Talk:Wife selling (English custom)

Renaming proposal

Shouldn't this article be called "Wife-selling"? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Modern use—certainly; but what was the typical usage in contemporary reports? Some I've seen omit the hyphen. Parrot of Doom 20:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain either now, but whatever we decide on it needs to be consistent throughout the article, which it isn't. My impression is that almost all of the contemporary accounts I've come across don't hyphenate, so I guess I'm leaning towards that now. Smething else I've been pondering on is whether the title ought to make it clear this is about wife selling in England (which of course included Ireland at that time. Scottish law would obviously have been different, and I've seen no accounts of wife selling in Scotland, although it does seem to have spread to the American and Australian colonies. I'd be very reluctant for the scope to creep to include wife selling in China, India ... --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If we can get an image of a report, that omits the hyphen, I think it will become self-explanatory. I agree with the England part - write it into the lead and it should be fine. This is clearly a local custom. Although I did find a report from 2003 about a bloke selling his wife on Ebay :p Parrot of Doom 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have evidence that it occured elsewhere based on English custom (say, American and Australian colonies) I would like to see that added/mentioned here. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The current title, Wife selling (English custom), is using disambiguation when it isn't necessary. I understand your worry about scope, but I'd say if there were customs called wife selling in other places then disambiguate this article if other articles ever get started, but right now this article should be moved back to simply Wife selling. And if there are sources about wife selling in English colonies then I would include that in the scope of this article, which isn't overly long at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wives are being sold today in India, for instance,[1] which is why we wanted to make it as clear as possible that what's being discused here is the ritualised public auctioning of wives that grew up in England at the end of the 17th century. It may be necessary though just to add a bit about the practice in the English colonies. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems less than ideal to have wife selling redirect here to the same title but with an added disambiguation. Since the specific phrase "wife selling" is only being used for this article, and because it seems the English custom is the most common topic for this title anyway, this article should be at the title without disambiguation. If an article is ever made about selling wives in India or wherever else then a hatnote and/or a disambiguation page can be made. WP:PRECISION would be the policy for this. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Put like that, your proposal sounds entirely reasonable. We're coming from the angle of previous articles, where editors have attempted to extend the scope beyond what we felt was strictly appropriate (Moors Murders for instance, see its FAC). Before you know it, you have to start dealing with editors who add details about Wife sales on Ebay, in Africa, some bloke in China who sold 23 wives in 1254, etc. It seemed easier just to say at the outset, that this article dealt specifically with the English custom, as described. Parrot of Doom 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand why you wanted to add "English custom" to the article title but I'm not sure that's the best course of action to take. For one thing, it wouldn't be a big deal if someone did add information not related to the English custom. That could either easily be deleted or could be helpfully used to create a new article. I normally wouldn't bother arguing about this but I read that you will probably take this article to FAC, so it would be good to get the title right. Is the exact phrase "wife selling" definitely the most common name for this custom? Because if not you could rename the article to a less ambiguous name without having to use disambiguation parentheses. Maybe even "Wife selling in England" would be better. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely being persuaded. From what I've seen "wife selling" is the common description, so I'd have no objection either to returning the article title to "Wife selling", and deal with any needed disambiguation later if anyone does actually write an article on wife sales in China, India, or wherever. As PoD said, we were keen to make it as clear as possible that our scope was restricted to the ritualised public auctioning of wives that seems to have been fairly widespread in England during the 18th and 19th centuries. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Page

I'm busy with the two books I'm going through, but this might be of interest. Parrot of Doom 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Relatedly, I wrote up an 1861article on this for Wikisource some years back; it's here. Might be of some use... Shimgray | talk | 13:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. I've added a link to the wikisource article. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts...

