Talk:Boulton and Park: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:40, 5 June 2023 editSerial Number 54129 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,462 edits OneClickArchived "Pronouns" to Talk:Boulton and Park/Archive 1 Tag: Reverted← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:40, 5 June 2023 edit undoSerial Number 54129 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,462 edits OneClickArchived "Is it appropriate to end the article with the limerick?" to Talk:Boulton and Park/Archive 1 Tag: RevertedNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 75:		Line 75:
	::Not the person above, and I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other, but I'm pretty sure that Geobeck was suggesting that the phrase "gay history" in the last paragraph of the opening section be replaced by "LGBT+ history". ] (]) 22:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)		::Not the person above, and I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other, but I'm pretty sure that Geobeck was suggesting that the phrase "gay history" in the last paragraph of the opening section be replaced by "LGBT+ history". ] (]) 22:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
	:::If that’s what they mean then he first paragraph and first and second quotes of the legacy section both refer to homosexual history, rather than anything broader. - ] (])		:::If that’s what they mean then he first paragraph and first and second quotes of the legacy section both refer to homosexual history, rather than anything broader. - ] (])

	== Is it appropriate to end the article with the limerick? ==

	I'd like to see other people's thoughts on this. Is it appropriate to end the article with a limerick that (seemingly?) calls Boulton and Park pigs?

	I understand it's inclusion for documentation. But wouldn't it be better to just have it put earlier to follow chronological order rather than at the end? I'm open to people's thoughts, just trying to understand its inclusion at the end. ] (]) 20:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
	:Yea, it’s a stronger end than the rather weak and wet one of ending with the theatre productions. Chronological is possible, but the article ends with a soggy whimper, thus ending with the limerick. Again, I’ll point out the two community reviews that this article went through ... - ] (]) 21:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
	::Hear, hear! A no-brainer (though now I look again, oughtn't the single quotes to be double, in line with the MoS Diktat?) '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 21:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::I agree with SchroCat: leave it at the end. And, yes, I think it should have double quotes. -- ] (]) 23:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

	== Discussion of reverted edits ==

	@] has twice reverted nearly wholesale a moderately large batch of edits I made. In the interest of avoiding a ], I am here to lay out the case for my edits and first revert point by point.

	For reference, their first revert edit summary read:

	> ''(A poor set of edits: bad punctuation, poor grammar and removing cited information)''

	and with the second they left a userpage comment:

	> Please don’t edit war, but use the talk page instead. Your comma use was American, rather than British, you removed descriptions of quoted individuals (leaving readers confused as to who was being quoted), and the limerick stays (Misplaced Pages is not censored).

	Firstly, there are two grammatical fixes that remain in the current version of the article. In one of these cases, SchroCat first commented on my userpage that my comma usage was "American, rather than British" and reverted it, but then apparently thought better of it and put it back. I don't think there's anything further to say about these, but I wanted to mention that it accounts for that part of the userpage comment, and for the "bad punctuation" part of the edit summary.

	Next, we have my change from "Many of the papers included ] that were indignant that homosexuality—what was considered a foreign habit—was being practised in England." to "Many of the papers included ] that were indignant that homosexuality—which was considered a foreign habit—was being practised in England." This was reverted twice, with no specific justification. I can only imagine that it falls under the "poor grammar" part of the edit summary. To the best of my knowledge as a copyeditor, and the research I could do just now, there's no justification for this. I'm familiar with "what" in this position as a regional colloquialism, but I can find no source for it being used this way in formal writing. It's hard to find an exact pronouncement ''against'' it, because it's not a common error, but it is easy to find examples of the correct usage in authoritative sources. For example, section II.13 of Strunk & White's ''The Elements of Style'' uses "Trafalgar, which was Nelson's last battle" as an example. A few other similar constructions also appear, and zero with "what". However, if a source positively endorsing this construction as valid in formal British English writing can be produced, I will gladly admit my ignorance and let this stand.

	Third, we come to the most substantive group of edits, an improvement to the clarity of the Historiography section. I made these edits because the text as it stood was nearly incomprehensible, and, once I understood it, was revealed to be making an irresponsibly misleading contrast between scholars who don't actually disagree. There are also a number of smaller grammar and style issues interspersed in these edits. I'll touch on those briefly first.

