to the article and help out with anyone else like me that felt a little hanging.TCO (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't anything else to say other than what the article already says. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The way you said it here sounded better. There, I had to read between the lines and it was arguably ambigious. But it's your baby, will say no more.TCO (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll give it some thought. Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RE TCO: It Takes a Village to Raise a Child! ;-)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edit to lead

I hate to dive in and copyedit a featured article with active editors, so here's a suggested change to the lead. I think "A woman giving evidence in a Leeds police court in 1913, claimed that she had been sold to one of her husband's workmates for £1, one of the last reported instances of a wife sale in England" doesn't need that comma after 1913. How about inverting it: "In one of the last reported instances of a wife sale in England, a woman giving evidence in a Leeds police court in 1913 claimed that she had been sold to one of her husband's workmates for £1." Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your suggested change looks fine to me Mike, go for it. That comma does seem a bit oddly placed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I had Nikkimaria's talk page on my watch list and saw your note, and realized I'd never read the article so came over to take a look. If you'd like another opinion on the disagreement above, I'd be happy to read through and comment, though like you I don't really mind too much what categories articles end up in, so it may not be important. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The category thing is a non-event for me, as I don't give a fig for categories. I'm far more concerned about this article degrading because of the imposition of a feminist agenda and the merging of related customs in places like China, India, and God knows where else. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How about a See also for wife swapping?TCO (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Noooooooooooo! Wife selling was a pseudo-legal (in England) and legal (apparently in China) form of divorce, not just a bit of fun on the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

See also garage sale? TCO (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're beginning to remind of that scene at the end of Pale Rider, when Marshall Stockburn asks the preacher "who are you"? Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"I'm you're worst nightmare TCO (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading article name

I'm not sure when the page move took place, but this article name implies wife selling is an English custom. It is not. It was an English custom. There is a difference. Consider the theoretical (and strawman!) article names Witch burning (English custom), Blue face painting (Scottish custom), Slave trading (American custom). Yes, I'm deliberately picking extreme and silly examples, but calling something a custom, without gloss, implies it's current. (Incidentally, where is the discussion about the page move?) --Dweller (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion was here. What title would you suggest the article should have? Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for swift response. Hmm. For one thing, that section was not ideally titled (or given long enough to establish consensus) before making a page move. 17 minutes really isn't long enough! I have no idea what it should be called: perhaps we can give other Wikipedians some time and an appropriate space to come up with something that's consensual... and accurate? --Dweller (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling in England? Geometry guy 23:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Seventeen-minutes isn't long, however it was also related to this discussion over a year ago; the result was that as the article included information solely on the English practice and there were no other articles on the subject of wife selling at the time that "wife selling (English custom)" could be disambiguated to simply "wife selling". The discussion on 21 February was a simple reversal of that, although I cocked it up slightly as I wasn't aware wife selling (Chinese custom) had been created. Does the current title imply it's still happening? I'm not sure it really does to be honest. You've identified the "(xyz custom)" as the problematic bit although it gives no indication of time and that it's current. While I like Geometry guy's suggestion as it's simple, wouldn't that suffer from the same problem as the title doesn't explicitly state that the practice no longer goes on? Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I entirely refute the notion that the current title implies anything at all about whether or not the custom still goes on. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I see Dweller's point but I don't think it's an issue, especially as directly under the article title we have a lead section which in its first sentence explains that the custom is no longer observed. Parrot of Doom 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see that switching the title to "Wife selling in England" resolves anything, and it is fact even more misleading, as the article actually touches on wife selling in the colonies. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This last point occurred to me (obviously, as I have at least half a brain!) but Wife selling in England was the first alternative that came to mind (use in the colonies being a derivative effect). Wife selling (historical English practice) would be a more long-winded attempt at a precise title, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good option either. There may not be a panacea. Geometry guy 00:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Before looking for a solution we ought to agree that there's a problem, and I just don't see one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually think it's fine as is. 'Custom' doesn't imply it's ongoing, and clearly it's not. I'd also not want to see the newly created Wife selling (Chinese custom) changed to Wife selling in China, which it would have to if this is changed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If attempts to provide clearer alternatives fail, long live the current title ;) Geometry guy 01:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to begin with a properly titled section of this page, so that people know a page move is being discussed? --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to begin by using some common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dweller: by your argument, articles like Bill Bailey (American actor) and William Smith (geologist) would need to be moved to Bill Bailey (retired American actor) and William Smith (deceased geologist). --RSLxii 03:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I support there being no change. It's rarely or never done. It's a problem not only as already discussed, but also for ambiguous cases, such as if we don't know if a practice is only a former practice; maybe it's still practiced or is revived. A case in which I could imagine it is if there were two articles about electronic music, one on the modern genre and one on the older (1950s–'60s) genre, since they're different genres. So if wife-selling in the English custom was active this morning but vastly differently from what the article describes as having expired about a century ago, so a new article were needed, then one or the other article would need a time-dependent title. But that's not the case. Wikipedia:Article names doesn't say much on this, but does call for concision, naturalness, and other characteristics that suggest steering clear of this. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation bot and column/volume error

Citation bot twice recently changed citations from column to volume ([1] and [2]) and this was changed back ([3]) by a regular editor of this page the first time and then by me ([4]). This looks to me like a bot or bot operator's error. I asked at the Citation bot Talk page why the bot is being used to do this. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article per a Citation bot discussion. The Column parameter isn't supported by the {{Citation}} template, but the At parameter seems to be the parameter of choice. If someone knows of a problem with the latter, please edit or post accordingly. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

deletion of section Sexism of the Practice

It's hard to deny that the practice is sexist. Wikipedia considers that a suitable characterization to give to subjects other than living people, organizations, and media; a category exists for the purpose and the debate about it is over (reopen there if you wish but meanwhile the category is available), therefore content about sexism belongs. I provided a secondary source describing it as sexist. And, no, I've never attempted to trash the article. That is an attack that does not belong. My motive is one of helpfulness. I plan to edit in more such content as I come across it in suitable sources, and I have a list of sources fairly likely to have such information (much or all of which I have to use interlibrary loan to get, which may take a while), so this is a good time to discuss content likely to grow.

If you object to a teacher of law and political theory (the book's author) pointing out a practice in which sexism exists, please tell us why.

If your objection is only to article organization or phrasing and you wish to propose a better way to word or insert the source's information somewhere in the article, please propose.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Herzog does not state that it was a "sexist practice" and he does not use the para-statistical cliche "factor".

Rather, he states that wife selling involved a mess of class and gender issues, and spends most of his time discussing the class issues involved, before stating the phrase you quoted. At best you are engaging in OR by synthesis. (And his discussion seems to be a work of tertiary scholarship, also.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He does discuss other issues, but that does not eliminate his discussion on point. And it is a secondary work, being generally reliant on the sources cited therein; it is not an encyclopedia.

We are expected to paraphrase and my paraphrase was supported by what he wrote, so it is not synthesis or OR. However, do you have a better way of phrasing the distinction he makes between the treatments of women and of men?

Beyond that, what would you suggest as sufficient research to establish that wife-selling was sexist? Sexism being genderal differentiation disadvantaging people of one sex more than the other, I don't understand how wife-selling does not fit that definition, or the narrower definition of disadvantaging females more than males. If you can offer an explanation, it will help identify what further research, if any, is needed.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick!

Let me reply to your statements. I repeat that Herzog's is a tertiary work; E. P. Thompson and other historians reference primary sources in writing their secondary works. Herzog's work is based on the secondary works of historians.

Herzog does claim that (only) men sold women, which is not consistent with the historians cited here. (Some women sold men, apparently.) This again suggests that Herzog's work need not be a reliable source on this question, or that the other works are wrong. Given that the other works are based on primary sources, I suggest that the Herzog's infallibility may be questioned on this issue.