Makes you proud to be British... Might I recommend this is nominated at good article nominations? There may also be a place for it on this page. J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, I think it'll be going straight to FAC. Shouldn't take too long. Parrot of Doom 14:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that; at first glance it looks like something I'd support. Someone gave it a C-class rating, which seems unduly harsh... Maybe once you get it through FAC you could put it up as a Featured Article on April Fool's Day? Lampman (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I'm sure lots of people would naturally think it's a hoax, but I promise that it's absolutely true. As for the C rating, well this will hopefully be at FAC soon, so it doesn't really matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

heh, two articles I've worked (that I can see) on are on that WP:ODD page. That clearly isn't enough! Parrot of Doom 14:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only got two there as well, although I fail to see what's so odd about this. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My neighbour, in the 70s, used to put Ferrets down his pants. If you've ever seen it done, you wouldn't ask that question :) Parrot of Doom 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you into a secret, but don't tell anyone else; I've got 12 ferrets. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say anything about that on your biography :D Parrot of Doom 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell

18,000 veiws while at DYK! Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not bad, is it. These little by-ways of history deserve a bit of attention. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably 18,000 men all thinking "I wonder if this is cheaper than divorce?" Parrot of Doom 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

PS imagine how many views you'd get were we to get Thomas Rowlandson on DYK, or the front page, illustrated with one of his ruder images at Commons. I've added it to my 'to do' list :) Parrot of Doom 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't realised that he was the inventor of John Bull. I just came across the rather depressing workhouse, which although not badly written is woefully under-referenced. So much to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are that many views, the page also belongs here... J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

export

Quite by chance, I've discovered 2-3 pages about the exportation of this custom to the New World, in The Great Days of Piracy by George Woodward (1951). There are three examples; one in 1645 in Connecticut, one in 1736 in Boston, and on in 1887 in Sheffield (England). The first two are quite well explained, with accompanying reports. Worth including? Parrot of Doom 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Perhaps there's enough to expand the last paragraph of Distribution and symbolism into a new subsection? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

April Fools

This article is currently my top choice for the April Fools featured article. Could the editors here start putting together a suggested blurb for that day? Your goals should be to write a blurb that will make people think this is a hoax, but without saying anything that is untrue. Raul654 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, I really prefer this pic. Raul654 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The English custom of Wife selling was a way of ending an unsatisfactory marriage by mutual agreement that began in the late 17th century, when divorce was a practical impossibility for all but the very wealthiest. After fetching his wife to market and parading her with a halter around her neck, arm, or waist, a husband would publicly auction her to the highest bidder. Prices paid for wives varied considerably, from a high of £100 plus £25 each for her two children, to a low of a glass of ale, or even free.

Along with other English customs, wife selling was exported to England's American colonies, where one man sold his wife for "two dollars and half [a] dozen bowls of grogg". Wife selling persisted in some form until the early 20th century; according to the jurist and historian James Bryce, writing in 1901, wife sales were still occasionally taking place during his time. (more...)

Parrot of Doom 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I took your suggestion, tweaked it, and posted it here where more people will see it. Raul654 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok Parrot of Doom 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

Can somebody please amalgamate the two sets of footnotes? I don't know how to do it; but it must be done, and done quickly! 129.94.117.150 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems ok to me. One section for page numbered referenced and one for detailed commentary that would break up the flow of the article. What's the problem? Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why must it be done at all, never mind quickly? (Would I be correct in assuming that this article is now on the main page?) Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Porn

Way to go wikipedia. You do an april fools article, and what do the internet trolls of the universe do? Put porn on it. Way to go. I have insufficient knowledge to fix the problem, but not to complain about it(username inthend9, not signed in) 64.136.202.74 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you have insufficient knowledge to do very much. Who ties your shoelaces for you? Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you guys add to your already lousy reputation for verifiability? Oh wait, done already. After trying to figure out when the edit started, I got sick of looking at it. 64.136.202.74 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We're quits then, because I'm sick of listening to planks like you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sale of husband by wife?

Whether or not this page is a joke, it ought to make sense. However, it seems totally garbled on the question of whether a wife ever sold her husband.

The Wikipedia main page says this:

Husbands were sometimes sold by their wives in a similar manner, but much less frequently.

Yet no support for this claim is in the article. The only apparent reference to husband-selling is in a paragraph that looks like it combines two unrelated ideas:

There were very few reported sales of husbands, and from a 21st-century perspective, selling a wife like a chattel is degrading, even when considered as a form of divorce.[42] 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'".

The first clause (emphasis added) seems to discuss the sale of husbands, but after the comma suddenly it's about wife-selling again. The bold phrase should be deleted, or it should be expanded and substantiated.

