Wife selling (English custom) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 10, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted April 1, 2010 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 21, 2009.
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

It would be good to briefly indicate that the custom existed in other parts of the worlds as well, I wonder why the article is guarded even against an appropriate wikilink. Brandmeister t 18:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The custom as described in this article didn't exist in any other parts of the world except those already mentioned in the article, and most certainly not in China. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did exist in other regions, as the sourced articles Wife selling and Wife selling (Chinese custom) show. See Gender in motion: divisions of labor and cultural change in late imperial and modern China, p. 48 or State, peasant, and merchant in Qing Manchuria, 1644-1862, p. 336 for instance. Brandmeister t 19:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link didn't do much to enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. The opening sentence of the article explains what wife selling is in the English context so the link when mentioning Hardy was unnecessary. I'm not convinced a link to wife selling is particularly beneficial to the article as the custom is explained within this article. Nev1 (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it did not. If you take the trouble to read the wife selling (Chinese custom) (which is a rather poor article written only to make a point) you'll see it has this to say: "two types of wife selling were recognized [in China], both considered illegal. The first type was when a husband sold his wife to a man with whom she had been committing adultery. The second type was when a husband sold his wife because she had betrayed him or because they were no longer able to get along." Where does it mention divorce for the ordinary people, a halter, or a ritualised public auction? Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it plain: if one wishes to persist on the absence of wife selling in areas other than Britain, (s)he should invalidate all related sources (at least those in Wife selling; any article may be poor or short, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's false and untrue). As long as this has not been done, the truth is that the custom did exist not just in Britain. The article certainly would not get bad with the brief indication somewhere that the custom was not unique to UK. Brandmeister t 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us where else in the world a wife for sale was brought to market by halter, and willingly auctioned off to someone she knew. Parrot of Doom 21:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wives in China were sometimes sold to their lovers, as seemed to be the case with many such English sales. The customs do not seem entirely different, although I don't object to having separate articles for them. Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of wife selling is 'selling of a wife'. Nothing inherent in wife selling requires a halter, a marketplace, an auction, consent or nonconsent, class relevance, legality, quasilegality, or most other characteristics found in the English custom. Even if the English custom required it, other people worldwide were not necessarily bound by English custom or law.

Why an article was written is not a criterion for whether it should be linked to. We don't know the motivations behind most articles having been written or edited and don't care. We link to them regardless.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more correct to say that nothing inherent in wife selling other than in England required a halter and so on, which is precisely why this article is about the custom in England and not anywhere else except the colonies to which it was exported. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the customs are characteristically different. Since linking of articles is to related articles, not necessarily only those articles that are on the same subject, and wife selling around the world under various customs is related in that all are the selling of wives, is there any remaining objection to linking wife selling (English custom) to wife selling and to wife selling (Chinese custom)? Nick Levinson (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy about the links, but why not a hat along the lines of "for related customs in other parts of the world see wife selling"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I applied your suggestion, except that it's for practices rather than customs, so as not to impose a judgment on whether what is or was done elsewhere rises to the level of being a custom, implying, I think, more social acceptance than for a practice. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the excess line; it looked odd but I didn't realize I had caused until later, when you'd already taken care of it.

For the hatnote itself, on the deletion of "or generally", content that applies regardless of nationality would be in the global article and the hatnote should refer to it. The wife selling article, being nonnational, is not limited to content that does not apply to the English custom; it merely wasn't gong to overlap it, and making it into a summary article ends even that. Please restore the wording or offer alternative wording to like effect.