Your other question strikes me as improper. If you find a reliable source, please use it to improve the article. I do not wish to speculate or engage in blogging about sexism on this article's talk page. Further research needs should be discussed by researchers, not by WP editors here.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder if you've actually read the article. Let me ask you a simple question: in what way was a woman disadvantaged by being offered a practical way to separate from her husband and move in with her lover? Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably most sexist anti-woman practices can be described as having advantages for women. For instance, refusing to hire a woman for a paid career could be said to free her to be a mother; the police refusing to enforce a law against assault because it was only a case of a husband beating his wife could be said to be a case of preserving the sanctity of the family by applying necessary correction. Sexism does not mean that no alternative explanation is possible. Who makes the choices is relevant: wife selling is a practice in which the woman may have done something to inspire the sale but in which the man made the decision for her; she did not make the decision to sell or to separate, even if the method was practical and even if the legal method was usually unaffordable by the couple or either spouse. It may be that wives were typically sold to lovers; but what's better established is that they were sold to highest bidders, and, given some of the prices quoted, that she was not allowed to choose who would bid or who would win, and that a wife may have had a lover she did not consider to be suitable as a prospective husband (the two relationships being different), we can hardly assume that wives usually chose their new husbands. And, to my knowledge, wives did not sell their husbands, which would be a logical occurrence given that wives being sold to lovers implies that many of those wives would rather be rid of their pre-sale husbands and if there was no sexism. Yes, of course, I read the article, including long ago and again just before the edits now in question. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're making sweeping generalisations through the prism of 20th-century feminism, which is inappropriate. You might as well argue that marriage is a sexist practice. And there are in fact cases of wives selling their husbands, as the article says. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Marriage was sexist and nobody batted an eyelid for nearly 6 months. Geometry guy 22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some more-encompassing statements in Talk and you may use them as a guide to research, if you wish, such as in feminist literature. I don't doubt that sourcing is available and general knowledge facilitates identifying keywords, topics, authors, etc. for any editor to use. Feel free. I've already begun seeking more books and appreciate the bibliographic suggestions already offered on this page.

Applying modern perspectives to past practices is precisely how we learn and make decisions about the future; for example, if someone were to propose wife selling today, modern perspectives would be appropriate. It's legitimate to describe a practice from the perspective of the time but that doesn't preclude also applying other perspectives, especially including those of modern times. Feminisms, including from the 20th century, are legitimate perspectives. Husband selling (I'm sorry that I forgot that it ever occurred) was far rarer and not simply because wives didn't feel like doing it; spouse selling was largely illegal and wives would have had much less access to community support for engaging in the practice than husbands would have had.

Marriage and other topics can be left to other editors or other times. It is not necessary to consider all topics at the same time or none. We can do one at a time. That's inherent in Wikipedia's design.

Rape qualifies as sexist, although a percentage of rapes are of males, because by far most are of females and by intent; and even though many who object to rape object on a masculist ground that makes the objection itself also sexist. You're welcome to categorize rape accordingly, if you have the time.

Critique is normal in Wikipedia articles. Would you prefer rephrasing more clearly as critique?

Would not making a separate section be better? In that case, we'd integrate the content into another section for now.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got it completely arse about face; if someone were to propose wife selling today then the historical perspective would be appropriate, not a modern one. In other words, this custom as practised in England was a form of divorce, and the only one available to the overwhelming majority of the population. Would you consider divorce to be sexist? Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a good time to point out that we do not go by our own personal opinions on the subject but by what reliable published sources say. Are there references that discuss the gender politics of wife selling, and if so, what do they say? Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I invite reconsideration of "if someone were to propose wife selling today then the historical perspective would be appropriate, not a modern one." Since some people nowadays practice slavery, they effectively propose it; if the only appropriate perspective would be that from slavery's heyday, then imagine what Barack Obama's life would be like today (you could ask his office if he'd be agreeable). If gathering-hunting were proposed today to be our means of sustenance (and it is practiced), then, if we're consistent, the modern perspective would not be appropriate, and therefore we'd be discussing how to radically shrink the world's human population, shrinkage being necessary if we're to be without agriculture or even horticulture (the latter two require much less land to sustain an average human than would gathering-hunting). Perhaps most of us probably should speak proto-Indo-European, too, or at least ask France or Denmark to resume governing England and England's Queen to invade the U.S. whenever she finds it convenient.

Any lack of a nonsexist alternative to wife selling back then would not make wife selling nonsexist. If you're being raped and can't stop it, you're not required to lie back and enjoy it; i.e., your being unable to stop it does not make rape good, acceptable, or nonsexist.

Whether to recategorize divorce is irrelevant to this Talk discussion, given that we do not need to recategorize everything or nothing in Wikipedia, but can recategorize this article even if we don't recategorize other articles.

We're allowed to discredit the Flat Earth hypothesis even if its original adherents were quite sincere and found the perspective on geography entirely useful for getting around the lands they knew.

The question on what research is needed is not about doing original research, as the reply seems to imply, which would be a misunderstanding of what I asked. My question was not blogging but was to give a chance for editors to discuss what is needed in order to establish for Wikipedia that wife selling was/is sexist. If someone wants to say what in their opinion is needed, this talk page is a very appropriate place to discuss it, and I'm open to suggestions.

The question on what sources say is exactly right and, as noted, I'm looking. It appears we're meanwhile being told not to bother with finding out because someone else already did so and has concluded that sexism is not part of this subject and wishes all mention of sexism attaching to wife selling kept away. That is why I have opened questions for discussion.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, but I'm curious what has caused this much discussion (or should I say soliloquy?). As far as I can tell, you're trying to make the case that a new section called "Sexism of the practice" should be added, and that a single sentence be put into it that says "gender is a factor". I have a hard time believing this, so please tell me that I'm mistaken. --RSLxii 16:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion (check the archives) is based upon a small number of bra-burners who believe that the practice was sexist, when in truth it was the only practical means for most people to get a divorce. It also happens to be the most boring conversation I've ever seen. Parrot of Doom 21:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I and another editor wanted to categorize the article into sexism but apparently two editors believe it's not sexist based on what the article says, so I offered to find more sourcing and began a section so editors could add accordingly, and sonme editors proposed possible sources. But apparently the plan of one or two other editors is to ignore sourcing and forbid acknowledging the sexism. Perhaps the solution is to skip the additional sourcing, since the article has ample evidence of the sexism already, and simply categorize into sexism now, saving us the effort of possibly redundant sourcing. I probably can't log in over the weekend, so we'll consider afterwards. The third stage of BRD is discussion, but apparently that is being foreclosed, too, such as by the use of a definition of sexism that may not exist elsewhere, especially in Wikipedia. Suggestions are welcome. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me give you an analogy that may help you to understand. The surgical procedures carried out by the ancient Romans would no doubt be considered barbaric if performed today, but were in many ways enlightened for the period. "Sexism" is a 20th-century label inappropriate for a 18th and 19th-century practice. You would be wrong to ignore the context in which wife selling took place. If wife selling took place in England today (which is of course inconceivable), then it would be perfectly proper to label it a sexist practice. Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You wanted to categorise this article into sexism because you thought "selling a wife? That has to be sexist!" Then, you went on a hunt for sources that supported your original assertion (rather than following what the most knowledgeable sources have to say on the subject). You've found little to nothing that supports your position, and so are continuing to bore the pants off anyone reading, probably hoping that people will not bother to contribute, so you can quietly make the changes you want.

It was no more sexist than any other practice, and no amount of your incredibly long-winded and boring commentary will change that fact. Maybe you should go and improve Harriet Harman, your views appear to match hers. Parrot of Doom 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom, I have no interest in boring anyone, some explanations require length if only out of extending a courtesy of being understood, I already have a list of things I'm working on, wife selling is sexist as the article shows sufficiently and as an understanding of sexism ordinarily reveals (there are huge numbers of sources that discuss sexism and gender and I've read a large enough number), there is no circular reasoning in my argument (as you seem to imply), you object to others doing research when you believe nothing more of significance is to be found but that objection is against what Wikipedia is about (no one needs new permission to research or edit according to what appropriate sources say), and I don't know of a source that denies that it's sexist (if you do, please cite it). That there was some advantage to women from English wife selling, considering that the advantage was much more to men, does not make English wife selling nonsexist; consider that almost any sexist practice has some advantage to women, even if slight. If you believe that other practices are no more or less sexist than English wife selling, feel free to categorize them as sexist. If anyone is stopping you, please let us know.