	* Jeffrey Weeks is mentioned and linked much earlier in the article, and then referred to here as simply Weeks. This is standard for a second mention, but it's been so long that I personally found it confusing, especially since it's also an English word at the start of a sentence. I think an unlinked full name is appropriate here, but only weakly.
	* Alan Sinfield is referred to with the offset clause ", the gender studies academic,", which I changed to ", a gender studies academic,". This feels obviously more standard to me; I think of this usage of "the" as being primarily intended to emphasize a fact the reader already knows, rather than to introduce new information.
	* I changed "Mary Boulton's evidence" to "Mary Boulton's testimony". It does seem that there is a difference between American and British usage here, with "evidence" being much used more often to refer to statements made under oath in British English. However, "testimony" is clearly in current British usage as well, and will be much clearer for an American reader — "evidence" makes it sound to us like she was in possession of some physical evidence, like a letter or diary, that supported the claim, rather than it being a claim she herself made orally. I feel fairly strongly that the article is better served by "testimony" here.
	* I changed "He views the story of Boulton and Park from the position of a ]" to "He views the story of Boulton and Park through the lens of ]". The original just doesn't make any sense: "a transgender history" is very ambiguous (are we talking about a particular history of trans people? an academic approach to the discipline of history that is informed by trans theory?) and regardless of what it refers to, it can't be a "position" a person can have. "the lens of transgender history", by contrast, clearly refers to the perspectives and techniques described in the linked article by that name.
	* I changed the noun used for the list of phases of interpretation from "themes" to "interpretations". I can't think of a way in which the ideas discussed in the list could be "themes"; they are specific interpretations by specific individuals, introduced with the word interpretations.

	Now back to the substantive change. The version SchroCat prefers leads off the section by placing Harry Cocks and Simon Joyce in opposition, with Joyce seemingly refuting Cocks's claim that there have been phases of interpretation. However, there is no cited evidence that either sees their position as opposing the others, and the actual claims discussed in the article simply don't oppose each other at all. Joyce's work ''does'' propose a consistent throughline ''across'' the phases, but that in no way suggests that he doesn't think those phases exist. Therefore, I find it quite academically irresponsible to open the section this way. Additionally, any kind of thesis statement contrasting them feels dangerously close to original research when there is no cited evidence that they have anything to say about each other's work at all.

	I accordingly moved the mentions of Joyce's work entirely into its own paragraph, and feel strongly that it should remain there.

	The opening paragraph also included the clause "] thought the relationship to be largely innocent and sprang from the sentimental romanticism that the Victorians adopted", which is agrammatical and incomprehensible. "Sprang" does not match the tense of "to be", and I legitimately can't tell if this is intended to mean that ''Roughhead'' thought the ''relationship'' sprang from romanticism, or if Cocks (or someone else) is stating that Roughhead's ''belief'' sprang from romanticism. The former makes somewhat more sense, but is pretty hand-wavy — there is no evidence presented that all Victorians adopted a particular kind of sentimental romanticism, nor of why that would imply that a relationship wasn't sexual. The word "innocent" is also unnecessarily morally charged; even if a sexual relationship would have been illegal at the time, there's no need for modern encyclopedic writing to use that lens. Therefore I changed it to "platonic", and cut the confusing clause entirely. If the clause can be cleaned up significantly on the basis of Roughhead's actual writings (or Cocks's descriptions of them), great, but I don't have access to those sources and as it stands the article is much better without it.

	Lastly, we come to what I expect to be the most contentious disagreement, even though from my perspective it's one of the most obviously needed changes. The article ends with a limerick that is a dirty joke at the expense of the article subjects, presented with absolutely no claim to relevance whatsoever. It has been quoted in scholarly work about the two, so my choice was to add an internet-accessible reference that does so, and mention its existence without quoting it in its entirety. Honestly, I don't think even that is appropriate, and looking back I did that mainly with the expectation that I would get pushback on the change. The source that quotes it does so for.. no particular reason other than, it seems to me, the supposed humor of the thing, and doesn't mention it further.

	I know plenty of dirty jokes about famous people, but I don't go around adding them to those people's wikipedia pages. SchroCat has offered two justifications for inclusion of the limerick in responses to me, and a third on the talk page. These are:

	* It's cited information (from the first edit summary). This is not relevant. I can easily find citations for all kinds of slander against all kinds of people; that doesn't mean it belongs in an article about them.
	* ]. It is of course true that the mere offensiveness of the limerick is no reason to remove it. At the same time, it's no reason to include it.
	* "it’s a stronger end than the rather weak and wet one of ending with the theatre productions. Chronological is possible, but the article ends with a soggy whimper, thus ending with the limerick." I don't believe that punchiness is an appropriate criterion for including non-encyclopedic content. To me, this feels like an admission that the only value added to the article is humor, and that's simply not one of the criteria. It's not spelled out super clearly, but I would say this falls under ] — this is content that exists to titillate and amuse, not to mention to reinforce a rather disgusting social norm from the 1800s, and simply does not have the kind of scholarship around it that could justify its inclusion. Or at least, if it does, it's in the citation I added, and it's not mentioned in the article. If it does exist, including this along with a well-sourced discussion of its significance could make sense.

	SchroCat also wrote "the limerick stays", which is a tellingly authoritative choice of phrasing. Taken together with their decision to mass-revert my edits twice, this suggests to me that they may be acting defensively, prioritizing their control of the article over its quality. This is the exact kind of thing ] warns us against. I'd like to ask that they attempt to bring a more collaborative spirit to our future interactions.