Nick Levinson (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already offered alternative wording by removing the "generally". Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's needed is to encompass content that is nonnational, even if it applies to the English custom along with other practices. What do you suggest instead of "what was there? Nick Levinson (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's needed is to write a half-decent article on wife selling, then we can worry about what the hat note ought to say. Right now that article is a jumbled joke. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E. P. Thompson's Customs in Common has more material that should be in the article, material that brings out the negativity of English wife selling. For example, while Thompson was criticized by feminists and he defended his work, he also acknowledged a need to consider the nature of wife selling. He probably did not use the word sexism or misogyny in the book, but he described the custom in terms that meet the definition of the word. That is not a denial of sexism or misogyny. I propose to edit consistently with the book.<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'' (N.Y.: New Press, 1st American ed. [1st printing?] 1993 (ISBN 1-56584-074-7)), see pp. 8, 11–12, [404]–466 (ch. 7, ''The Sale of Wives''), & plates XXIX–XXXII (between pp. 276 & 277) (title ''Customs in Common'', per title p. & spine & ''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).</ref>

Degradation: "A public auction ["[i]n the true wife sale"] .... could be degrading for all parties and most of all for the wife."<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 423 (internal quotation per p. 418).</ref>

Shame: "That it was a shaming ritual for the wife is explicit in the symbolism. Most wives ... were at some point in tears. But ... we cannot necessarily infer that she was an unwilling party to the exchange; we know, in ... [one] case, that she was sold to 'her first sweetheart', and her reluctance might ... have come from the shame of the public exposure."<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 448 & n. 3 (n. omitted), n. 3 citing ''The Times'', Apr. 12, 1817.</ref>

Desertion and income: "In practice the absence of forms had usually favoured the male partner, who could — as poor law and Sessional records testify — far more easily desert his wife and children than she could desert them. The man might be able to take with him some trade; once hidden in the city from the pursuit of the overseers of the poor he might set up with a new 'common law' partner. The wife's outlet from an impossible or violent marriage was normally to the home of her parents or kin — unless she had already found herself a new lover."<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 444.</ref>

Humiliation and duress: "[W]e must remove the wife sale from the category of brutal chattel purchase and place it within that of divorce and re-marriage. This still may arouse inappropriate expectations, since what is involved is the exchange of a woman between two men in a ritual which humiliates the woman as a beast. Yet the symbolism cannot be read only in that way, for the importance of the publicity of the public market-place and of 'delivery' in a halter lay also in the evidence thus provided that all three parties concurred in the exchange. The consent of the wife is a necessary condition for the sale. This is not to say that her consent may not have been extracted under duress — after all, a husband who wanted (or threatened) to sell a wife was not much of a consort."<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 427–428 (page break between "purchase and" & "place") (em-dash surrounded by spaces in original).</ref> I am suggesting, not that wives were not sometimes sold under duress, but that if they distinctly repudiated the transaction then the sale was not held to be good according to customary lore and sanction."<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 434–435 (page break between "wives" & "were").</ref>

Coverture: "It was less common for the wives to be harrassed by the courts, since the law supposed them to be acting under the cover or control of their husbands."<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 453.</ref>

Property case: "'Before a room full of men he offered to sell her for a glass of ale, and the offer being accepted by the young man, she readily agreed, took off her wedding-ring, and from that time considered herself the property of the purchaser[']".<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 456 & n. 2 (n. omitted), n. 2 citing ''South Wales Daily News'', May 2, 1882.</ref>

Male domination: "The wife sale is certainly telling us something about male-domination", although it allowed "the small space for [the wife's] personal assertion".<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 458.</ref>

Further: "Let us agree, without any reservation, that the wife sale took place in a society in which the law, the church, economy and custom placed women in an inferior or (formally) powerless position. We may call this patriarchy of we wish, although a man did not have to be head of a household to be privileged over most women (of his own class). Men of all classes used a vocabulary ... of ownership ... with respect to their wives ..., and church and law encouraged this. The wife sale, then, appears as an extreme instance of the general case. The wife is sold like a chattel and the ritual, which casts her as a mare or cow, is degrading and was intended to degrade. She was exposed, in her sexual nature, to the inspection and coarse jests of a casual crowd. Although sold with her own assent, it was a profoundly humiliating experience".<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 458–459 (page break between "degrading and" & "was intended to degrade").</ref>

Further: "Even if we redefine the wife sale as divorce-with-consent it was an exchange of ["rights over"] a woman between two men ... and not of [rights over] a man between two women. (There are, in fact, records of husband sales, but they could be counted on the fingers of one hand.)... The fact that the ritual took place within the forms and vocabulary of a society in which gender relations were structured in superordinate/subordinate ways is not in doubt."<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 459 & nn. 2–3 (nn. omitted) ("rights over" as to a woman inserted per n. 2 & as to a man per parallelism) (citations for husband sales in n. 3).</ref>

And further: "The rules of these politics ["of the personal of eighteenth-century working people"] were male-dominative .... [b]ut it would seem that the women had the skill, on occasion, to turn the [political] moves to their own advantage.".<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 461.</ref>

Barbarity: "[T]he sale of wives in England .... [was among] practices of ... barbarity".<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. [404].</ref>

Brutality, but observed in a novel and not found where form or ritual applied, because brutalism was applied to a supposed normless promiscuity: In "a major novel, .... [an] episode [of the sale of one wife had] .... its brutal expression", but E. P. Thompson apparently considered this somewhat exaggerated.<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 405.</ref>

Further: "There were suggestions among historians of fifty years ago that a great part of the labouring people in the eighteenth century lived in normless and formless animal promiscuity, and although this lampoon has been a good deal revised, some echoes of it still survive. The wife sale has sometimes been offered as an exemplar of this brutalism. But, of course, this is exactly what it is not. If sexual behaviour and marital norms were unstructured, where would have been the need for this high-profile public rite of exchange? The wife sale was invented in a plebeian culture ... which had a high regard for rituals and forms."<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', p. 444.</ref>

Brutality and inferiority: "Even Eliza Sharples, the 'moral' (i.e. common-law) wife of Richard Carlile, who acknowledged the sale's function as divorce, found the practice offensive and brutal: 'How much better would a quiet separation have been, and each left to a new and free choice. While women will consent to be treated as inferior to men, so long may we expect men to be brutes.'"<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 453–454 & n. 1 (n. omitted) (page break between "have" & "been"), n. 1 citing for the quotation ''Isis'', May 5, 1832. On Sharples and Carlile as notable people, see Taylor, Barbara, ''Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the Nineteenth Century'' (N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1st American ed. [hardcover] 1983 (ISBN 0-394-52766-6)) (author then lecturer history, Bulmershe College, Reading, adult educ. tutor history, pol. theory, & women's studies, & active feminist, all per p. [395]).</ref>

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add content, based on the following, including possibly by reduction to supplemental bibliographic noting, support for a new Criticism section, and support for categorization as sexism or misogyny, all subject to further editing into prose:

"Occasionally, poor men sold their wives in the market when they tired of them."<ref>Evans, Tanya, ''Women, Marriage and the Family'', in Barker, Hannah, & Elaine Chalus, eds., ''Women's History: Britain, 1700–1850: An Introduction'' (Oxon/London: Routledge (''Women's and Gender History'' ser.), pbk. 2005 (ISBN 0-415-29177-1)), p. 64 & n. 58 (n. omitted) (author Evans postdoctoral research fellow, Ctr. for Contemp. Brit. Hist., Institute for Historical Research, London, per ''id.'', p. viii (''Notes on Contributors''), editor Barker sr. lecturer history, Univ. of Manchester, per ''id.'', pp. vii (''Notes on Contributors'') & [i], & editor Chalus sr. lecturer history, Bath Spa Univ. Coll., per ''id.'', pp. viii (''Notes on Contributors'') & [i]) (anthological contribution (as ch. 3) has 110 endnotes, mostly bibliographic rather than discursive, per ''id.'', pp. 72–77).</ref>

English wife selling is "[empirical evidence of patriarchal culture]".<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'' (London, G.B., U.K.: Cavendish Publishing, 1998 (ISBN 1 85941 237 8)), p. 31 (quotation all in capitals in original, as a subchap. heading) (not in ''Preface but ''Preface'' dated Apr., 1998) and see pp. vii–viii (''Preface''), 3, 14, 29–31, 34–35, & 79 (author then of Queen Mary & Westfield Coll., Univ. of London, per ''id.'', p. [iii] & cover IV).</ref>

English wife selling is an example of "the notion that women have traditionally been regarded as the property of their husbands".<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', p. 34.</ref>

"[W]ife sale represented a semi-formal means of transferring the 'property' in the wife to a new freeholder".<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', p. 34 (single quotation marks so in original).</ref>

"In some .... cases, ... the husband would unilaterally dispose of the wife", i.e., without her consent.<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', p. 35, and see p. 35 n. 34, citing Stone, Lawrence, ''Road to Divorce: England 1530–1987'' (Oxford: OUP, 1992), pp. 141–147 & fn. 32 (latter citation partly per ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''id.'', p. 34 n. 32).</ref>

"[T]he husband ... attach[ing] a leather collar around the wife's neck and lead[ing] her ceremoniously to the auction" "emphasize[d] the property aspect of the transfer".<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', p. 35.</ref>

There are many genderal inequalities in law.<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', p. vii.</ref>

The "patriarchal order" is "the superiority of men and the inferiority of women".<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', p. 12.</ref>

"In ancient Greek thought [traceable, perhaps partly, to Plato and Aristotle] can be found many of the ideas which have endured in later thought: ... [including] considerations of equality based on gender ... [and] the concept of patriarchal ownership of, and/or authority and power over women."<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', p. 3 (omitting n. 5) (comma before "and/or" & not after "over" both so in original).</ref>

"[S]ocial and legal discrimination ... has operated against women's interests".<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', p. 13.</ref>

The social and legal discrimination is deeply rooted.<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 12–13.</ref>

"[C]ouples often agreed to separate informally, but many men also simply abandoned their wives. Few women, especially if they also had children to support, could afford to do the same."<ref>Barnett, Hilaire A, ''Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence'' (London, G.B., U.K.: Cavendish Publishing, 1998 (ISBN 1 85941 237 8)), p. 66 (not in ''Preface but ''Preface'' dated Apr., 1998) (author then of Queen Mary & Westfield Coll., Univ. of London, per ''id.'', p. [iii] & cover IV).</ref>

"Attitudes condemning wife sale and slavery suggested mounting resistance to the subjection of people to a regime in which monetary measurements and interests called the tune."<ref>Valenze, Deborah M., ''The Social Life of Money in the English Past'' (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, pbk. 2006 (ISBN-13 978-0-521-61780-2)), p. 27 (''Introduction: The Social Life of Money, ca. 1640–1770'') (author prof. history, Barnard Coll., per cover IV) (864 fnn., per ''id.'', ''passim'') (''Bibliography'' lists about 446 items (self-classifying as 17 archival documents, 5 newspapers, about 107 primary printed documents, & about 317 secondary sources), per ''id.'', pp. 279–297).</ref>

"[L]egal definitions of dependents ... [including] women ... [made] it possible to conceive of certain categories of persons as private possessions over whom certain individuals (usually property-owning men) claimed authority."<ref>Valenze, Deborah M., ''The Social Life of Money in the English Past'', ''op. cit.'', p. 224.</ref>

"The example ... of wife sale ... drew conceptual apparatus from patriarchal thinking of centuries-long provenance."<ref>Valenze, Deborah M., ''The Social Life of Money in the English Past'', ''op. cit.'', p. 225.</ref>

"[L]ate eighteenth-century reformers had to work ... hard to drive home the point that 'selling people is wrong.'"<ref>Valenze, Deborah M., ''The Social Life of Money in the English Past'', ''op. cit.'', p. 228 & n. 10 (n. omitted), citing, at n. 10, Searle, G. R., ''Morality and the Market in Victorian Britain'' (Oxford, 1998), pp. 48–76.</ref>

"[T]he hegemony of market strategies in the wider culture penetrated the plebeian world of marriage negotiation to the point of creating a peculiar form of devorce ["[t]he sale of wives"] that made chattel out of women through a public spectacle of sale and purchase."<ref name="SocialLifeMoneyEngPast-p228">Valenze, Deborah M., ''The Social Life of Money in the English Past'', ''op. cit.'', p. 228.</ref>

"[W]hen legitimate divorce would have been too costly or simply unavailable .... monetary transactions ... reinforced hierarchies: the ritual of wife sale, as a literal enactment of female chattel status, highlighted the subjection of women and exposed distasteful elements of market transactions of people."<ref name="SocialLifeMoneyEngPast-p228">

If there is an objection to my editing the article, please post it. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC) (Corrected lack of italicization for a series in a citation: 20:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

There will be no Criticism section. Period. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have a separate Criticism section, do you object to integration of critical content elsewhere in the article to essentially the same effect? Nick Levinson (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in principle, but the Devil will be in the detail. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add content based on the following, including possibly by reduction to supplemental bibliographic noting, all subject to further editing:

Occasionally, wife selling resolved the problem of a soldier, who was reported dead, returning from war to find his wife remarried; the ritual ended the bigamy.<ref>Walker, Eric C., ''Marriage, Writing, and Romanticism: Wordsworth and Austen After War'' (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, cloth 2009 (ISBN 978-0-8047-6092-8)), pp. 20–21 & n. 25 and see pp. 27, 71, & 154 (author assoc. prof. & univ. distinguished teaching prof., Eng. dept., Fla. State Univ., per dust jkt., rear flap) (approx. 300 bibliographic items, per pp. [263]–275 (''Works Cited''), & 370 endnotes, per pp. [239]–261 (''Notes'')), citing ''Notes and Queries'' (1863), 450.</ref>

People responsible for law enforcement recognized wife selling as illegal, even if they ignored it, but the general public relying on the custom believed it to have "'perfect legality ... [as well as] justice.'"<ref>Walker, Eric C., ''Marriage, Writing, and Romanticism'', ''op. cit.'', p. 21 and see pp. 20–21, citing ''Notes and Queries'' (1863), 450.</ref>

The custom was practiced monthly in 1815–1816 in some districts.<ref>Walker, Eric C., ''Marriage, Writing, and Romanticism'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 20–21, citing ''Notes and Queries'' (1863), 450.</ref>

Nick Levinson (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wife selling "appears to have ... [come] from some unknown point of origin".<ref>Thompson, Edward Palmer, ''Customs in Common'' (N.Y.: New Press, 1st American ed. [1st printing?] 1993 (ISBN 1-56584-074-7)), p. 8 and see pp. 11–12 (title ''Customs in Common'', per title p. & spine & ''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).</ref>

Wife selling has been "documented since medieval times in Britain".<ref>Valenze, Deborah M., ''The Social Life of Money in the English Past'' (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, pbk. 2006 (ISBN-13 978-0-521-61780-2)), p. 246 and see pp. 246–252 (author prof. history, Barnard Coll., per cover IV).</ref>

The custom was imported into Australia from Britain.<ref>Valenze, Deborah M., ''The Social Life of Money in the English Past'', ''op. cit.'', p. 249 & probably n. 83 (n. omitted), n. 83 citing Ihde, Erin, ''"So Gross a Violation of Decency": A Note on Wife Sales in Colonial Australia'', in ''Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society'', vol. 84, Jun., 1998, pp. 26–27, & Hughes, Robert, ''The Fatal Shore: An Epic of Australia's Founding'' (N.Y., no publisher cited: 1986), pp. 244–264.</ref>

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is this adding to what's already there, which mentions a 1302 account? Except for the Australian account of course, which may well be worth adding. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I earlier posted from a different source about an early origin, an editor denied on the ground that the phenomenon began only later. The lede even now says it "began" in the 17th century; and I suppose the grant by deed (in the article, for the 14th century) could be distinguished because of lack of information on whether there was an exchange.

On the (non)point of origin, it is not uncommon to ask where a widespread practice started; this says it's unknown, which is more informative than not addressing the question. It's not crucial for the article, but it would answer a question for readers until a better answer is established by another source author.

Nick Levinson (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by deleting "or so": 06:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This section needs revision. Marriages prior to 1753 were registered. In fact a century earlier during the Commonwealth period they were conducted before a Register (i.e. a registrar).
Do have a look at 'Background' in the Wikipedia article on 'Marriage Act 1753'.Chrisemms (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no requirement to register a marriage before 1753, and another Wikipedia article (which incidentally gives undue weight to the opinion of Rebecca Probert) is no authority for anything. There was a fashion pre-1753 in England for people to set themselves up as celebrants and conduct a public service at the end of which they issued a certificate of marriage, but such certificates had no legal validity. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that in the 11th century Pope Gregory VII issued a letter that criticized wife selling and that the letter was at least partly on the English custom. Therefore, apparently, wife selling was happening in England in that century. That the letter was on England is per Wikipedia editor Cynwolfe. The letter is mentioned by Schmidt.<ref>Schmidt, Alvin John, ''Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology'' (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1989 (pbk. ISBN 0-86554-327-5 & casebound ISBN 0-86554-329-1)), p. 128 & n. 34 (author sociologist), citing, at n. 34, von Hefele, Carl Joseph, ''Conciliengeschichte'', vol. 5 (Freiburg: Herder'sche Verlagshandlung, 1886), p. 19.</ref> This is presented in the wife selling article, under Criticism. Cynwolfe has some doubt about Schmidt's reliability (discussed in the AfD for wife selling or the AfD's talk page); I don't agree but Cynwolfe and I refer to different sources. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source ... which goes on to state that "it was perhaps possible... to purchase a bride" which makes it clear that this statement encompasses not just "wife-selling" but also "bride-buying" so it can't be taken as a good reference to the custom predating the statement in this article. Also, this source is from 1873!!! If more modern works don't discuss the letter from Gregory to Lanfranc as "wife-selling" instead of "bride-buying" ... it's probably not best to rest too much on a very passing mention here. I'd suggest consulting Gibson's biography of Lanfranc to see what a modern historian who has extensively studied Lanfranc has to say about the circumstances of the letter. For that matter, a modern edition of Gregory's letter's may also shed some light on the letter. It is entirely possible that the original letter makes what Gregory was referring to clearer - whether it was truly selling a wife (i.e. someone to whom the seller was in truth married to) or if it was bride-buying. This is the problem with google searches for sources, you often miss the context. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following on U.S. practice highlights the similarity to slave sales:

In Philadelphia, the public "shied away from public wife sale.... One imagines that this rite was too close to the actual sale of Africans into slavery in Philadelphia's markets to retain its central tenets of consent and mutual agreement."<ref>Lyons, Clare A., ''Sex Among the Rabble: An Intimate History of Gender & Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730–1830'' (Chapel Hill: Univ. of N. Car. Press, pbk. [1st printing? printing of [20]06?] 2006 (ISBN-13 978-0-8078-5675-8)), pp. 16–17 (page break between "con-" & "sent") (title ''Sex Among the Rabble: An Intimate History of Gender and Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730–1830'', per p. [iv] (copyright p.) (Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data)) (published for Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., per p. [iii] (title p.)) (54 manuscript sources & 531 fnn. plus table fnn.) (author assoc. prof. history, Univ. of Maryland, per cover IV).</ref>

"[Prof. Lyons has] found only one instance of the public transfer of a wife from one husband to another, and this occurred before an unsuspecting minister".<ref>Lyons, Clare A., ''Sex Among the Rabble'', ''op. cit.'', p. 17 n. 3, citing Old Swedes (Gloria Dei) Church, ''Baptisms and Marriages'' (or ''Marriages''), II (Jun., 1796), Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, per ''id.'', ''Sex Among the Rabble'', pp. 17 n. 3, 406 (''Manuscript Sources'', specifically ''Church Records''), & [x] (''Abbreviations and Short Titles'') and see pp. 217 (on the importance of that particular church to marriages in Philadelphia) & 222 n. 63.</ref>

Nick Levinson (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A change in the guideline on categorizing means categorizing into sexism or misogyny is no longer valid and therefore I won't be pursuing it anymore, unless the guideline is changed again to allow it.

Lists may include the article, and I'll probably add it to a list for one of these qualities. Comments are welcome.

This does not change whether content on either quality may be in the article. It is permitted.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the market-place sale form and the contractual sale form, there was the private sale form without a written contract, and of the last there is no count or estimate, because they were not recorded in folklore or newspapers, according to E. P. Thompson, op. cit. (1993), p. 409 (and see p. 410). A sentence should be added to the article, after the sentence on the "about 400 reported cases", to clarify that private sales, meaning without market-place rituals and without written contracts, may have occurred in an unknown number of cases. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as the numbers are unknown, they may not. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Hardy novel, mentioned in the article and sourced to Gibson, is treated also in E. P. Thompson's 1993 work, wherein Thompson questions the accuracy of Hardy's depiction of a ritual wife sale, doubting its typicality. This doubt should be reflected in the article, where the novel itself gets significant descriptive attention, including in the lede. Thompson says, "Thomas Hardy was a superbly perceptive observer of folk customs, and his touch is rarely more sure than in this novel. But in the episode of Michael Henchard's sale of his wife, Susan, in a wayside fair to a passing sailor, Hardy appears to have relied, not upon observation (or direct oral tradition) but on newspaper sources. These sources (as we shall see) are usually enigmatic and opaque. And the episode, as drawn in the novel, in its seemingly casual provenance and in its brutal expression, does not conform to more 'typical' evidence. The auction of Susan Henchard lacks ritual features; the purchaser arrives fortuitously and bids on impulse. Hardy succeeds admirably, in his reconstruction of the episode and in his disclosure of its consequences, in presenting the general popular consensus as to the legitimacy of the transaction and as to its irrevocable character — a conviction certainly shared by Susan Henchard...." Thompson continues to analyze the novel, addressing, inter alia, the purchase as being "a direct chattel purchase", according to Thompson an error. Customs in Common, op. cit. (1993), pp. 405–406 (and see p. 447) (page break between "by Susan" & "Henchard"). Nick Levinson (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doubt should be reflected in the article on Hardy's novel, not here, as the details are not discussed or relevant here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the phrase in the view of some later commentators into the sentence Married women could not own property in their own right, and were indeed themselves the property of their husbands since this sentence, coming between two quotations from Blackstone, appears to be oratio obliqua or at least a summary of Blackstone. I don't think that this sentence is Blackstone's view, but the view of Caine and Sluga. Is there a consensus among reliable sources that "Married women were the property of their husbands" was either Blackstone's view or the general view of the law at that time? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement After 1690, divorce was only possible by making an application to Parliament, a process that was time-consuming and costly is attributed to page 15 of Finlay, Henry Alan (2005), To have but not to hold (illustrated ed.), Federation Press, ISBN 1862875421. However, that page does not support the assertion. On page 10 it is stated that the first Parliamentary divorce was in 1669. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An early version of that sentence appears here, "Until the Matrimonial Causes Act became law in 1857, divorce was only possible by making an application to the United Kingdom Parliament, a task that body was finding increasingly time-consuming. Although the divorce courts set up in the wake of the new Act made the procedure considerably cheaper, divorce remained prohibitively expensive for the poorer members of society.[11] (Finlay)". This is where "1690" was added (by me). I'm not entirely certain where 1690 came from so it might be best to rephrase the sentence. Parrot of Doom 17:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just revert to the earlier version? Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I probably had a dozen browser tabs open and forgot to add the relevant citation. Parrot of Doom 18:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that "United Kingdom Parliament" would be anachronistic, since it did not come into existence until 1800 (or possibly 1927). Furthermore, there is no terminus ante quem. I think the sources would support From the 1550s, until the Matrimonial Causes Act became law in 1857, divorce in England was only possible, if at all, by the complex and costly procedure of a private Act of Parliament. Although the divorce courts set up in the wake of the 1857 Act made the procedure considerably cheaper, divorce remained prohibitively expensive for the poorer members of society. Here I would cite B. J. Sokol; Mary Sokol (2003). Shakespeare, law, and marriage. Cambridge University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0521822637. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, go ahead. Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editing of "began in the late 17th century" in the lede to "probably ..." is a start, but the rest of the article may need to be conformed and the sourcing needs to be added to the body. (This talk topic follows the topics Proposing to Add Medieval Wife Selling, Unknown Origin, and Australia and 11th Century English Custom.) Nick Levinson (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's, I've just about had enough of this bollocks. Why don't you fuck off and do something useful for once? Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]