Malleus Fatuorum, I thank you for changing your mind and now understanding that we, at least for surgical practice, can judge a past practice by a modern perspective. This also applies to social practices, and you seem now to agree, although you seem to reserve some doubt whether we can view the social past differently than people did then. A strong reason why wife selling is no longer likely is that it is judged by modern standards, so other people also agree. The category is consistent with exactly that. It is not a category called Sexism as So Judged in Other Centuries. It is simply Sexism. To categorize is not to ignore the context of time, since that context is already in the article. The category does not replace the article; it points readers to an article, which can then be read, presenting historical context and other contexts. Wikipedia readers wishing to research sexism and seeing the category itself are appropriately pointed to various articles, and that would include this one.

I will gladly and briefly await any reasonable disagreement or alternative solution that addresses the concerns. Otherwise, I expect to categorize English wife selling accordingly. If you need more time within reason, such as for your own research on any point, please let me know. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have most certainly not changed my mind, and I remain convinced that your position is absurd. If you add a sexism tag I will remove it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nick,

When I complained that school or the playground was not meeting my expectations, my mother always repeated, "Life is not fair". Wikipedia is only a small part of life, but Wikipedia also is not fair. In this particular corner of Wikipedia, you have argued and fought for nearly a year, and I don't think it's been particularly enjoyable, or successful, for you. I don't believe that the others are violating WP policies; on the contrary, I have written that you seem to be.

Couldn't you just accept that this page is unfair? Or that WP is a bit unfair, since you haven't had much help. Couldn't you help with improving articles or writing new articles on other topics. There is no shortage of articles on feminism, sexism, and gender that need a lot of work.

I don't like to see the level of frustration that you must feel, expressed for so long. It's better to work on articles where you have fewer and shorter disagreements.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, comparison of "[I]f someone were to propose wife selling today then the historical perspective would be appropriate, not a modern one." with "The surgical procedures carried out by the ancient Romans would no doubt be considered barbaric if performed today" gave me the idea you had changed your mind. I can see how you didn't mean that, but almost everywhere in the world we are permitted to judge past practices by today's standards and we are likewise permitted in Wikipedia and since English wife selling would likewise be considered sexist if performed today then we can categorize it as sexist. However, if you thought I was planning a "tag", as in an editorially critical template at the top of the page, no, I was not; I am planning to categorize, absent good reason not to.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, in short, your concern for my welfare is appreciated but misplaced. Thank you, anyway.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, in further response, my earliest post to this talk page was on February 26 of this year (per the archives) and I stopped in the middle because I acted on good faith that if some editors thought the article itself did not support the sexism categorization then more sourcing might be needed and therefore planned to research the point and began to, only to find out eventually that you objected to my even doing the research, even though Wikipedia encourages research (not original research, but research). Also, I wonder if your placing part of your post into a comment and thus invisible to most readers was a good move. And, no, I was not violating Wikipedia policy; if your post of 9-1-11 2:22a UTC (I take it that's the post you're referring to, since no other seems to fit) was not adequately responded to as showing no violation (in the interest of brevity and because parts of your post I thought didn't need responding to, as I thought you already knew what Wikipedia would want, but I hope not responding to those has not inconvenienced you), let me know and I'll be glad to show how. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I'm sorry but other matters are pressing, and my interest in this page is limited---I read Thompson's article 20 years ago, and Hardy even earlier. Sorry,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest Nick I've never really been able to get very excited about Wikipedia's apparently ever changing sea of categories, so if you feel strongly that such a category might help someone somewhere then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with any proposed categorisation of this practice as sexist, no matter how much Nick waffles on about it. Read his very first post on the subject, here. It's clear he has pre-conceived notions of what this practice represented. If he adds this article to the sexism category, I will remove it. Parrot of Doom 12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Parrot of Doom, I'll wait a little longer, so that you have reasonable time to respond to any point. First, one I have not raised yet is that your criticisms of me, being personal, suggest that you might accept the categorization from someone else but not from me. However, Wikipedia editors include many who know their respective subjects well enough to write about them (such as someone who wrote about Greyhound buses and probably a variety of scholars) and editors who edit in areas they don't know well but where they have general edits they can helpfully apply (such as copy editors, one formerly from a newspaper). There are subjects closely related to those on which I edit substantively; but in some related subjects, I do not edit substantively; for example, sometimes I only post to the talk page bibliographic information about a reference I think someone might consider, someone with more expertise than I have. So please reconsider your attacks on me personally and whether I have prior knowledge of a subject (what you call preconceived notions) should disqualify me as an editor. Second, if you believe that Category:Misogyny is better, I'll be glad to categorize there instead of into Category:Sexism, although the contrary argument could be that apparently a small percentage of known sales were of husbands by wives and therefore Sexism is the more accurate category. If there's no preference stated between the two, I expect to choose when I categorize. Overall, I don't want you to feel that you didn't have a chance to discuss anything adequately, so I will wait a little.

Nick Levinson (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You're talking like some extra categorisation is a foregone conclusion; it is not and furthermore, this article is not about a misogynous practice. I expect you to reply with another condescending load of tripe, you can expect my answer to remain unchanged. Parrot of Doom 15:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nev1, it can hardly be disruptive to edit within guidelines and policies and article consensus is expected to be within them to be valid. The only concern from you to my knowledge is the one about disruption. If my efforts to find another solution within policies and guidelines have not been sufficient, please tell us any other concerns you have, so I may address them. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick Levinson, please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Consensus. It is an essential policy and conducive to collaborative editing. Ignoring it is disruptive, regardless of good intentions or otherwise, and leads to Wikipedia:Edit warring. Clearly you are becoming emotionally invested in tagging this article as sexist; I suggest you need some perspective. Is adding category:sexism for the benefit of readers or editors? As only 500 people visit that category per month I suggest it's not much use to readers, and since the main editors to the article do not find it useful or representative of the content, it doesn't seem to be helping editors either. I recommend you turn your passionate editing to articles which would benefit from having sourced content added rather than unimportant categories. Nev1 (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ownership is a major problem with this article, and is visible in Talk, from multiple editors. Discussion is supposed to be meaningfully useful, not a barrier.

I have read about consensus. As policies and guidelines are also by consensus, their consensus is generally more important than that of an article, which is why article consensus has to be within the Wikipedia guideline for categorizing. While exceptions are allowed, the discussion has not been conducted as it should be, as I've had to work within being attacked for such things as having subject knowledge and offering to find sources, not to mention that, per archive 2, I hardly seem to be alone in seeing the custom as sexist based on the article.

The viewership statistic is interesting, but that's relevant to whether the category should exist, not to whether it should be appropriately populated. It was already nominated this year for deletion and the decision was to keep it with a limitation on what could populate it, customs not being excluded. The purpose of categorizing is not usually to benefit an article's main editors, as they obviously already know the article's location, but categorizing may benefit other editors who want to find what's related to their interests, as well as readers. Since some 500 people are visiting the category monthly, they're entitled to expect the guideline on populating it to be met, just as readers are implicitly entitled to expect all the guidelines to be met.

Emotionalism and the availability of other articles to edit are no more relevant to me than to any other editor.