	Additionally, they asked me not to edit war, and referred me to ] in their second edit summary. Unfortunately, it is their behavior that runs afoul of BRD. BRD suggests in part: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting ''only when necessary''. When reverting, ''be specific about your reasons in the edit summary'' and use links if needed." (emphasis mine). SchroCat's reverts fail these criteria. Additionally, BRD is not policy — my undo of SchroCat's first revert was not in fact edit warring, but rather made in exact accordance with the guidelines for ], specifically the part which reads "Another case where the re-revert may be necessary is when an incumbent editor reverts without justification in the edit summary, which is a form ]."

	I also have to mention SchroCat's confusing assertion on my talk page that I "removed descriptions of quoted individuals (leaving readers confused as to who was being quoted)". I reread my edits carefully several times, and I can't see where I could possibly have done this. The only thing even approaching a description of a quoted individual is the clause ", a professor of English,", which I did move from one paragraph to another, but I certainly didn't remove it and even if I had I don't see how it could have caused any confusion about who was being quoted. I'm really confused about this one.

	With all of that said, there's no deadline, and my only goal here is to improve the article, which despite its recent featured status has several prominent flaws. I absolutely welcome revisions and improvements to my edits, from SchroCat or anyone else, but reverting them all at once with minimal, invalid, and inaccurate justifications is not acceptable. I will wait a couple days for any specific rebuttals or counterproposals to the points I've made here about each of my edits before restoring them. If they are reverted again, I guess it will be time to look into more formal dispute resolution methods. — ] (]) 03:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:TL;DR. Any chance you can remove all the ‘he said, she said’ waste of words and boil it down to the points of text you want to actually discuss? I (and I doubt anyone else) is going to trawl through that lot trying to get to the stuff that’s actually pertinent. Oh, and when you do boil it down, take out the accusations of ownership, bad faith and all the other pointy passive-aggressive stuff that doesn’t do anything but wind people up and doesn’t help issues get resolved. - ] (]) 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	===Arbitrary break 2===
	::I just double checked, and every single paragraph except the introductory context and the final one explaining my intentions is either directly discussing a relevant point of text, or refuting a specious accusation or invalid justification made by you.
	::But if it would be simpler, we can certainly go through them one at a time! Let's just start at the beginning: do you believe that "what was considered a foreign habit" is justifiable in formal written British English? If so, can you present a source, or at least an example? — ] (]) 03:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::I have made no specious accusation or invalid justification; this are more untruthful passive aggressive baiting by someone who doesn’t seem to think they can be wrong, despite the untruths in the ] and the further untruthful incivility in an edit summary.{{pb}}I will post the relevant point regarding the acceptability of “what was considered“ shortly. - ] (]) 04:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

