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 "Third opinion requested - response" to Talk:Boulton and Park/Archive 1Tag: 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 1Tag: RevertedNext edit → | ||
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) |
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. |
|
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. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- FA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- FA-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- FA-Class London-related articles
- Low-importance London-related articles