In case there's a misunderstanding leading to one point in the last post above, I was not proposing to tag the article as sexist, but the subject of the article, the custom, into sexism. I was not criticizing how it was researched or written, but categorizing the English custom of wife selling itself.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no such improbable misunderstanding. Nev1 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've posted two queries, one on whether a category with fewer visitors should therefore include fewer articles and the other on whether a modern perspective can justify categorizing a historical custom into Sexism. (This notice is a bit delayed because of computer problems in between, regretfully.) Feel free to participate in either or both. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

image alt text deletion

What is the objection to having alt text for people who can't see the image the caption refers to? I'm glad one or more editors went to the trouble of providing usability for people with visual impairments. While the caption is available (as far as I know) to the visually impaired and unimpaired alike, the picture requires sight, and the alt text is therefore useful and appears to me at first glance to have been properly composed as a description of what a sighted user would see, so that others can share what Wikipedia has to offer. If a better wording is to be proposed, go ahead; but merely removing it wholesale seems ill-advised. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of alt text. It's an alternative to the image, not a description of it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The long alt text removed by Malleus [5], but to understand this requires some imagination or a test with a browser that does not display images. Whereas the image can be taken in by the reader in a few seconds and works more like an ornament than an integral part of the article, the long alt text is 7 sentences of excessive details about a historical image that is of some, but very limited, relevance to the article. E.g. it could easily be replaced by another historical depiction of wife selling that would require a totally different description. The result of including this alt text would be excessive, undue weight on a barely relevant illustration. For screenreader users it would be even worse than for users who simply turned off image display: Reading this stuff out takes a lot of time, and skipping it is cumbersome. Hans Adler 16:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

An alt text is usually required by Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Alternative text for images but whether it should state the larger meaning or be specifically descriptive is not clear there and is the subject of disagreement among outside authorities (e.g., Nielsen, Jakob, Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity (New Riders, 1st or 2d printing 1999 or 2000 © 2000 (ISBN 1-56205-810-X)), pp. 303, 305, & 306 (captions not mentioned) vs. Powell, Thomas A., HTML: The Complete Reference (Berkeley, Calif.: Osborne McGraw-Hill, 1998 (ISBN 0-07-882397-8)), pp. 221 & 223.). For something official, see especially WCAG 2.0 section 1.1.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#text-equiv), <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#qr-text-equiv-all>, and examples at http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/text-equiv-all.html (Examples of Success Criterion 1.1.1), all as accessed 8-31-11

It's not so much that users are confused. The argument that it should state the larger meaning appears to arise where no caption is expected. This image has a caption. If no alt text is provided, the image's filename will be read aloud by software. The alt text should be what the caption is not (between larger meaning and specifics), so the caption and alt text are complementary and informative, without adding to the alt text anything that users who don't use alt text wouldn't find in the article including the image Thus, the alt text should not be redundant of the caption. The caption in question is about the larger meaning; therefore, the alt text should be specifically descriptive. The alt text that was serving this image appears to have been too long. If an image is changed, so can the caption and the alt text.

The solution seems to be a specifically descriptive alt text that is brief. Does anyone want to propose one or should I work on it?

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As you persist in misunderstanding the purpose of alt text I doubt that you would be doing anything other than wasting your time by working on it; the present alt text is perfectly adequate. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick, a point of information: alt text isn't required. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The MoS says quite clearly that "In addition to a caption, alt text—for visually impaired readers—may be added invisibly to informative (rather than decorative) images" (my emphasis). But you're just a girl Nikkimaria, what do you know? ;-) As a serious aside, given the number of female editors I bump into every day I really do find the claim that only 13% of Wikipedia editors are female to be rather a stretch. But I digress. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the correct answer to that question is "as a girl, I know where to kick" ;-P Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently hung out with an avid Wikipedia user who is completely blind and uses a screen reader. He said that his biggest peeves with the site were:

1. That it says "Edit" after every header
2. That he can't access the menu items under Interaction and Toolbox (since they are collapsed by default)
3. That he has to listen to both image captions and alt text which are usually redundant

Of course, this was just one user, and I'm sure other users may have other opinions, but it would seem to support the idea of not using lengthy alt text. Kaldari (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think the opinion of a blind editor is of far more value than that of a mindless zealot. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The three issues, all good, all appear to be Village Pump issues, since two may need sophisticated programming so the "edit" link and collapsed left navbar links (and probably collapsed sidebar/template heading "show" links) can be available but subdued to be nondistractive of uninterested readers and one may need more attention drawn to Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.

On this article's alt texts, tn addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, which Malleus Fatuorum was quoting, the main MoS page says, "Alt text takes the place of an image for text-only readers, including those using screen readers. Images should have an alt attribute added to the |alt= parameter. See WP:ALT for more information." Not only does MoS say "should", but, in accordance with WP:ALT, since all four images in the article link to image description pages, alt texts are required for all four, per "For images that link to their image description page (which is nearly all images on Wikipedia), the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent."

The present alt texts in top-down order say:

• "Refer to caption": This recently said, "A colour illustration of a market scene. A woman is attached to one of 13 men, who stand on either side of a wooden fence, looking at her with expressions of glee on their faces. A boy in military costume beats a large drum. Two dogs stand in the dirt. One of the men holds what appears to be a mug of ale. The woman stands proudly, one arm bent toward her waist, and has a smirk on her face. To the extreme right, in the back of the scene, another woman appears shocked by the drama before her."
• "Refer to caption"
• "A full-length portrait of an elderly man, seated. He wears long flowing red and white robes, a long grey wig, and holds a rolled document in his left hand. His right hand rests on a table littered with documents. Behind him, the corner of a room, with ornate plaster architrave, is visible."
• "A woman stands on a raised platform, her eyes closed. A man stands below her, holding a halter which is connected to her waist. A group of men stand to the right, studying the woman. Livestock stand freely amongst the men, and one stands in a position behind the 'seller' which makes it appear as though he has horns growing from his head."

The last one somewhat overlaps the caption's content; the old first and the present third much less so or hardly so, nor should they. But "[r]efer to caption" is inadequate and the other alt texts are much too long, although those three being written as substitutes for what visually-impaired users cannot see is right in principle.

If two editors consider me "a mindless zealot", perhaps someone else would like to write functionally useful alt texts, but I'll be glad to if no one else does, regardless of the erroneous personal attack. Suggestions are welcome.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to enforce a guideline which for reasons of both accessibility to screen reader users and convenience to editors is generally ignored. The right thing to do in this situation would be to change the guideline. But I agree that "Refer to caption" is not a good caption. Of course, neither is a detailed, multi-sentence, undue description of an inessential image. Hans Adler 18:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The guideline explicitly says: "Where the caption is sufficiently descriptive or evocative of the image, or where it makes clear what the function of the image is, one option is to write |alt=refer to caption." Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for both edits.

The one for the last image is still long, the recommendation I've seen being around 8–10 words, but the information is valuable and perhaps some of the information could be covered by the caption. I have it down to 10 words (from 58), by growing the caption from 52 words to 76, so the total of the image's alt text and caption is shrunk from 110 words to 86 (smaller by about a fifth) with the same total information:

• Present alt text: "A woman stands on a raised platform. A man stands below her, holding a halter connected to her waist. A group of men stand to the right, studying the woman. Livestock stand freely amongst the men, and one stands in a position behind the 'seller' which makes it appear as though he has horns growing from his head."
  • Present caption: "A contemporary French print of an English wife sale. The scene is set at a cattle market, which both places it in the context of livestock sales and implies that the wife already has a lover, as the husband is shown apparently "wearing horns", a traditional symbol that he has been cuckolded."
• Proposed alt text: "A woman stands on a platform. Various men study her."
  • Proposed caption: "A contemporary French print of an English wife sale. The husband is holding a halter at her waist. The scene is set at a cattle market, which both places it in the context of livestock sales and, because one stands behind the 'seller' making it appear that he has horns growing from his head, implies that the wife already has a lover, as the wearing of horns is a traditional symbol that he has been cuckolded."

On the first two images. I now agree with Malleus Fatuorum.