	:::The style guides I’ve got to hand do not specifically say it is a standard formation (they are not great in acceptable examples, and “which can be considered” is also not given), but none say that it isn’t correct either. Having said that, several style guides are happy enough to use the phrase, which is fairly solid
	:::*
	:::*
	:::*
	:::*
	:::There are others, but this should suffice. - ] (]) 04:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::Each of these documents does in fact contain the string "what is", but none of them does so in a construction remotely similar to the one under discussion. For anyone reading along who doesn't want to hunt through them, here are the four examples given:
	::::"These rights granted to the publisher fall under what is considered an exclusive license."
	::::"Thus, what is considered true currently may be questioned and proven inaccurate in the future."
	::::"Changes in what is considered acceptable language can leave editors and writers struggling"
	::::"Error messages hould tell you what is wrong, and how to fix it."
	::::These are, on their faces, unrelated to the edit I made. The usage in question is a "parenthetic expression", as described in Strunk & White II.3:
	::::<code>In these sentences the clauses introduced by which, when, and where are nonrestrictive; they do not limit the application of the words on which they depend, but add, parenthetically, statements supplementing those in the principal clauses. Each sentence is a combination of two statements which might have been made independently.</code>
	::::In such constructions, "which" is used in ]; ] has no comparable definition. Given that the provided citations don't address the matter at hand, I'm going to go ahead and reinstate that change. Please request a ] before reverting. — ] (]) 06:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::FFS, will you STOP EDIT WARRING. ''You'' do not get to decide unilaterally what you prefer - there is a discussion still in progress and ] applies. This article has been through community review processes, which means there is a high level of consensus that has to be changed when an edit is challenged, not just because you prefer something.{{pb}}I will flip this question round, so I am not the one who has to go and find the sources that show this is perfectly acceptable in BrEng: do you have a source that says this set of words should not be used? - ] (]) 07:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::There generally aren't sources saying that arbitrary, rare grammatical errors are errors. This has reached a point where I don't think anything I say is going to have an impact on your beliefs or behavior, so I've requested a third opinion: ]. — ] (]) 07:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Alright, great, one down. Next up is a super easy one, that I don't feel terribly strongly about: do you object to using Jeffrey Weeks's full name seven top level headings after he was first introduced? — ] (]) 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::I have put back in the 'which': both are acceptable in BrEng, but I doubt you'll be flexible on this, despite the fact you can find no style guides or sources to back you up.{{pb}}Yes, I do. He's been introduced already. - ] (]) 07:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::I think it's reasonable to imagine that some readers don't read the entire thing in order and will be confused here, but, not a big deal. Weeks it is. — ] (]) 07:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::On to the next! I'll just quote myself here, because I said it fairly succinctly the first time. Do you disagree with the following:
	:::::::::> Alan Sinfield is referred to with the offset clause ", the gender studies academic,", which I changed to ", a gender studies academic,". This feels obviously more standard to me; I think of this usage of "the" as being primarily intended to emphasize a fact the reader already knows, rather than to introduce new information.
	:::::::::This one is also quite minor, but I feel a bit more strongly about it than the previous. It notably threw me on first read. — ] (]) 07:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::No: we don't use loose Americanisms in the article, and the definite article is far superior. - ] (]) 07:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Huh, wouldn't have guessed that was a Britishism, but I suppose I'll trust you on it. If you keep indenting every subthread fully, though, we're going to be talking in a tiny little column soon, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped :) — ] (]) 07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	==="evidence" vs. "testimony"===
	Next up: "evidence" vs. "testimony". As I wrote in detail above, I'm well aware that this one is a usage difference. I still think the change serves the article well, because, as far as I know, "testimony" does not read strangely to a British English speaker, while "evidence" does read strangely to an American English speaker. Do you disagree? — ] (]) 07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:I've put back the indenting properly because it makes it much harder to read if they are all over the place. Use <nowiki>{{od}}</nowiki> to out-dent the thread at certain points.{{pb}}In court in BrEng, we give evidence, so "evidence" it is. - ] (]) 08:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::I find it much easier to read when discussions are threaded by topic, personally, because you can easily visually jump down to the next one. But sure, whatever.
	::I'm not too convinced by your argument here, though. For instance, is a .co.uk site discussing the UK legal system which lists testimony as one of many kinds of evidence. Here's that uses it extensively in the same way. I do also find other examples that use "evidence" to mean the same thing, as I had already acknowledged, but it seems very clear that both are acceptable. — ] (]) 08:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::If you find it easier, then use <nowiki>{{od}}</nowiki> for each new point.{{pb}}There is a difference between the two, but "evidence" is a perfectly good word to use. It does not need changing. - ] (]) 08:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::It's perfectly good in British English, yes. But you're ignoring my original point, which is that if we can have a word that's perfectly good for a larger percentage of readers, there's no reason not to use it. — ] (]) 08:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Not just British English, but for most of the English speaking world, with the exception of where you live. Are you telling me that Americans don't understand the word "evidence"? A few AmEng dictionaries may disagree with you on that point. - ] (]) 08:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Here's what I wrote about that the first time:
	::::::> However, "testimony" is clearly in current British usage as well, and will be much clearer for an American reader — "evidence" makes it sound to us like she was in possession of some physical evidence, like a letter or diary, that supported the claim, rather than it being a claim she herself made orally.
	::::::— ] (]) 08:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::That's not what AmEng dictionaries say. Just because you may struggle with it, it appears American dictionaries understand the wider use of the term. - ] (]) 08:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Of course dictionaries will include testimony as a type of evidence. The question is one of common usage, and what will be least likely to confuse the reader. Let me reframe the question: why do you think the article is ''worse'' with the word "testimony" there? You haven't given a reason beyond an appeal to the status quo. I made a change that improves the clarity for me and likely many others; BRD guidelines suggest that you revert only when necessary. What could possibly make this reversion not only necessary, but worth this much of a fight? — ] (]) 08:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::And I can ask you why your need to replace a perfectly acceptable word is worth this much of a fight. Changing the word doesn't improve the article, so it's a cosmetic one that doesn't need to be made. Given your behaviour and accusations made against me, I am unlikely to be overly flexible to someone whose first step was to edit war and accuse me of bad faith. Time to move on to the next point. - ] (]) 08:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Since this is clearly going nowhere, I've opened another 3O request. ] (]) 08:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Which isn't enough to overturn the consensus of the FAC review. - ] (]) 09:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Please link me to where in the FAC review the question of whether "testimony" would be a better word choice here was discussed. — ] (]) 09:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::You don't seem to understand how FAC works, but given the article was reviewed fully and extensively, that creates a consensus that takes another consensus to overturn. Your tiresome pushing on replacing a perfectly good word for no reason other than your ignorance in its use is becoming increasingly tedious. - ] (]) 09:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::What a tiresome waste of everybody's time by Personman! You have only to glance at the OED: "'''evidence''', Information (in the form of personal or documented testimony or the production of material objects), tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation"; "'''testimony''', Personal or documentary evidence or attestation in support of a fact or statement; hence, any form of evidence or proof". How anyone can maintain in sobriety that our "evidence" would be one whit better as "testimony" I'm blest if I can see. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 10:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::I think I laid out how I can do that rather plainly a bunch of times in this thread. Instead of accusing me of being drunk(?), would you be willing to explain why it is odious to you to make a word choice that is no worse for British English speakers, and somewhat better for a bunch of American English speakers? Or will you, as SchroCat openly did above, declare that my edit should be reverted merely on the basis of your perceptions of me as a person? — ] (]) 14:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::I'm an American with an English degree who has taught American students. Americans have no difficulty understanding the meaning of "evidence", and I disagree that "testimony" would be any better anywhere in this article. You are trying to force a stylistic choice, without any comprehension difference, upon other editors. -- ] (]) 15:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::If you've actually read the sentence in question and feel this way strongly, I'm surprised, and ready to have my position updated! Can you point me to an American source that uses the phrasing "<Name>'s evidence that <claim>" to refer to oral testimony in which <Name> made <claim>? It feels very strange to me, but if it's widely attested in AmEng I'm happy to accept that it's just something I haven't encountered.
	::::::::::::::::::That said, looking through the first page of Google Books results for "his evidence that" for examples of this construction, I count 6 British sources, several modern, and 1 US source, from 1908. — ] (]) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::'''Four''' editors have now said that "evidence" is the better word to use and only you are plumping for "testimony". Don't you think it's time you ]? This ] approach is disruptive. - ] (]) 15:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::Not one of them has so much as attempted to explain why "testimony" would be a ''worse'' choice. Ssilvers might be about to produce some evidence that they are equally good, and I'm quite interested to see what they have to say, but in no way can I see this debate having come to a "natural end" as described at DROPTHESTICK. — ] (]) 16:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	There is no consensus for the change, despite your attempt to keep litigating the point beyond what is reasonable. This is done. Time to move on. - ] (]) 16:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

	:The point has not been litigated ''at all''. Refusing to engage with an argument repeatedly and then pointing to how long you've been doing that as evidence that the ''other'' party is going on too long is not good faith discussion. After you posted your fourth comment that didn't engage with the question, I posted on ] and notified you, as encouraged by policy. Then you posted a non-sequitur about the FAC process; then some of showed up to also insult me. The length of the discussion has been dramatically and artificially inflated by these posts.
	:Instead of making inappropriately authoritative statements like "This is done.", can you either wait for the 3O, or engage substantively with the question? What actual reasons do you have for opposing this change? — ] (]) 17:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::You've already had a third opinion. And a fourth. And a fifth. Four of them reject your opinion and have !voted to remain with "evidence". I ''did'' engage with the question: I !voted to remain with "evidence" and have told you why; you are being astonishingly blinkered in not accepting that the consensus is to remain with the status quo. There is still no consensus, despite your attempts to smear other editors and to drag out this pointless circus. - ] (]) 17:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::Where did you tell me why? Here are the "reasons" I see from you so far:
	:::> In court in BrEng, we give evidence, so "evidence" it is.
	:::> "evidence" is a perfectly good word to use. It does not need changing.
	:::> Changing the word doesn't improve the article, so it's a cosmetic one that doesn't need to be made. Given your behaviour and accusations made against me, I am unlikely to be overly flexible to someone whose first step was to edit war and accuse me of bad faith.
	:::> Four editors have now said that "evidence" is the better word to use and only you are plumping for "testimony".
	:::Not a single one these attempts to either a) suggest that "testimony" is worse somehow, or b) explain why it fails make the article less confusing in the way I've suggested. Ssilver did attempt b), and I remain curious to see their followup, as they weren't very specific and their reference to "anywhere in this article" makes me think they might not fully realize we're talking about one specific sentence. — ] (]) 18:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::It's not that "testimony" is a bad word, it's that "evidence" is a better one. ENGVAR is a thing, and this is written in BrEng, not some bastardised hybrid AmEng version. It's an edit that doesn't improve the article. - ] (]) 18:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

	===Inclusion of the limerick===
	The limerick.{{pb}}There is no reason to remove the limerick at all. It exists, and if we refer to the fact that there was one around and not use it, it raises questions in the minds of readers along the lines of 'why mention it but not use it'. You may have some objection to is based on some unknown personal reason, but as reliable sources and academic papers are okay with quoting it, there is no reason why we should not. - ] (]) 08:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:If you're going to jump ahead to discuss your favorite part of the article, please at least read what I already wrote on the topic. Everything you're saying here is addressed there. It's a more lengthy discussion so I think it would be inappropriate to repaste it here; it's the paragraph beginning "Lastly,", and extends through the 3 bullet points. — ] (]) 09:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::It's not my favourite part at all, so take out the snide tone. I read what you posted. It's no basis to remove something that appears in reliable sources and academic papers. ] is no basis for you to censor something you don't like. - ] (]) 09:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::If you read it, why can't you respond to a single sentence of it? My arguments are against mentioning it at all (which you didn't seem aware of when you wrote "if we refer to the fact that there was one around and not use it..."), on the grounds that it is not encyclopedic content. You have offered no rebuttal. — ] (]) 09:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::Because your argument is nonsense, based only on something you don't like. The fact it is referred to (and fully quoted) in reliable sources, including academic papers, means it ''is'' encyclopaedic. - ] (]) 09:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::That is patently false. An enormous number of things are fully quoted in reliable sources, while nonetheless remaining utterly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. For example, is an academic publication that quotes at length several jokes that denigrate the character of Joseph Stalin. We might all agree that these jokes are funny; we might all agree that Stalin deserves it; yet somehow I doubt it would be well-received were I to insert them, citation and all, into his Misplaced Pages article. Random, non-notable cultural ephemera about an article's subject simply are not appropriate inclusions.
	:::::Given that the article as it stands makes no claims whatsoever as to the historical importance or scholarly interest of this limerick, I truly can't tell the difference between this case and that. — ] (]) 09:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::It's not false at all. The Stalin jokes, for example: as they appear in an academic paper there is an argument for inclusion or an article on them to go with ]. If you want to swap dictators, we have an article on the ] and a whole article on the song that sprang from the rumour: "]". Sorry you don't like it, but this ''is'' an appropriate point for inclusion. - ] (]) 09:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::I can imagine that there could be an article about jokes about Stalin. I cannot imagine that there could be an argument that they should be included on the main page. These are very different things. I don't really believe that you sincerely believe what you just typed — if you do, I'd invite you to bring up those jokes as potential inclusions on the Stalin talk page, and see how that goes.
	:::::::The possibility of an entire article is a lot more reasonable, because such jokes ''in their own right'' might have a broad cultural impact, and there may be a body of scholarship around them. These things are very obviously not the case here, and this concept has no bearing on whether the limerick belongs in the article.
	:::::::Once again, since we're getting nowhere, I'm requesting outside assistance. — ] (]) 10:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::If there is an article of suitable level (ie an FA), it can be included on the front page. Given we've had '']'' on the front page, I think your attempts here to delete a limerick that appears in an article are in breach of ]. - ] (]) 10:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Just gently explaining to Personman that this article has been through ] and ], reviewed by experienced editors. Why does Personman imagine that s/he knows better than all of them? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 10:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::I took part at the FAC, for the record. I'd like to briefly point out (note 'briefly': TLDR walls of text are generally unhelpful in making one's point coherent) that discussion of contemporary perception is integral to a historical article such as this; any piece of scholarship must put its topic in context, which fully justifies this use of a primary source. Likewise, for our purposes, to reach FA status, the article must be both comprehensive and neutral, which the rhyme supports, per WP:FA? #1B and 1C.{{pb}}Also, per the wild accusations of ownership above, please read ], which is ], and note that, having—as Tim points out above—gone through multiple levels of review, a consensus of neutral, independent editors has been achieved and policy allows that consensus to be upheld: {{tq\|it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first}}, as opposed to edit-warring to shoehorn in one's own ideological bent. ] 12:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::> TLDR walls of text are generally unhelpful in making one's point coherent
	::::::::::The "wall of text" is merely a large number of appropriately sized responses, one for each of the "wall of reverts" made in flagrant contravention of the guidelines at ] and ]. Since each paragraph or two is making its own point, the risk of incoherence through verbosity is hopefully mitigated, but if you do find any particular section incoherent, please let me know.
	::::::::::Since SchroCat didn't prefer to read it in that format, I've been accommodating that by breaking it down into many smaller comments over time, which does seem to be allowing some sort of progress to occur.
	::::::::::> discussion of contemporary perception is integral to a historical article such as this; any piece of scholarship must put its topic in context, which fully justifies this use of a primary source
	::::::::::The trouble is that there is no attempt whatsoever to use the limerick to put the article's topic in context. The limerick is merely stated to exist. There is no evidence provided as to its popularity, its impact, or even what decade it's from. The rest of the article does an admirable job of putting its subjects in context, quoting many contemporary accounts and summarizing changing historical perspectives over time. This limerick is not supporting any of those points, nor mentioned by any of them, nor, as far as a reader can tell, of any particular note to anyone beyond having been printed somewhere.
	::::::::::If there are sources that establish its notability, and context from them is added to the article, I'm all for it. As it stands, the only purpose anyone has given for its inclusion is that it's "strong" (]), which is not terribly compelling from a policy perspective.
	::::::::::> wild accusations of ownership
	::::::::::"Wild" in this usage usually means "without basis", but I think I've provided solid evidence for that particular accusation, and I stand by it. Reading the very page you linked me to, I find the following: "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership." This is extremely far from what happened. SchroCat's edit summaries and messages have, from the very beginning, been full of demeaning language ("a poor set of edits"), false statements ("you removed descriptions of quoted individuals"), and name-calling ("the hard of thinking"), with nary a policy-based explanation to be found.
	::::::::::> it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first,
	::::::::::Acknowledged. I wasn't aware of this particular special status of FAs, and was applying my general understanding of ]. I don't think it's really a terribly significant change, but in the future I certainly would bring such a change to an FA to the talk page first.
	::::::::::> as opposed to edit-warring to shoehorn in one's own ideological bent.
	::::::::::Well that's an unnecessarily ad-hominem way to follow up an informative point! The only relevant ideologies I have here are that I would like this article to be improved, I would like folks to respect policy, and I would like people to stop calling me names and accusing me of things I didn't do, especially edit warring, which I've been quite scrupulously avoiding. — ] (]) 13:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::In the edit summary of your second edit here you accused me of acting in bad faith when I certainly wasn't, and in your opening wall of text here you accused me of ownership and you say you would like people to stop calling you names and accusing you of things you didn't do. I reverted your edit because it was poor - I explained that in my edit summary, but you decided to personalise the issue from your second edit. If you could have not thrown around insults so quickly, you would have had a much better reception. - ] (]) 14:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::> In the edit summary of your second edit here you accused me of acting in bad faith when I certainly wasn't
	::::::::::::I can't agree! You are an experienced editor; you are familiar with the policies in WP:BRD and WP:REVERT. And yet your initial revert offered no justification whatsoever for the most substantial change, flimsy and dismissive ones for the rest, and reverted nearly all of my edits wholesale with no attempt at discussion. This was either a serious lapse in judgment, or a bad faith attempt to scare me off your turf. If you disagree, please explain specifically how your first edit summary, "A poor set of edits: bad punctuation, poor grammar and removing cited information", in any way justifies the reversion of the only really substantive edit in the set, the restructuring of the argument in the historiography section?
	::::::::::::> you accused me of ownership
	::::::::::::Yes, because as I've described in great detail several times now, you were engaging in unambiguously WP:OWNERous behavior.
	::::::::::::> and you say you would like people to stop calling you names and accusing you of things you didn't do
	::::::::::::Yes, I really would! Including you, in this very post, where you continue to baselessly accuse me of edit warring. My one and only revert was of your initial revert, on the basis that it had no policy support whatsoever and was plainly made in bad faith. Once you doubled down on your ''actually'' edit-warring behavior and insulted me a bunch, I made no further edits but took the time to explain my rationale in detail here on the talk page, as encouraged by policy. — ] (]) 14:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Leaving aside the question of the limerick, your initial edit summary dealing with the rest of your edit was "grammar & clarity" (and that includes the part you describe here as "the most substantial change"). That was an insufficient basis for screwing around with an FA and leaving it in a worse state than when you started. It 'offered no justification whatsoever' for the edit. There was no bad faith in my reversion, and it is a lie for you to keep repeating that - as much of an ad hominem lie as it is for you to keep throwing around the spurious accusations of ownership. You can look at the page history and see your edit warring quite clearly: I really don't know how you can claim otherwise. Your behaviour here is increasingly disruptive and tendentious and is characterised by a ] approach to force in changes that are either a step backward or not a step forward.{{pb}}It's clear there is no consensus to overturn the existing ] of the limerick remaining, so I think we're done here. - ] (]) 14:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::This is an FA-class article. They reach that level by being thoroughly reviewed by experienced reviewers, using high quality sourcing, and giving the reader a strong reading experience. Often they end with something interesting, rather than just petering out with a legacy of IPC section that ends with "X was portrayed by Laurence Oliver in this film." In this case, the limerick is both a relevant and well-cited item to include in the "portrayals" section, and it also ends the article with a lively and interesting "button". The article is clearly better with it. -- ] (]) 15:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Can you elaborate on "a relevant .. item to include in the portrayals section"? Do you believe that the well-sourced Stalin jokes I linked to above are also relevant items to include in a portrayals section on that page? If not, can you explain the difference between these cases in your view? — ] (]) 17:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	I'm sorry to say that I see no glimmer of hope that Personman is interested in listening to anyone who presumes to disagree with him/her, in this or in the previous slab of talk. The rest of us are all clearly out of step except Personman. In the absence of anything from Personman resembling a cogent argument, as opposed to tantrums, I suggest we move on and get on with building a useful encyclopaedia rather than indulging one rogue editor throwing the toys out of the pram. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 20:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

	==Third opinion requested - response==
	{{cot}}
	{\|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
	\|] '''Response to ] (Simple disagreement about the correct word choice to introduce a parenthetic expression, exacerbated by a larger set of disagreements.)''':
	\|-
	\|style="padding-left:0.6cm"\|In the interests of being grammatically accurate and correct, "- which was..." is indeed the correct word to use in the embedded clause, the first point which {{u\|Personman}} makes. I would also like to challenge some of the other aspects of the dispute, because I believe it may be helpful for both parties for me to do so.
	I find Personman's edits to the Historiography section to be superior for the very valid justifications that they have pointed out. {{u\|SchroCat}}, I believe, has made some actions worthy of going against ], including - in my opinion - autocratically forcing the limerick to stay, and in light of Personman's well-reasoned points, I do not believe that the limerick has a place in the article, and that - per ] - it should be removed (even if it can be cited and seems reasonable); I do agree that it could feasibly be seen to be deeply negative. I would very softly advise SchroCat to take a break from editing this article as well, for the reasons I and Personman have outlined above. ] (]) 07:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	\|}
	* You're well behind the curve on this as the edit has already been done. Given our previous interactions, where you tried to defend sub-standard edits, where you made unsubstantiated accusations against me and tried to get me blocked or banned, I will happily ignore any "advice" you give, doubting it's given in good faith. And you can take your accusations and run off with them.{{pb}}I will point out the guidelines at ], clearly state that "{{tq\|Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.}}" Your post here does not align with that first instruction of the guidelines. It also departs from the fifth instruction: "{{tq\|Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way}}": your post does neither of those. - ] (]) 07:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	{{cob}}