Even if it's a joke. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is most definitely not a joke, but your ignorant comments clearly are. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is 4/1, and some of us never heard of this before. . . . Dlohcierekim 03:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So talk to your school teachers, don't come whining to me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL Love the mock arrogance 64.222.113.237 (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no hiding that this page is an April Fools joke. None of the links provided for sources bear any relevance to wife-selling. A decent attempt to seem serious though The article on the User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War was a much better hoax IMHO.. I doubt any future hoaxes will compare with its veracity or quality of writing 64.222.113.237 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unable to read. The sources do mention wife selling. Nev1 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

LMAO!! Mock condescension too This is getting better by the minute 64.222.113.237 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and By the way, no they don't! 64.222.113.237 talk 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the most astounding claim on this page is the assertion that E. P. Thompson had psychic powers. The article states "From a 21st-century perspective, selling a wife like a chattel is degrading, even when considered as a form of divorce.", and gives as a footnote "Thompson 1991, pp. 458–459". How did Thompson, who died in 1993, know what twenty-first century attitudes towards wife selling would be? Inquiring minds want to know! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that opinion has changed since 1993, or are you just being a dick? Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a valid point. Saying '21st century views' is inaccurate, and changing it to 'late 20th century' or something similar would convey the same meaning (including the implication that views haven't changed/haven't changed much, whilst still being factually accurate. Danikat (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vote

I hereby call a vote on the legitimacy of this article.

Aye = Joke

Nay = Legit

I am looking forward to the results of this election with great anticipation. 64.222.113.237 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just find out if it's a joke by looking at the citations at the bottom of the article and see if they check out. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It just so happens that they don't. Many of them are on topics related to gender and feminism studies, and attitudes and social perceptions regarding divorce in 18th century England, but if you look closely you won't find anything about "wife-selling" 64.222.113.237 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea as uh biotch selling her husband iz frankly

outrageous an' anachronistic all ye damn hood ratz..

I vote "aye" w0rd! NedTugent (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I love it. "AYE". jwhouk 07:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhouk (talk • contribs)

Fantastic article

A hearty congratulations are in order whoever had a hand in getting this up to such high quality as to make the front page. Vranak (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is well writ. Bravo. User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Great article. I love how some think it's a joke one. NtheP (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I echo those sentiments - and hope similar efforts are invested in other articles about what might loosely be called "justice for harmony" (as opposed to the modern "justice as punishment" conception of norm enforcement). I probably should dust off my copy of my legal history textbook regarding these sort of quirks. A lot of people wouldn't realise the women often were in on the spectacle as well (otherwise she won't get 'sold' - really a means of publicising a change in relationships in the village).121.208.18.179 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Eddings

I'm assuming that this article is not a joke. I didn't want to mess with a featured article, but it might be of interest to note that Eddings (the fantasy author) used this custom in the Malloreon, and copied what is related here pretty closely. 98.209.109.70 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a joke. Its april fools dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.52.182 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Eddings got that name from Malleus Fatuorum. I know lots of authors are hacks these days, but stealing a Wikipedian username to title your work is just low. He should apologize on talk and atone accordingly. --an odd name 06:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April Fool's

If this is an April Fools it should be removed. However guys blatantly did sell their wives back in the day so if it is a Fools' then where is the proper article? After all selling your wife is not such an unbelievable idea. Cls14 (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• The reason this article is especially funny for April Fools is that it's completely legitimate and in fact quite a real article (see the edit history -- it's been around for quite a while). Anyone claiming this article is a hoax or has been heavily tampered with for April Fools is the one being fooled. Wikipedia has a history of posting ironic or strange articles on this day, but not fake ones (past years' articles include Museum of Bad Art, Ima Hogg, and Toilet roll holder). --CapitalR (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Makes sense Cls14 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice article, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.45.152 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It definitely is real. I did a small search on Google and there are lots of pages on the internet about this practise. http://www.google.nl/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Anl%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=nl&source=hp&q=%22+wife-selling&meta=&btnG=Google+zoeken Daanschr (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is definetly a real article from what i got message. But The guardian states its april fools http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7543967/April-Fools-Best-jokes-from-the-tech-world.html As its a real article we should delete it. 124.176.37.202 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Take My Wife - Please!

This article is wry and witty, but it does appear to be an April Fool's Joke. Next year, we'll have a history of the Italian spaghetti harvest and the cultivation of spaghetti vines. And potato trees. And how to pick peanuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm now (perhaps wrongly!) convinced it's real. After all truth is stranger the fiction. Who would have thought you could buy and sell black people and make them use different drinking fountains and different school? Cls14 (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is called picking peanuts. Take it from someone who lives in a peanut area. And I'm also convinced that this article is real. (maybe wrongly, but oh well!) PrincessofLlyr (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would love to live to see the day when people won't believe anyone would sell (or buy) another human being.Danikat (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have your wife, how much is she worth?Daanschr (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is definitely "real". Wikipedia's rules require every single entry on the front page to be true and properly referenced - even on April 1st. We merely seek to find weird and wonderful stuff - and perhaps to trip you up with some carefully phrased descriptions. However, because this is Wikipedia - and this is a proper Featured Article - you can look at the references at the bottom of the article that tell you where we got our information from - you can use those to check that everything we said is true. SteveBaker (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article

Clearly a thoroughly-researched and well-written article. WP needs more like this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Because its an excellent article, im expecting it to be proposed for deletion soon. 124.176.37.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

In popular culture

I recall this practice being referred to in "Sharpe's Waterloo" perhaps worth a mention in the article. 82.17.231.193 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Great article! Probably the best-known example in popular culture is Thomas Hardy's "The Mayor of Casterbridge" - any chance of adding a reference in the article?Elegend (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd; it was certainly in the article at one point. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops!Elegend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

So is it in april fool's day to hide the shame of the English?

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athinker (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its possibly why the guardian claims its april fools http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7543967/April-Fools-Best-jokes-from-the-tech-world.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.37.202 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh fucking lol at The Guardian for printing that! Parrot of Doom 11:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! - you conned the Grauniad with a double bluff. What a pity they don't give the option for comments on their article. Richerman (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know an alternative to "webcite"? Their site is down right now and I wanna get an online grab for posterity. Might be useful in a "history of 1 April articles" type thing on here. Parrot of Doom 13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above link Seems to be working. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Guardian seems to have conned us all by being the Telegraph. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Something you may wish to include

I've just found this from a newspaper of 1797:

Oracle and Public Advertiser (London, England), Monday, November 13, 1797

Women appear to bear but an indifferent price in the markets of the North. A person at Newcastle who exposed his wife for sale with a halter about her neck, could not, after haggling some time, sell her for more than half-a-guinea – rope included

The italics are from the original article. There are also some bits in the newspapers - as it says in the article - saying how depraved this country practice was. Richerman (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the depravity aspect is more interesting, as there are already a few examples. What does it say? Parrot of Doom 11:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Evening Mail (London, England), Monday, July 17, 1797.

On Friday a butcher exposed his wife to Sale in Smithfield Market, near the Ram Inn, with a halter about her neck, and one around her waist, which tied her to a railing, when a hog-driver was the happy purchaser, who gave the husband three guineas and a crown for his departed rib. Pity it is, there is no stop put to such depraved conduct in the lower order of people.

That must be one of the longest sentences in the English language :) Richerman (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

'tis already in the article kind sir :) Parrot of Doom 11:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh bugger! so 'tis. These stories seemed to get copied verbatim from one newspaper to another - still, I can at least confirm it's real! I also found one from The Morning Post, Friday, January 13, 1815 in a column called "Disgraceful Transactions" Richerman (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK another one for your delectation which puts a different slant on things:

The Ipswich Journal (Ipswich, England), Saturday, July 22, 1815

One of those scenes which occasionally disgrace even Smithfield, took place there about five o’clock on Friday evening. Hitherto we have only seen those moving in the lower classes of society thus degrading themselves, but the present exhibition was attended with some novel circumstances. The parties, buyer and seller, were persons of property; the lady (the object of the sale) young, beautiful and elegantly dressed, was brought to the market in a coach and exposed to the view of her purchaser with a silk halter around her shoulders, which were covered with a rich white face veil. The price demanded in the first instance was 80 gs. but that finally agreed on was 50 gs. and a valuable horse on which the purchase was mounted. The sale being complete the lady, with her new lord and master, mounted a handsome curricle, which was waiting for them, and drove off, seeming nothing loath to go. The purchaser in the present case is a celebrated horse-dealer in town, and the seller a grazier of cattle, residing about six miles from London. The intention of these bargains is to deprive the husband of any right of prosecution or damages.

Richerman (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not from Ipswich it's from Bolton 64.222.113.237 (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Palindrome of Ipswich would be NOTLOB!

I see you got that one too but that's the full story Richerman (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you know Malleus and I and these funny articles. We trawl the depths of depravity :) Parrot of Doom 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• A modern perspective. Wife for sale on net Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

There has been much vandalism by IP's, I suggest semi-protection. 70.171.224.249 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Can someone put a semi-protected top icon on the page though? 70.171.224.249 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Added -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's rather unusual for the main page article to be protected on the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever seen it before, so I expect it'll cause another ruckus. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon had the same protection while TFA. In this instance, I place practicality above principles. If anon IPs can't behave like adults, they deserve to have their toys taken from them. Parrot of Doom 17:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're being serious, no, no it's not. It makes perfect sense actually. The main page article is highly visible, and if left unprotected would literally face an onslaught of vandalism, or edits to replace the entire contents with a pornographic image, etc. every minute of the day. The protection is removed after the attention dies down a little. Besides, it's only semi-protected so if you register for a free and anonymous account you can still edit it. --WayneMokane (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me too, so much so that I don't understand why all TFAs aren't semi-protected for the day. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This is a perennial topic. The page is left unprotected to invite new users to edit. It is semi-protected if the the vandalism becomes excessive or overwhelming. Today's is just to inviting a topic. Dlohcierekim 18:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And that wasn't predictable? There was even lobbying against its choice.[2] Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Woah, what's all that text in the edit box? Anyway, I'd like to see some statistics on the constructive edits made by anon IPs to TFA articles. I am willing to bet fifty pounds that they number in the tiny minority. Parrot of Doom 18:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected. Paul August ☎ 18:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the high level of vandalism the article was attracting, I think protection was appropriate. Yes, it is unusual, and I'm ambivalent about the show-piece of a project that claims to allow anyone to edit being protected, but in this case it was justified. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been argued over repeatedly, with the consensus being for unprotection. Paul August ☎ 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also betting that the consensus was formed mainly from editors who float around in Wikispace, rather than article space. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really-- it's the consensus of the Wikiproject FA people, I suppose. Dlohcierekim 18:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More info on this can be found at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection and the linked essays. Dlohcierekim 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there's a significant body of "FA people" who consider TFA to be a mixed blessing. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The amount of time and energy wasted on fixing vandalized WP articles is mind-blowing. The resistence to protecting articles is just idiotic. I've quit wasting my time trying to fix high-profile/current event pages experiencing heavy vandalism, because it just wastes my time. Registering is simple and easy and there's no reason unregistered people should be running around butchering articles left and right. No, I don't want to hear about the 'spirit of Wikipedia'. If the spirit of Wikipedia is inaccuracy and wasted time, Wikipedia's spirit needs fixing. Senor Vergara (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Duke of Chandos bought his second wife, Maria, from an ostler in about 1740.

The article says that "the most high-profile case was that of Henry Brydges, 2nd Duke of Chandos, who is reported to have bought his second wife, Maria, from an ostler in about 1740". But the article about Henry Brydges, 2nd Duke of Chandos, says that his second wife (the one he bought) was Anne Wells. So what was her name? Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to correct the Henry Brydges, 2nd Duke of Chandos article, based on the source provided here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would, but the Henry Brydges, 2nd Duke of Chandos article is pretty specific about his second wife's name and origin: Anne Wells, daughter of John Wells of Newbury and a chambermaid at the Pelican Inn, Newbury. I am reluctant to replace that detailed description with mere Maria. Besides, there are sources which confirm that as well. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports about this sale, and all of the accounts I've seen are from well after when it was supposed to have happened. I simply quoted from the one most recent in time to the event. The name of the Duke's second wife is in any event hardly relevant in this article, so I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Great April Fool's Joke!

Kudos to whoever thought up this article. This is the funniest April Fools Joke i've read in a long time. :) 64.222.113.90 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a joke, it's perfectly true. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's true, Then how come it's metioned as one of the top 10 april Fools jokes of 2010 By thetelegraph the independent AND

PC WORLD64.222.113.90 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason that last year's front page was listed in numerous sources as being full of fabrications... everything on the main page is true... just convoluted.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not my brother's keeper. Work it out for yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

you'll have to ignore his serious tone, He's pulling your leg. It is a bogus article, albeit A very well written one. Check back tomorrow, You can be sure it'll be gone. 64.222.101.251 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit?

I don't think wikipedia deserves that subtitle... 189.113.254.155 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? I don't run wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)