The one for the third image looks fine.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by deleting erroneous closing brackets: 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

I like the latest changes. Thank you, Malleus Fatuorum, for both. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad we were able to agree on something at last. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We probably agree on most things about the article. Points of agreement would hardly get mentioned. Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

proposing a more explicit source that the custom is sexist

I propose to add content based on Schmidt, Alvin John, Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1989), esp. pp. 124–129. I plan to do so both to this article and to the non-national page on wife selling, now a disambiguation page and which I plan to turn into an article. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If the content is relevant to the English experience of wife selling then I don't foresee any problems. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Religious Imprimatur subsection restoration

I'm clarifying the text to show the English connection even more clearly. While the text an editor reverted out as not connected with the English custom already said "English", I'm adding that it was specifically relevant to Wessex, which was part of England or what is now modern England. (The article already discusses Wales, Scotland, and the U.S. and early English history is also relevant to the English custom.) The Wessex information was already in the content, but I've moved some of it from a footnote to the main text for higher visibility. This English Wessex king's law was church-approved, thus the church's approval is part of English history. That the church's approval had precedent back to the seventh century is relevant to the church's approval of the English custom at the time of King Ine.

On when the custom began, we rely on sources. I've provided one with an earlier beginning; Ine was king in the 7th and 8th centuries. If the source is disputed, contrary sources may be cited as well. One that is dates from 1901, whereas this one is a successor on point. A source that gives later dates but without disproof of earlier dates is not a disputatious source for this purpose. The custom could have died out and been revived later or could have been in continuous practice. We can only rely on sourcing.

I plan to edit and restore the essential content recently reverted out.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Plan all you like, you have a pre-conceived notion that this practice was sexist and your aims are clear. Of course, legally, women were once thought of as property, but wife selling wasn't about selling property, it was about getting a cheapo divorce. You seem utterly blind to this fact. If you reinsert that text, the musings of one man, I shall remove it. Its inclusion makes no sense whatsoever. Parrot of Doom 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What you term "a pre-conceived notion" is my knowledge of the subject, most of which I had before editing Wikipedia. No one has to edit a Wikipedia article as if they knew nothing of the article's subject (although such editors can also be helpful, as when copyediting). I edit from knowledge I already have, and we are all permitted and encouraged to do so.

I've addressed your disagreements with the subject both logically and with sourcing. Sourcing gets priority here. A source that conclusively proves that English wife selling was not sexist or misogynous will end the discussion. If you know one, please cite it. If you know at least of a nonconclusive source that supports a finding of nonsexism or nonmisogyny, it's citable for one side of the dispute, in which case neutrality requires sourcing both sides, and the article already cites sources showing sexism. An active denial of sexism in the face of the evidence requires sourcing. Please cite in support of your proposition, since you keep editing in line with it.

I am interested in categorizing into Sexism or Misogyny until a good reason for not doing so is introduced. That point is discussed elsewhere in Talk. That is separate from whether the content you most recently reverted out belongs in the article. Even without the content, the article supports the categorization, so it's a separate matter. The reverting has to be considered apart from the issue of categorization.

Wife selling is both about divorce and about selling property. These are not mutually exclusive. When there is a sale, what is sold is presumptively sellable, thus presumptively alienable, thus property. The selling of a property interest means the interest sold is property. If one sells a sports player's contractual service, one is selling the future service that may be contracted and thus the future service is property. A player can quit. Unlike a player, a wife does not always have the right to quit. She remains a wife with wifely obligations. Marriage is a change of status legally more thorough than mere employment. Selling a wife is selling property in the form of a wife. That a divorce is thereby achieved, even with the wife's assent, does not make the sale any less a sale of property in the form of a wife.

The Columbia Encyclopedia (Columbia Univ. Press, 5th ed. 1993 (ISBN 0-395-62438-X)) (a tertiary source) says a sale is by law "a transfer of ownership in return for money [or by barter]". That makes a sold wife an object of ownership. When she did not purchase herself, she is an object of ownership by someone else.

Your logic treads in dangerous water. I'd like to know how you distinguish slavery (in societies where slavery is allowed). Neither a slave nor a wife may simply quit. At certain times and places, both slave and wife are subject to sale. Both slave and wife are bound to their status for life unless released by someone else, unlike an employee or a girlfriend, who, by law, can release themself. Both may receive benefits, such as a relatively benign master or a kind husband, the jumping of the broomstick (a substitute for marriage because property couldn't lawfully marry) or the gaining of a divorce, and for each a decorated dwelling, without giving relief from the lifelong binding status and without removing the possibility of being sold without consent. Absent a cogent logical distinction on how selling one kind of human is a sale of property (one of slavery's most notoriously noxious aspects) but selling the other kind of human is not, you may need to rely on sourcing.

"[M]usings of one man [or woman or group]" is applicable to most secondary sources in Wikipedia. Musings are exactly what scholars, including sociologists, are supposed to produce and publish and they're a large part of what Wikipedia accepts in secondary sources. If you were singling out "man" because you consider it a betrayal for a man to point out sexism, that is not properly an objection to the source's validity for Wikipedia. The source reverted out fits WP:PSTS.

Please respond to the specifics of the foregoing or self-revert what you reverted.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think I'm reading another yawn-inducing post of yours then think again. Try summarising your position in posts of less than 500 sentences please. Parrot of Doom 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is about dialogue. I addressed each of your concerns so that you could address them in turn. Your exaggerating my post's length is not helpful, because you've had multiple concerns requiring more of a response. Sometimes your response or edit summary gives an impression that you are not reading what is being written and that you are editing without reading what you are responding to, and that's not a good idea. If you are raising concerns that are not real concerns, that may affect my response adversely to you, and you may prefer to focus on those concerns you actually have, so, if your response is not dispositive, my response can be narrower and shorter. Please discuss in light of BRD. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not reading what's written, because what's written bores me to tears. Parrot of Doom 18:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to a recent post by RSL deleted by another editor: There was no synthesis or original research when I added to the article content from Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology, which described English wife selling, but that content was removed by the other editor in this topic/section. In addition, the article already describes the custom as degrading and the article fits the category for sexism; there is no synthesis or original research in that situation, either. While there is discussion based on the logic of the custom as sexist or misogynist, that is because opponents of so categorizing are making arguments framed in logic and I'm answering them, but I'm also offering sourcing. What we're debating is whether we may add sourced content showing the custom as sexist and add the article to the category. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

due weight and neutrality allow feminist perspectives

If we were not to cover sexism or misogyny appropriately in this article, we would run afoul of the requirements of neutrality, including due weight. Feminism, like masculism, is a nonfringe part of what Wikipedia covers in all relevant articles. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands is entirely neutral and makes no judgement, allowing the reader to decide for him or herself. You would do well to learn from that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of neutrality is weight. Neutrality often can be achieved through silence, but due weight on matters such as this cannot be. Once weight is given to one sourceable side of a debate, such as if English wife selling being sexist is debated in sources, the way to be neutral is not through silence but sourcing the other side of the debate, and I've invited that sourcing. I invite it again. That a source about the general subject is silent about the point (as you say two are) is not dispositive in the face of sourcing for one side. If sourcing for the other side hasn't been found, sourcing for the one side can still be added into the article. When the other side's sourcing is eventually discovered, it can be added at that time. If it's known of now, it can be added now. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Which source is debating whether or not wife selling was sexist? How are we defining sexism anyway? As the oppression of women by men? In what way were women oppressed by this now long-dead custom? As opposed to liberated in being able to choose a new partner? As the article says, the practice would no doubt be considered degrading today, but what evidence do you have that it was considered degrading in the 18th century? Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

On your first question: Not "source", but "sources", and some have been what we've been discussing for this article and named in the diffs or through the histories for the article and the talk page, while you've written that two sources you already know about don't mention it and therefore that the custom is not sexist. The debate is between the sources on the two sides, assuming a source's silence is a substantive position (I don't agree that it is, but insofar as there's a debate that's how).

On your second: One definition is in the Category:Sexism's lede and I gave a definition from the OED on this page, in a topic/section to which you replied.

I assumed you read these things before you ask questions already addressed.

Wives went to the highest bidders, which limits whether wives chose their new husbands. That's also been discussed.

I don't know that we have to find 18th century evidence of what women thought. They had less access to printing presses than men did, the practice being illegal makes publishing about it less likely, and diaries are less likely to survive. If you believe the authors of modern sources saying it was sexist or misogynist are wrong, you may bring it up with them, and at the same time we may report what the sources say until authors retract their statements from new editions of their works.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think that we have to find evidence of what 18th-century wives thought before we can make judgements of sexism or misogyny then we really have nothing more to say to each other. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

understanding sexism and misogyny

Responding to editor Parrot of Doom and to anyone else interested:

Wife selling serving one purpose does not necessarily contradict its serving another. I don't think anyone here has denied that it was an affordable divorce; I haven't denied it; indeed, it was free for the wife and generally profitable for the divorcing husband. But sexism and misogyny are not about whether the person discriminated against had no benefit. They're about whether the woman was "degrad[ed]" (quoting the article). She can get a benefit (such as a divorce) and at the same time be degraded in how she gets that benefit. Sexism and misogyny are about the degradation.

The Oxford English Dictionary (online ed.), as accessed Sep. 7, 2011, defines sexism, noun 2, as "(in later use) prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex". What are in the article and on the top of the category page are consistent with that definition. For example, all else equal, the sale proceeds enhance the former husband's wealth but not hers, and that is discriminatory.

An analogy is that there are reports of Black slaves in the pre-20th century U.S. encouraging, supporting, or facilitating sales of themselves by unsatisfactory White masters to new, hopefully better, White masters in which the sale proceeds went to the prior White masters. Slavery was no less racist for that.

If total lack of benefit defined sexism or misogyny, nothing would be sexist or misogynous, because merely staying alive would be a benefit and maybe dying would be, too. I know of no source defining sexism or misogyny on such an extreme basis. Even if such a source exists, it would be outside the mainstream and, if reportable in Wikipedia as a fringe view of those two terms, the place to post such a source is in a category page lede or article on sexism or misogyny or a talk page thereof.

If you know a source stating that English wife selling was neither sexist nor misogynous, or either one, please post it.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem determined to miss the point. It was a form of divorce when no other was available, compatible with the English law of couverture at that time. Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What portion of your post did I not effectively answer in my opening post? Let me know so I can address that. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No part of your argument is relevant. You need to come to terms with the ineluctable fact that wife selling in England was simply a form of divorce when no other was available to the common man or woman. How hard is that to understand? Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your latter point is correct except for one word: the word"simply" is wrong. That English wife selling was a form of divorce when no alternative was affordable to poor people is correct. I have already, in the past, agreed with that point. I think I have said so more than once. I said so in this topic, near the start, in the sentence beginning "I don't think anyone". Please read what I post on point. However, your word 'simply" is erroneous. English wife selling is still, at the same time, the selling of a wife, and therefore is the selling of a human being, and therefore is the selling of a human being as property, and selling a wife as property squarely fits the definition of sexism, not to mention a few other definitions at the same time. Please remember that something that is one thing can also be something else at the same time, and, in this case, it is. Since my opening post was clearly not irrelevant (partly because you essentially agreed with part of it in your reply), please tell me where you still disagree. And Parrot of Doom, you are not excluded from this discussion. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to have taken to heart the notion that under the English law of couverture a wife was the property of her husband, therefore a formal separation by sale makes perfect sense in context. This custom was simply a rational response to the extreme difficulty and expense of divorce by any other means. It is no more sexist than the law to which it was a response. Malleus Fatuorum

I think your faulty logic as exemplified by your "if you know a source stating that English wife selling was neither sexist nor misogynous, or either one, please post it" has been pointed out to you before. There are only two major sources on the topic, neither of which make any claim of sexism or misogyny; if they did then so would the article. The only people making such connections are doing so through the prism of 20th-century feminism. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Couverture was also misogynist. Wife selling was also, even though it was a solution to the other. Many bad situations are escaped by using bad means; the need for escape may justify the latter without changing the latter from being bad.

I've categorized the coverture article into Category:Misogyny. Thank you for bringing it up.

That a source (or two) does not call the custom sexist is not the same as a source saying it's not sexist. Absence of assertion is not necessarily assertion of absence. The source authors may simply not have addressed the subject of sexism, or not well enough to use.

That two sources are the only very major sources, if so, does not mean we cannot add other sources that otherwise meet Wikipedia's standards.

Modern perspectives are applicable to history and it is part of how we learn and decide what phenomena we should mimic or refuse from the past; for example, all-out wars are not conducted with bows and arrows anymore because a modern perspective would advise against that method. Wikipedia generally does not bar the application of modern perspectives to historical subjects.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by deleting excess preposition: 02:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected via Edit Summary: 02:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC))

Malleus_Fatuorum -- The assertion that "under the English law of couverture a wife was the property of her husband, therefore a formal separation by sale makes perfect sense" is extremely simplistic and dubious at best, and more probably simply wrong. AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Strangely enough it's none of those things, it's completely accurate. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- coverture (read the article) did not mean that a husband "owned" his wife in the sense of a chattel slave, and he could't legally sell her. And before the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 the only legal way to get a divorce allowing remarriage in England was to get a bill passed through parliament. So wife-selling was neither "formally" a sale or "formally" a divorce (if "formally" means recognized by the laws and courts of England). Instead it was a lower-class custom without real legal validity which left the upper classes alternatingly horrified and condescendingly amused... AnonMoos (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Formal means recognised by the community in whose presence the sale took place. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Recognized by the lower-class members of the community in whose presence the sale took place, and predominantly regarded with either tolerant detached amusement or disgust (but either way, not recognized as in any way equivalent to the act of parliament then necessary for a divorce allowing legitimate remarriage) by upper-class members of the community in whose presence the sale took place. AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you paraphrase that? You are aware, aren't you, that having made more than a few contributions to this article, that I might know what I'm talking about? Parrot of Doom 22:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What I do know very well is that the word "formal" has no valid useful meaning in the comments above. Wife-selling was a thoroughly informal custom, which had no formal recognition or valid legal status. Some upper-class people (or agents of the upper-classes) on the front-lines of dealing daily with lower-class people (such as parish clerks or ministers writing in the parish register of baptisms, or ordinary justices of the peace) sometimes turned a blind eye in order not to rock the boat, or because their sense of humanity did not allow them to adopt Josiah Bounderby's "turtle soup and venison with a gold spoon" theory of class privilege. However, any of them who knew anything about the law were thoroughly aware that "wife-selling" would not have stood up in a court of law. AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm having an argument about somebody over the meaning of a word used in a talk page discussion. Which is why I'll make it easier to believe, and remove myself from this tedious discussion. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You and Malleus seem to be very big on breast-beating proclamations of your own personal status, and in uttering broad sweeping flat dogmatic assertions which you expect to be received as immutable aphorisms, but weak in understanding what wife-selling actually was in the context of English society of the time. AnonMoos (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please at least make an effort to restrict your comments to the sexism/misogyny issue, rather than using it as an excuse to make disparaging personal remarks about other editors. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was pointing out that remarks made on "19:55, 21 September 2011" were factually false and so quite unhelpful for the discussion on the sexism/misogyny issue. And I haven't made "disparaging personal remarks", but only objected to other editors insisting on their personal importance while they make dogmatic yet inaccurate assertions... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As you are doing here do you mean? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that I never proclaimed my great personal importance, or expected anything I said to end all discussion. AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that you couldn't find your arse even if you deployed both hands. Where have I ever proclaimed my "great personal importance"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Raising the issue of "breast beating" was a terrible idea.

Continuing this exchange is unworthy of either of you, unless you can increase the malice to the level of the 10-minute cat-fight from Bridesmaids (recently referenced on MF's talk page), which would have even more entertainment value. ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you read this article AnonMoos? It explains the legal situation far better than the coverture article does. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read it, and it says things like "Although the custom had no basis in law...". The statement that "and were indeed themselves the property of their husbands" is simply factually wrong if it implies anything like chattel slavery, and if it doesn't imply chattel slavery then I don't know what it means (if it means anything at all). AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it again, this time with an open mind. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think that an English wife was a chattel slave, or that this article has a more accurate statement of the legal doctrine of coverture than the coverture article itself does, then you would appear to be sadly deluded. Wife-selling is an interesting sidelight on one phase of English history, but it only ever affected a minuscule percentage of Englishwomen, and it arose and persisted in one particular set of historical circumstances (stricter marriage laws, with the possibility of divorce allowing legally-recognized remarriage only available to a tiny minority of male aristocrats), and was a rather minor "safety-valve" to allow a few lower-class people to publicly proclaim a kind of divorce to other lower-class people (but not one which would have stood up in any court of law). If you're claiming that wife-selling was somehow supposedly a part of English Common law, or somehow supposedly a direct and immediate consequence of English Common law, or a major part of English life in the ca. 1700-1857 period, then the most charitable explanation of this would appear to be pure ignorance on your part. AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

divorce and misogyny at the same time

A secondary source describes wife selling as a means of divorce and as misogynist simultaneously. While it doesn't limit to the English custom, it relies on E. P. Thompson, Customs in Common (1991), which is already cited in this article and is primarily English in its historical focus. Since this seems to address a concern raised regarding the categorization of this article, I'll add the content shortly. It also adds the adjectives "crude" and "brutal". Since categorization as misogynist is even more warranted with this content, I plan so to categorize it, after briefly awaiting any comment. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick!

Thanks for asking for comments, before changing the article.

My concern is that your latest source sounds like a teritiary source, whereas Thompson is a secondary source (the type preferred by WP). Could you describe it and explain why it is a highest quality, most reliable source, please?

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, it is a secondary source coauthored by academics, offered as a teaching text, and relying on some 800 sources. E. P. Thompson's chapter on wife selling in Customs in Common relies on a combination of primary and secondary sources and remains secondary in doing so. I'll provide a longer citation before trimming it. As it appears that even sourcing is not enough for categorizing in the judgment of some editors, I was particularly concerned to invite comments on continuing objections to categorizing. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick, it looks like what a historian once described to me as a typical "social-science history": "You take a book from the library, open it up, and state, "see, it agrees with my theory". Your source cites only Thompson for details, so it is not justified in making such sweeping conclusions.

Nick, by your own account, you have been searching for sources to support your POV, and this has been indulged for a many months. I seriously urge you to stop such POV-pushing. People with such editing have previously agreed to topic bans, and I don't think that you want to go down that road.

That said, I can imagine that Thompson would have written his account differently today, and I certainly sympathize with your goals. However, WP would descend into chaos if editors were allowed to push their POVs, even true or admirable POVs like yours (and mine), by dredging the extremes of tertiary scholarship.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

An argument is already that English wife selling is not sexist, the argument being that the absence of a claim of sexism in two sources shows nonsexism. That is an implied POV, although not deneutralizing the article, since it is not stated. However, the issue is important enough in sourcing to warrant weight in the article. The absence then deneutralizes the article. I'm allowed to look up sources (using, inter alia, my prior knowledge of the general subject to guide me in finding sources) and report them if the issue can be reported and due weight maintained. I've invited discovery of sourcing that affirmatively reports the custom as nonsexist (I don't know of such sourcing but perhaps someone does), but that has not been forthcoming, and due weight requires treatment in the article. Thus, on balance, it is not POV-pushing, and you, too, may search for sources on either side of that debate, even if you choose to search on only one side of that debate. What has to be neutral is the article, not an editor or a source. No chaos is coming, to my knowledge. A devotedly nonneutral fan of cars may edit on cars, as long as the articles remain neutral.

I don't know if anyone is calling the content extreme (apparently not except on the basis of the conclusion the source reached) or just speculating about my merely possibly searching for extremes, but I'm not doing or interested in the latter and I didn't see anything in the book that makes it extreme or unreliable for what it is, a teaching text in its accepted academic field. I'll be returning the book to the library soon, since it's nonrenewable. If anyone knows of any reason to believe that it is extreme in how it was researched or written (a conclusion being disturbing or extreme does not make its scholarship bad), please let me know while I still have the book so I can check.

On the recent undo by Malleus Fatuorum and its edit summary: Authors of secondary sources are permitted to judge, even to judge harshly and in disagreement with a judgment of wife selling as benign, and we may report the judgments with attribution, as I did. It is in the nature of determining what is sexist or misogynist that judgment is applied, often a judgment with wide disagreement; since Wikipedia has accepted (after debate) whether to label as either, it has accepted that phenomena written up in Wikipedia will be judged accordingly. On the placement of the passage, I placed it in the lede for want of a suitable other place within the article, the present organization of which does not seem to afford a reasonable location. A separate section or subsection appears to be a good idea. Feel free to organize differently in order to accommodate the sourcing and what it says. And feel free to supply a source that says that English wife selling is not sexist or misogynist; that a source is silent on point is not the same thing. And a source that says that English wife selling is not sexist or misogynist probably does not displace a source saying it is; both views may be reportable. I don't recall a source affirmatively saying it is not sexist or misogynist, although probably one exists, perhaps an old one contemporary with the practice.

For almost any secondary source, authors select. We and Wikipedia rely on the authors' judgments in making their selections. It is common in Wikipedia to cite secondary sources and even tertiary sources (such as some dictionaries) with which we may disagree; sometimes omission is smarter, but in some cases it is better to state what the sources say, which is what Wikipediua does, and then balance it with other sourcing. A critique of whether a source is fully balanced (and if it's a problem with the book it's not as serious a one as with some other books that are the subjects of whole articles) is best dealt with in an area of controversy by providing a balancing or neutralizing source. At best, the claim of nonsexism/nonmisogyny is controversial; it is not trivial.

If the book I cited is inadequate because it cites only the Thompson book for the information, then the Thompson book is presumably inadequate for Wikipedia. I don't agree, but if an editor thinks that's the case then consider editing the article to remove whatever is based on the Thompson book. I don't know what the resulting article would look like, but my thought is that it would not be correct to do that much deleting. In short, under Wikipedia's standards, if Thompson's book can be cited, and I think it can be (I've seen the book), then generally a nontrivial source about it can be, too.

I wish I could comply with the implied suggestion that I do everything quickly. I stopped posting on the subject for a while because I was doing various things, including researching the issue. Suggesting that the wait was an indulgence on anyone's part is to imply that when one of us sees a need we're required to add quickly or never. Wikipedia has no such demand. We are not allocated time periods in which to edit, or deadlines, and for good reason.

I have at least one more source that came into my possession Saturday. I'll be reading two or three shortly. At first glance, it appears that they'll provide more content to support the point. If they don't, I won't add them. I'll consider posting language onto the talk page as a courtesy, but recall that editing Wikipedia does not require that step, and I should not be subject to a restricted editing procedure because some editors believe, without explicit sourcing, that the custom was nonsexist.

It may take me anywhere from a few days to a few weeks (or longer, depending on what intervenes) to have more content ready for the article, if I do.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick_Levinson -- it could be "brutal" if there was no prearranged buyer, and it was always degrading for the woman in implying that she was a simple chattel (a status which she did not actually have under the laws of England). But much of the time (maybe most of the time), things were arranged beforehand between the wife, husband, and "buyer", and the woman was more or less voluntarily going through the only form of divorce that was known or available at their social level... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be brutal (a source's description) even with a prearranged buyer, such as if she didn't want to marry him. It's possible for a wife to have an extramarital affair without wanting to marry the man; under this custom, she didn't necessarily have the right to refuse. To the extent the wife's participation was voluntary, it was still within a sexist or misogynist framework, so the voluntariness does not necessarily remove the sexism or misogyny, and it doesn't with this custom. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Everybody in a bad marriage was in a difficult position according to the pre-1857 English marriage laws, except for male aristocrats -- and even they had to go through a whole lengthy baroque convoluted process in order to be able to remarry such that children of the new marriage could be recognized as legal heirs (which was the reason why most male aristocrats wanted a divorce; not even George IV could manage it). Women were especially likely to be in problematic situations, but I really don't think that a husband dragging his wife to market as she kicked and screamed bloody murder would have worked too well (the official authorities would have almost certainly felt obliged to intervene). AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, and, assuming we're still discussing categorization as sexist or misogynist and whether content (present or proposed) justifies the categorization, what you're talking about could still be sexist/misogynist even though normal at the time and place, if it's support for an argument that for a phenomenon to be sexist/misogynist it must be abnormal for the time and place that's not in any definition I know of for either term, and, if it's being proposed as content, sourcing would be needed. Suggestions are welcome. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

propose to edit passage on independence and vitality

A passage now says:

Nevertheless, most contemporary reports stress the women's independence and vitality: "The women are described as 'fine-looking', 'buxom', 'of good appearance', 'a comely-looking country girl', or as 'enjoying the fun and frolic heartily{{'"}}.<ref>{{Harvnb|Thompson|1991|p=461}}</ref>

I propose to edit it to:

Nevertheless, many contemporary "reports suggest ... [the women's] independence and sexual vitality. The women are described as 'fine-looking', 'buxom', 'of good appearance', 'a comely-looking country girl', or as 'enjoying the fun and frolic heartily{{'"}}.<ref>{{Harvnb|Thompson|1993|p=461}}</ref>

The reasons:

• The adjective "most" should be changed to "many" because the source does not support a majority percentage but merely that the quantity is "far more often" than the frequency of "victims among ... sold wives".
• The verb "stress" is too much stronger than "suggest" and, as such, not supported by the source, so the latter verb should be restored.
• The mention of "vitality" should be limited to "sexual vitality", that being what the source says. Vitality can cover much more, but that's not what the source's author wrote.
• The opening quotation mark should be moved leftward because the paraphrasing of what is leftward was too limited not to be put into quotation marks; and, once that's done, the colon may as well be restored to being a period.

The 1993 edition of the source should be added to the Bibliography, as part of the list item for for the 1991 edition. The detailed citation of the '93 work: Thompson, Edward Palmer, Customs in Common (N.Y.: New Press, 1st American ed. 1993 (ISBN 1-56584-074-7)) (title Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture per p. [iv] (copyright p.) (Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data) & cover I) (author historian & social critic, per cover IV).

Where pages should be cited, I plan to cite the following in the ref element: p. 461 and see p. 450 (regarding one case, "one can detect ... independent minds") and generally pp. [404]–466 (ch. 7, The Sale of Wives) & plates XXIX–XXXII (between pp. 276 & 277)

The normal way to cite a nonanthological book, even with one chapter having the most relevance, is to prioritize the book's title, not the chapter's title. Doing it the other way is very nonstandard and confusing; and it confused me when I was searching in library collections for a book supposedly called The Selling of Wives, by E. P. Thompson, that might be in the Customs in Common series. Apparently, no such book exists (and even the chapter title is not what the 1993 edition states). I found the book titled Customs in Common, with chapter 7 titled The Sale of Wives. Whomever knows the 1991 edition, please correct the 1991 bibliographic entry. I plan to enter the 1993 edition in the standard way.

I'm relying on the 1993 edition rather than the 1991 edition, but the pagination appears to be the same and I doubt there's much difference between the editions other than, perhaps, correction and updating of details. Given a choice, it's generally more appropriate to use a later edition.

Note that the book author's credentials are not academic, according to the book, although I think the book is nonetheless probably reliable.

I propose leaving "contemporary" in the passage because the study may ultimately have been based entirely on contemporary reports, and the word allows some fluidity of time. If any of the reports are from much later, such as from a descendant, then the word doesn't apply.

Comments are welcome.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC) (Format errors perhaps corrected this time: 16:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)) (Deleted an excess nowiki opening element: 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) In case the sig doesn't appear from the first tildes: Nick Levinson (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected 1st 2 times to match page history adjusted for UTC (past excess nowiki caused tildes to be uninterpreted until 3d edit of post)): 19:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC))

Run that by me again? E. P. Thompson has no academic credentials? You are quite wrong in your ideas about the "correct" way to reference one chapter in an anthology, as in so many other things on this page. Did you not notice that it was the book title that was in italics, not the chapter title, and that a page number range was given? And as the essay was not revised between 1991 and 1993 it hardly matters which edition of the book is preferred. As to your detailed changes, what Thompson says is "far more often the reports suggest their independence ...", i.e., most times.

Now that you've actually consulted one of the sources at last I wonder if you've actually read it? Specifically the first paragraph of page 461: "Yes, the rules of these politics were male-dominated ... But it would seem that the women had the skill, on occasion, to turn the moves to their own advantage. I can see no reason why anyone should have supposed this to be an 'anti-feminist' conclusion." My emphasis. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

On E. P. Thompson's credentials not being academic, since I said "according to the book" here's what the book says: "E. P. Thompson is one of England's foremost historians and social critics. He is the author of many books, including . . . ." (Customs in Common, op. cit., cover IV.) That does not state an academic affiliation, as many author bios on scholarly books do. If you disagree about his credentials, your disagreement is with the book publisher or the author. I also said that I think the book is probably reliable nonetheless. So it may be that we agree.

I don't disagree on how to cite a chapter in an anthology, but Customs in Common is not an anthology, and I said so. An anthology contains contributions by different authors. This book is all by one author. Therefore, it is not an anthology. The proper citation style for a nonanthology is primarily with the book's title rather than the chapter's title; if the chapter title is given at all (it's usually not), it's given after the book title, not before. Neither the italicization choice nor the giving of a page range would remedy that, because italicization is done variously by different citers and the range would be the same either way.

How do you know the chapter or essay was not revised at all between 1991 and 1993? Minor revisions usually go unannounced, and what is major or minor is often in the eye of the beholder. Has any Wikipedia editor done a character-for-character comparison of the books? Without that knowledge, we have to cite the edition on which we relied, even if that means citing the 1991 edition for some statements and the 1993 edition for other/s.

"[F]ar more often the reports suggest their independence . . ." does not mean "most times". It means 'far more times', and, given what the comparison is to ("victims" being plural may mean as few as 2 out of some 400 cases and fn. 1 on the page cites only 1 case), the majoritarian "most times" is not established by the source and saying it constitutes original research unless there's a source for the count being at least more than half.

I did not think it necessary to read a source that was already used for the article. That should have been redundant. Good article editing means I shouldn't have to read a source. Instead, I spent my time looking for other sources for the content that was perhaps missing, and still do. The reason I retrieved and read this source, and indeed I read the chapter and other portions (please remember to assume good faith), is that I doubted the support for the "independence" passage, given how the passage was framed. I did not want to post my question without trying to check the book. As it turned out, the support was in the book except as noted above, but at the same time I noticed what the author said about how wife selling affected wives and that one or more editors of this article had apparently not seen fit to reflect it in the article. Whichever books omitted describing the custom as sexist certainly did not include this book, since E. P. Thompson essentially and substantively conceded the point, albeit without using the word, as far as I know. His using the word was not required.

That many wives gained some advantage from being sold does not render the custom nonsexist. It is sexist because of predominant greater advantage to men than to women. I think you are arguing that since wives gained something from the arrangement that means it is not sexist. In that case, sexism would occur only upon death of a woman, and maybe not even then if life is worse than death. That is not in any definition of sexism I recall seeing anywhere. I rely on Wikipedia's definition, definitions common in feminist literature, and the Oxford English Dictionary, for example. If you have a source for your contrary definition, please post it.

Thank you for your edits on point.

Please edit "most" to "many" or add a source for the majoritarian claim. If the source is the same book, please cite the page, since it's not the same page, if any. If you prefer, I'll be glad to do the edit, to correct the word.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC) (Corrected my misspelling: 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC))