Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gropecunt Lane/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:05, 19 May 2009 [1].

Gropecunt Lane

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk)
Toolbox

I believe this article offers a short but fascinating introduction to some of the more curious features on the landscape of medieval England. Myself and User:Malleus Fatuorum have worked hard to improve this article to the point where we both feel it is worthy of promotion.

The article is necessarily short - the subject matter is as much as 800 years old and only a few specific studies into such place names are available. The most useful of these has been a Holt-Baker paper which talks in great detail about the known instances of Gropecunt Lane, and offers several maps as to their locations. Expanding upon medieval prostitution was discussed but we felt that for this article it would be best not to stray too far away from the subject matter.

I appreciate that for some this may be a sensitive article, but we have tried to remain as encyclopaedic and as dispassionate as possible. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for those sources. I've had a look at the few that are online. I'd seen the Tom Quinn book but it didn't really add anything substantial that I didn't already have from other sources. The Wordsworth book mentions that Gropecunt was renamed Love Lane, but I haven't seen mention of this anywhere else so it seems at odds with the sources I have (this is not unusual, a different author makes the mistake of assuming that Threadneedle Street was Gropecunt Lane). "Girls" is quite interesting, so I've saved those pages (viewed on Amazon). I think that "The Mercery of London" is possibly straying from the article but is interesting all the same. "Oxford" I hoped would reveal why Magpie Lane was so named, but to no avail. "London Laid Bare" is incorrect to assume that Grub Street was once a Gropecunt. "Povery and Prostitution" - I've added that to my library, thanks :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • OpposeSupport: I ask myself why am I constantly looking over my shoulder when reading this contribution. Well, it's because of the C-word I have to admit, and yes I have a problem with it. The article seems to be more about the lane's rude name rather than it's history. According to the FA criteria, I see no problems, but do we really want this to be an example of our best work? I would like to see more historical context—and, if possible, an explantion that the word in question was less pejorative, (if indeed it was) at the time. I feel like Mary Whitehouse, I need advice on this and may change my mind in light of responses. Graham Colm Talk 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you check your reference [17] I think you'll find that Rillington Place became Ruston Close, not Ruston Mews. However, I don't really see this bit of info as having much relevance to this article, and I rather suspect that Ealdgyth may soon be asking: "what makes truetv.com a reliable source?" You might consider dropping it. Interesting article, possibly more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You give "filthy street" as the translation of turpis vicus. Is this yours or the source's? Either way "street of vices" would be better - cf. "turpitude". "Filthy" could simply refer to squalour, poor sanitation, etc. --Philcha (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that translation is from the source, but Parrot of Doom will be able to confirm that later. Other sources I've seen translate turpis vicus as foul street, but all agree that it was a centre of prostitution. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. This is indeed from the source, I quote, "The name can hardly be an ambiguous one, and indeed Gropecuntelane (alternatively Gropekuntelane) in Norwich - now Opie Street - was also recorded in Latin as turpis vicus, the filthy street or alternatively the shameful or infamous street: the term conveys both senses." I'd be happy to include either translation if you like? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The caption to the map of Breadstreet and Cordwainer Wards is not much help in identifying the location of Grope Cuntlane. The Mercers' Hall was on the north side of Cheapside (approximately north of where the "ST" of "CHEAP SIDE STREET" is) but the map does not show that side of the street so its location cannot be identified. It might be more useful to say that it was approximately where Bird in Hand Alley is (indicated by the 20 on the map). Also the image is incorrectly titled "Broad street ward..." rather than "Breadstreet ward..." --DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • The publisher of the Crossley, Keene, and Walford works is not british-history.ac.uk, they are merely reprinting other works. Crossley's were originally published by the Victoria County History, Keene is an online publication of this work and Walford's a online reprint of an older work that doesn't list original publisher (I found an 1897 edition with a publisher, but not the 1878 edition)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this. British-history.ac.uk may not have been the original publisher, but they are certainly publishing them now. With the lack of a publisher for the Walford work, I feel it is appropriate to have the same publisher details for all works that link to the british-history site. I don't however have a strong opinion on this so don't mind if others disagree. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British history merely reprints the Victoria County history works, in this case you really need to credit the Victoria County history folks who did the real publishing work. With the Walford work, it's questionable whether british-history did any vetting on the work. You can certainly add a note that it's hosted at british-history, but for the works that were (and are) available in print besides on b-h, you should also give the print information. With the FAs I've nominated (which rely on b-h's reprints of the Fasti Ecclesiae...) I give the link along with the original publication information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The quote from the C18 dictionary gives the only etymology for cunt, which is in fact, well, balls, and not supported by the OED, as this blog explains rather well. Given the limited range of things written in English before 1230, it is not too suprising if a gropecunt street name is the first recorded use. My older print OED coyly lacks the word, but from the blog it doesn't seem recorded in Old English (ie the OED doesn't mention an OE cognate), but was there any other word OE had? They must have had something. The "first used" bit needs adjustment, and the OED etymology including somewhere, if only to point out the C18 one is wrong. Generally the article seems FA standard, if all the issues raised above are adressed. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason for using the 1785 quotation is to demonstrate the change in the perceived meaning of the word from merely vulgar to offensive, and not particularly its etymology. I think there are two options; one to cut most of the quote leaving only "a nasty name for a nasty thing", or two to find a reliable source that can be used as a note to explain what the blog does (which is very interesting reading). Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes based upon this source. See the diff here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That better, though to be picky the Lindsay quote is in Middle Scots not English, and needs translation; "knows no more of a (any?) cunt than ...er?". I can't access the pages from Williams, but could not a Chaucer quote be used? Isn't the point that the thing, not the word, was considered vulgar or impolite to mention; it was like "vagina" today. What other words were available for non-vulgar use then? Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Initially I suppose the word was synonymous with the vagina, but over time the two diverged until 'cunt' came to be used as a reference not to the vagina, but as an obscene insult. I'm not certain its worth discussing that in any detail (I think it would be better off in the cunt article). I can however change, or add to the quotes, although Middle Scots is an Anglic language. There are instances in the OED that could be used - for instance "c1400 Lanfranc's Cirurg. 172/12 In wymmen {th}e necke of {th}e bladdre is schort, & is maad fast to the cunte", and "a1585 POLWART Flyting with Montgomerie (1910) 817 Kis {th}e cunt of ane kow.", and "c1650 in Hales & Furnivall Percy's Folio MS. (1867) 99 Vp start the Crabfish, & catcht her by the Cunt.". The OED is however lacking in uses of the word in a pejorative sense. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Lindsay quote, and replaced it with a Chaucer quote. What do you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, although I wasn't suggesting removing Linsay (what does that second line mean?) & the coy Harvard translation "crotch" rather detracts from the point. Anyway, enough to moove to Support, although any other outstanding issues here should be addressed. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great thanks :) I'm in the process of trying to find some authoritative source that backs up what the linked blog states, but it may take time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One image concern as follows:

  • File:GropeLane.jpg: why is the image released under GFDL when the transfer history below is written as released as "public domain" (PD)? Can an administrator please check the license for this image when it was stored on Wikipedia?

Should be fairly fast and easy to rectify. Jappalang (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I am the person who took the photo and I'm happy for it to be used freely, so I think a GFDL tag is correct. Hope this helps! David (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Several users on Commons frown on the changing of licenses to a more restrictive version (GFDL requires attribution while PD does not), but it is no policy yet as long as the new license still permits "free" use. Considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pro tem, sorry.
    • Subject: @Graham Colm, the article is about the rude name, not about the history of a specific lane. It's not like the wikipedia articles about geographical features at all; it's got a "Cultural Studies" subject, and I'm concerned that there's not enough culture in it. In other words, I think it's too thin for a FA.
    • Prose: Needs a bit of a copyedit. Examples from the lead section: the lead is pretty short, but even so, it has some excessively obvious statements such as "appears to have been derived from a straightforward conjunction of the words "grope" and "cunt"—what else? why not?—and " Grape Lane, some of which are still in use today"—why wouldn't they be? These facts are probably worth having in the article, but hardly in the lead. At least two of the three lead wikilinks, street name, Middle Ages, and prostitution, are less than useful, see MOS: What generally should not be linked.And there's a grammar boob in the form of a dangling modifier: "Once common throughout England, changing attitudes resulted in..."—No, it wasn't the changing attitudes that were common throughout England. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Replies
  • I think it's important sometimes to state the bleedin' obvious, as in this case. There's no artifice in the name, and I think it's important to make that clear.
  • Dangling modifier fixed.
  • Removed the links to street name and to prostitution, but I'm unconvinced that the link to Middle Ages ought also to be removed.
  • What information is missing to support your conclusion that the article is "too thin"?
--Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Omitting the etymology would introduce dubious assumptions that may mislead readers. Elements of place-names may look like modern words but have different meanings from non-English origins, e.g -gate often has nothing to do with doors and is derived from the Norse word for "street" ("gate" pron ga-te in Norwegian & Danish, gata in Swedish). --Philcha (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, as this article demonstrates, "Grape" has in this context nothing to do with a tasty fruit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too thin
  • I don't believe that this comment is relevant to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, unless you can demonstrate missing sources that could also be used in the article. The only one I can think of is the Historic Towns Atlas, which is already referenced from Holt-Baker, and which would only add locations and nothing about the social history of such places. What research has been done on the topic is represented in this article, as per sections 1(b), 1(c), and 4. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w Parrot of Doom, size is not part of the FA criteria. Are there any obvious, relevant unanswered questions?
    • I don't quite understand why "size" is brought up in response to me; I haven't complained of the length of the article. I use "too thin" in the context of cultural description: "too thin" as in "not thick enough", compare our article Thick description which you may find helpful. Pilcha and Malleus, you can see me acknowledging above that the bleedin obvious may well be worth stating with regard to the street name—just not, IMO, in the lead section in this case. Offering details on that level twice, both in the lead and the article proper, rather gives the impression that you're desperate for material. I agree that Middle Ages is a good link—I had the other two links (now removed) in mind. Parrot of Doom, I'm happy to take your word for it that "What research has been done on the topic is represented in this article", but that means, in my opinion, that not enough research has been done for a Featured Article. Note also that my copyediting suggestions for the lead are examples only. As you know, it's not my job to supply an exhaustive list for the article. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Well I respect your opinion but it does seem as though you're expecting 'something else' when the reality may be that there is absolutely nothing else to add. If more information was available, such as a list of typical properties along such streets, or court records of people arrested for naughty things, then I'd agree with you. There is however to my knowledge no more information on the subject than what is already referenced - most other available sources just rehash what is already in the article. FA Criterion 1(c) states "it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic", and I believe that this article meets that demand. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, depending on how you define "the topic", right. It's my opinion that it's too small a topic. After all, we do draw the line somewhere, don't you agree? We don't feature the world's best stub, for instance. Note that I'm not talking about article length, but about the size of the subject, and especially the amount of "relevant literature on the topic". I think we're talked out wrt those aspects; I suggest we let Raul or Sandy or whoever decide whether I make a cogent objection. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure simply mentioning Thick description explains Bishonen's concern about the article's being "too thin". This article is about the street name, not about a specific street which has or had that name. What additional types of info would Bishonen expect to see in a street name article - preferably with examples from street name articles that have reached at least GA status since mid-2007 (since most FAs promoted before then would now fail GA review because of citation issues); failing that, from scholarly articles on other street names. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. I'm afraid the dangling modifier hasn't been fixed, since "changing attitudes" is still the subject. I'll take a shot at it later if you like, I'm in a bit of a hurry right now. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comments My 2c:
  • I'm not clear about the 1720 map. It looks like two of the blue lines are tracing the path streets that were already gone by 1720, and the third is numbered "20". Since the last recorded use of "Gropecunt" was in 1561, it would make sense that the name was gone, if not the street. But this might be explained more clearly.
  • I think the Grose reference should be shrunk to exclude the false etymology. As cunt states, Grose gave the headword as "C**T", which nicely highlights the taboo.
  • The false etymology that Grose gives seems to be widely believed so I think it's worth including if only to debunk it. To balance it though I've added a sentence demonstrating that the origins of the word likely predate both Greek and Latin, at least as far back as Ancient Egyptian. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
jnestorius(talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will start off by saying this article is bigger than some other FAs, so I have no problem with size alone as long as it is comprehensive.
Minor headache - groping redirects to frotteurism at the moment, which isn't quite a synonym, especially in this meaning. Sort of beyond the scope of this review but worth pointing out I think. i.e. not a deal-breaker.
Thanks. I've altered the link so that it goes directly to frotteurism, but I agree that isn't a great explanation of groping. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gropecunt_Lane/archive1&oldid=1089084921"