Revision as of 20:40, 5 June 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boulton and Park article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Boulton and Park is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 31, 2023.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 8, 2023	Featured article candidate	Promoted

This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tomorrow

Hi SchroCat, I have some changes to consider. Are you around at moment? JennyOz (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, I am! - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Great! I just saw this is MP tomorrow so dug out old (unused) FAC notes. I'm not feeling bold enough to make all of these at moment so leaving to you to action or ignore...

Thomas Ernest Boulton and Frederick William Park were two Victorian - "two" seems redundant
from upper middle class families - no hyphen ie middle-class?
The 60-year old was dressed - missing hyphen ie 60-year-old
Ernest was a sickly baby who his parents also thought had the condition - move "also" to after "thought"?
had attempted to blackmail him over the affair - their affair?
historian Laurence Senelick - link (and authorlink)
He views the story of Boulton and Paul from - Park not Paul
caption: Boulton and Park leaving Bow Street Magistrate's Court - move apostrophe ie Magistrates'
John Safford Fiske - link
According to Kaplan - move intro up to this first mention?
and Hanley, Staffordshire before - geocomma
William Roughhead - wlink (per Bad Companions (1930))
exchange is listed as in the - remove "as"
He also noted that both Boulton and Paul had large - Park

Possible categories?

Category:1870 in London
Category:1871 in British law
Category:19th-century scandals
Category:LGBT-related scandals
Category:Sex scandals in the United Kingdom

No need to reply, just use anything useful. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these, JennyOz: all are excellent and all have been used - thanks so much for this! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks SC, good working with you again. JennyOz (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

The blurb on the main page says Boulton and Park were charged with conspiracy to commit sodomy, a crime that carried a maximum prison sentence of life with hard labour. They were found not guilty after the prosecution failed to establish that they had anal sex. This sounded odd to me, since you don't have to prove they committed sodomy to prove that they conspired to. The page itself says that the charge was that they did with each and one another feloniously commit the abominable crime of buggery. So not mere conspiracy. Srnec (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s a point for WP:ERRORS, not this page. - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
No, the blurb is based on the lead. The error is here. Srnec (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"asked for money for sex"?

The third sentence of the lede states "It is possible that they asked for money for sex..." This is a rather odd bit of conjecture. First, because an infinite number of things are "possible" (it is possible that they rowed across the English Channel in a washtub, but it's also rather unlikely). And second, this borders on weasel-words. There is a commonly-used term for doing this sort of thing: "prostitution". Rewriting it to say something like "It was rumored that they worked as prostitutes..." or "Contemporary scandal sheets suggested that they worked as prostitutes..." would be both more succinct and intelligible. Bricology (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is conjecture by the sources, not WP, so it’s fine to have it there. As to saying they were prostitutes, I think that’s too far. The addition doesn’t make the article “more intelligible”, but removes some nuance from what is not a black-and-white reality. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to point out this unusual wording too, before noticing someone else had already done so. It almost seems like the lede goes out of its way to avoid using the term "prostitution", as if it's a dirty word, although it still links to the article on prostitution. Lower sections of the page directly use the word. I also agree with Bricology's suggestions about using a more precise phrasing than "It is possible", because that's rather vague. That said, these are relatively minor issues, and if most other editors disagree then I can live with it. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

No: “rumoured” is not in line with the sources, and the vaguenss is in line with the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"key moments in the gay history of the UK"

I would suggest "key moments in the LGBT+ history of the UK" in the last paragraph of the introduction. Although Boulton and Park were gay, the substance of their controversy centers around how they dressed, which has broader implications than sexual preference, as cross-dressing is often independent of one's sexual preference or gender identity. Geobeck (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You would suggest what about those words? (Sorry, your meaning is unclear). - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Not the person above, and I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other, but I'm pretty sure that Geobeck was suggesting that the phrase "gay history" in the last paragraph of the opening section be replaced by "LGBT+ history". 70.181.1.68 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If that’s what they mean then he first paragraph and first and second quotes of the legacy section both refer to homosexual history, rather than anything broader. - SchroCat (talk)

Categories: