Talk:Wife selling (English custom)

Misleading article name

I'm not sure when the page move took place, but this article name implies wife selling is an English custom. It is not. It was an English custom. There is a difference. Consider the theoretical (and strawman!) article names Witch burning (English custom), Blue face painting (Scottish custom), Slave trading (American custom). Yes, I'm deliberately picking extreme and silly examples, but calling something a custom, without gloss, implies it's current. (Incidentally, where is the discussion about the page move?) --Dweller (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion was here. What title would you suggest the article should have? Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for swift response. Hmm. For one thing, that section was not ideally titled (or given long enough to establish consensus) before making a page move. 17 minutes really isn't long enough! I have no idea what it should be called: perhaps we can give other Wikipedians some time and an appropriate space to come up with something that's consensual... and accurate? --Dweller (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling in England? Geometry guy 23:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Seventeen-minutes isn't long, however it was also related to this discussion over a year ago; the result was that as the article included information solely on the English practice and there were no other articles on the subject of wife selling at the time that "wife selling (English custom)" could be disambiguated to simply "wife selling". The discussion on 21 February was a simple reversal of that, although I cocked it up slightly as I wasn't aware wife selling (Chinese custom) had been created. Does the current title imply it's still happening? I'm not sure it really does to be honest. You've identified the "(xyz custom)" as the problematic bit although it gives no indication of time and that it's current. While I like Geometry guy's suggestion as it's simple, wouldn't that suffer from the same problem as the title doesn't explicitly state that the practice no longer goes on? Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I entirely refute the notion that the current title implies anything at all about whether or not the custom still goes on. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I see Dweller's point but I don't think it's an issue, especially as directly under the article title we have a lead section which in its first sentence explains that the custom is no longer observed. Parrot of Doom 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see that switching the title to "Wife selling in England" resolves anything, and it is fact even more misleading, as the article actually touches on wife selling in the colonies. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This last point occurred to me (obviously, as I have at least half a brain!) but Wife selling in England was the first alternative that came to mind (use in the colonies being a derivative effect). Wife selling (historical English practice) would be a more long-winded attempt at a precise title, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good option either. There may not be a panacea. Geometry guy 00:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Before looking for a solution we ought to agree that there's a problem, and I just don't see one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually think it's fine as is. 'Custom' doesn't imply it's ongoing, and clearly it's not. I'd also not want to see the newly created Wife selling (Chinese custom) changed to Wife selling in China, which it would have to if this is changed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If attempts to provide clearer alternatives fail, long live the current title ;) Geometry guy 01:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to begin with a properly titled section of this page, so that people know a page move is being discussed? --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to begin by using some common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dweller: by your argument, articles like Bill Bailey (American actor) and William Smith (geologist) would need to be moved to Bill Bailey (retired American actor) and William Smith (deceased geologist). --RSLxii 03:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I support there being no change. It's rarely or never done. It's a problem not only as already discussed, but also for ambiguous cases, such as if we don't know if a practice is only a former practice; maybe it's still practiced or is revived. A case in which I could imagine it is if there were two articles about electronic music, one on the modern genre and one on the older (1950s–'60s) genre, since they're different genres. So if wife-selling in the English custom was active this morning but vastly differently from what the article describes as having expired about a century ago, so a new article were needed, then one or the other article would need a time-dependent title. But that's not the case. Wikipedia:Article names doesn't say much on this, but does call for concision, naturalness, and other characteristics that suggest steering clear of this. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation bot and column/volume error

Citation bot twice recently changed citations from column to volume ([1] and [2]) and this was changed back ([3]) by a regular editor of this page the first time and then by me ([4]). This looks to me like a bot or bot operator's error. I asked at the Citation bot Talk page why the bot is being used to do this. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article per a Citation bot discussion. The Column parameter isn't supported by the {{Citation}} template, but the At parameter seems to be the parameter of choice. If someone knows of a problem with the latter, please edit or post accordingly. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

deletion of section Sexism of the Practice

It's hard to deny that the practice is sexist. Wikipedia considers that a suitable characterization to give to subjects other than living people, organizations, and media; a category exists for the purpose and the debate about it is over (reopen there if you wish but meanwhile the category is available), therefore content about sexism belongs. I provided a secondary source describing it as sexist. And, no, I've never attempted to trash the article. That is an attack that does not belong. My motive is one of helpfulness. I plan to edit in more such content as I come across it in suitable sources, and I have a list of sources fairly likely to have such information (much or all of which I have to use interlibrary loan to get, which may take a while), so this is a good time to discuss content likely to grow.

If you object to a teacher of law and political theory (the book's author) pointing out a practice in which sexism exists, please tell us why.

If your objection is only to article organization or phrasing and you wish to propose a better way to word or insert the source's information somewhere in the article, please propose.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Herzog does not state that it was a "sexist practice" and he does not use the para-statistical cliche "factor".

Rather, he states that wife selling involved a mess of class and gender issues, and spends most of his time discussing the class issues involved, before stating the phrase you quoted. At best you are engaging in OR by synthesis. (And his discussion seems to be a work of tertiary scholarship, also.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He does discuss other issues, but that does not eliminate his discussion on point. And it is a secondary work, being generally reliant on the sources cited therein; it is not an encyclopedia.

We are expected to paraphrase and my paraphrase was supported by what he wrote, so it is not synthesis or OR. However, do you have a better way of phrasing the distinction he makes between the treatments of women and of men?

Beyond that, what would you suggest as sufficient research to establish that wife-selling was sexist? Sexism being genderal differentiation disadvantaging people of one sex more than the other, I don't understand how wife-selling does not fit that definition, or the narrower definition of disadvantaging females more than males. If you can offer an explanation, it will help identify what further research, if any, is needed.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick!

Let me reply to your statements. I repeat that Herzog's is a tertiary work; E. P. Thompson and other historians reference primary sources in writing their secondary works. Herzog's work is based on the secondary works of historians.

Herzog does claim that (only) men sold women, which is not consistent with the historians cited here. (Some women sold men, apparently.) This again suggests that Herzog's work need not be a reliable source on this question, or that the other works are wrong. Given that the other works are based on primary sources, I suggest that the Herzog's infallibility may be questioned on this issue.

Your other question strikes me as improper. If you find a reliable source, please use it to improve the article. I do not wish to speculate or engage in blogging about sexism on this article's talk page. Further research needs should be discussed by researchers, not by WP editors here.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder if you've actually read the article. Let me ask you a simple question: in what way was a woman disadvantaged by being offered a practical way to separate from her husband and move in with her lover? Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably most sexist anti-woman practices can be described as having advantages for women. For instance, refusing to hire a woman for a paid career could be said to free her to be a mother; the police refusing to enforce a law against assault because it was only a case of a husband beating his wife could be said to be a case of preserving the sanctity of the family by applying necessary correction. Sexism does not mean that no alternative explanation is possible. Who makes the choices is relevant: wife selling is a practice in which the woman may have done something to inspire the sale but in which the man made the decision for her; she did not make the decision to sell or to separate, even if the method was practical and even if the legal method was usually unaffordable by the couple or either spouse. It may be that wives were typically sold to lovers; but what's better established is that they were sold to highest bidders, and, given some of the prices quoted, that she was not allowed to choose who would bid or who would win, and that a wife may have had a lover she did not consider to be suitable as a prospective husband (the two relationships being different), we can hardly assume that wives usually chose their new husbands. And, to my knowledge, wives did not sell their husbands, which would be a logical occurrence given that wives being sold to lovers implies that many of those wives would rather be rid of their pre-sale husbands and if there was no sexism. Yes, of course, I read the article, including long ago and again just before the edits now in question. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're making sweeping generalisations through the prism of 20th-century feminism, which is inappropriate. You might as well argue that marriage is a sexist practice. And there are in fact cases of wives selling their husbands, as the article says. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Marriage was sexist and nobody batted an eyelid for nearly 6 months. Geometry guy 22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some more-encompassing statements in Talk and you may use them as a guide to research, if you wish, such as in feminist literature. I don't doubt that sourcing is available and general knowledge facilitates identifying keywords, topics, authors, etc. for any editor to use. Feel free. I've already begun seeking more books and appreciate the bibliographic suggestions already offered on this page.

Applying modern perspectives to past practices is precisely how we learn and make decisions about the future; for example, if someone were to propose wife selling today, modern perspectives would be appropriate. It's legitimate to describe a practice from the perspective of the time but that doesn't preclude also applying other perspectives, especially including those of modern times. Feminisms, including from the 20th century, are legitimate perspectives. Husband selling (I'm sorry that I forgot that it ever occurred) was far rarer and not simply because wives didn't feel like doing it; spouse selling was largely illegal and wives would have had much less access to community support for engaging in the practice than husbands would have had.

Marriage and other topics can be left to other editors or other times. It is not necessary to consider all topics at the same time or none. We can do one at a time. That's inherent in Wikipedia's design.

Rape qualifies as sexist, although a percentage of rapes are of males, because by far most are of females and by intent; and even though many who object to rape object on a masculist ground that makes the objection itself also sexist. You're welcome to categorize rape accordingly, if you have the time.

Critique is normal in Wikipedia articles. Would you prefer rephrasing more clearly as critique?

Would not making a separate section be better? In that case, we'd integrate the content into another section for now.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got it completely arse about face; if someone were to propose wife selling today then the historical perspective would be appropriate, not a modern one. In other words, this custom as practised in England was a form of divorce, and the only one available to the overwhelming majority of the population. Would you consider divorce to be sexist? Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a good time to point out that we do not go by our own personal opinions on the subject but by what reliable published sources say. Are there references that discuss the gender politics of wife selling, and if so, what do they say? Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I invite reconsideration of "if someone were to propose wife selling today then the historical perspective would be appropriate, not a modern one." Since some people nowadays practice slavery, they effectively propose it; if the only appropriate perspective would be that from slavery's heyday, then imagine what Barack Obama's life would be like today (you could ask his office if he'd be agreeable). If gathering-hunting were proposed today to be our means of sustenance (and it is practiced), then, if we're consistent, the modern perspective would not be appropriate, and therefore we'd be discussing how to radically shrink the world's human population, shrinkage being necessary if we're to be without agriculture or even horticulture (the latter two require much less land to sustain an average human than would gathering-hunting). Perhaps most of us probably should speak proto-Indo-European, too, or at least ask France or Denmark to resume governing England and England's Queen to invade the U.S. whenever she finds it convenient.

Any lack of a nonsexist alternative to wife selling back then would not make wife selling nonsexist. If you're being raped and can't stop it, you're not required to lie back and enjoy it; i.e., your being unable to stop it does not make rape good, acceptable, or nonsexist.

Whether to recategorize divorce is irrelevant to this Talk discussion, given that we do not need to recategorize everything or nothing in Wikipedia, but can recategorize this article even if we don't recategorize other articles.

We're allowed to discredit the Flat Earth hypothesis even if its original adherents were quite sincere and found the perspective on geography entirely useful for getting around the lands they knew.

The question on what research is needed is not about doing original research, as the reply seems to imply, which would be a misunderstanding of what I asked. My question was not blogging but was to give a chance for editors to discuss what is needed in order to establish for Wikipedia that wife selling was/is sexist. If someone wants to say what in their opinion is needed, this talk page is a very appropriate place to discuss it, and I'm open to suggestions.

The question on what sources say is exactly right and, as noted, I'm looking. It appears we're meanwhile being told not to bother with finding out because someone else already did so and has concluded that sexism is not part of this subject and wishes all mention of sexism attaching to wife selling kept away. That is why I have opened questions for discussion.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, but I'm curious what has caused this much discussion (or should I say soliloquy?). As far as I can tell, you're trying to make the case that a new section called "Sexism of the practice" should be added, and that a single sentence be put into it that says "gender is a factor". I have a hard time believing this, so please tell me that I'm mistaken. --RSLxii 16:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion (check the archives) is based upon a small number of bra-burners who believe that the practice was sexist, when in truth it was the only practical means for most people to get a divorce. It also happens to be the most boring conversation I've ever seen. Parrot of Doom 21:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I and another editor wanted to categorize the article into sexism but apparently two editors believe it's not sexist based on what the article says, so I offered to find more sourcing and began a section so editors could add accordingly, and sonme editors proposed possible sources. But apparently the plan of one or two other editors is to ignore sourcing and forbid acknowledging the sexism. Perhaps the solution is to skip the additional sourcing, since the article has ample evidence of the sexism already, and simply categorize into sexism now, saving us the effort of possibly redundant sourcing. I probably can't log in over the weekend, so we'll consider afterwards. The third stage of BRD is discussion, but apparently that is being foreclosed, too, such as by the use of a definition of sexism that may not exist elsewhere, especially in Wikipedia. Suggestions are welcome. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me give you an analogy that may help you to understand. The surgical procedures carried out by the ancient Romans would no doubt be considered barbaric if performed today, but were in many ways enlightened for the period. "Sexism" is a 20th-century label inappropriate for a 18th and 19th-century practice. You would be wrong to ignore the context in which wife selling took place. If wife selling took place in England today (which is of course inconceivable), then it would be perfectly proper to label it a sexist practice. Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You wanted to categorise this article into sexism because you thought "selling a wife? That has to be sexist!" Then, you went on a hunt for sources that supported your original assertion (rather than following what the most knowledgeable sources have to say on the subject). You've found little to nothing that supports your position, and so are continuing to bore the pants off anyone reading, probably hoping that people will not bother to contribute, so you can quietly make the changes you want.

It was no more sexist than any other practice, and no amount of your incredibly long-winded and boring commentary will change that fact. Maybe you should go and improve Harriet Harman, your views appear to match hers. Parrot of Doom 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom, I have no interest in boring anyone, some explanations require length if only out of extending a courtesy of being understood, I already have a list of things I'm working on, wife selling is sexist as the article shows sufficiently and as an understanding of sexism ordinarily reveals (there are huge numbers of sources that discuss sexism and gender and I've read a large enough number), there is no circular reasoning in my argument (as you seem to imply), you object to others doing research when you believe nothing more of significance is to be found but that objection is against what Wikipedia is about (no one needs new permission to research or edit according to what appropriate sources say), and I don't know of a source that denies that it's sexist (if you do, please cite it). That there was some advantage to women from English wife selling, considering that the advantage was much more to men, does not make English wife selling nonsexist; consider that almost any sexist practice has some advantage to women, even if slight. If you believe that other practices are no more or less sexist than English wife selling, feel free to categorize them as sexist. If anyone is stopping you, please let us know.

Malleus Fatuorum, I thank you for changing your mind and now understanding that we, at least for surgical practice, can judge a past practice by a modern perspective. This also applies to social practices, and you seem now to agree, although you seem to reserve some doubt whether we can view the social past differently than people did then. A strong reason why wife selling is no longer likely is that it is judged by modern standards, so other people also agree. The category is consistent with exactly that. It is not a category called Sexism as So Judged in Other Centuries. It is simply Sexism. To categorize is not to ignore the context of time, since that context is already in the article. The category does not replace the article; it points readers to an article, which can then be read, presenting historical context and other contexts. Wikipedia readers wishing to research sexism and seeing the category itself are appropriately pointed to various articles, and that would include this one.

I will gladly and briefly await any reasonable disagreement or alternative solution that addresses the concerns. Otherwise, I expect to categorize English wife selling accordingly. If you need more time within reason, such as for your own research on any point, please let me know. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have most certainly not changed my mind, and I remain convinced that your position is absurd. If you add a sexism tag I will remove it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nick,

When I complained that school or the playground was not meeting my expectations, my mother always repeated, "Life is not fair". Wikipedia is only a small part of life, but Wikipedia also is not fair. In this particular corner of Wikipedia, you have argued and fought for nearly a year, and I don't think it's been particularly enjoyable, or successful, for you. I don't believe that the others are violating WP policies; on the contrary, I have written that you seem to be.

Couldn't you just accept that this page is unfair? Or that WP is a bit unfair, since you haven't had much help. Couldn't you help with improving articles or writing new articles on other topics. There is no shortage of articles on feminism, sexism, and gender that need a lot of work.

I don't like to see the level of frustration that you must feel, expressed for so long. It's better to work on articles where you have fewer and shorter disagreements.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, comparison of "[I]f someone were to propose wife selling today then the historical perspective would be appropriate, not a modern one." with "The surgical procedures carried out by the ancient Romans would no doubt be considered barbaric if performed today" gave me the idea you had changed your mind. I can see how you didn't mean that, but almost everywhere in the world we are permitted to judge past practices by today's standards and we are likewise permitted in Wikipedia and since English wife selling would likewise be considered sexist if performed today then we can categorize it as sexist. However, if you thought I was planning a "tag", as in an editorially critical template at the top of the page, no, I was not; I am planning to categorize, absent good reason not to.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, in short, your concern for my welfare is appreciated but misplaced. Thank you, anyway.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, in further response, my earliest post to this talk page was on February 26 of this year (per the archives) and I stopped in the middle because I acted on good faith that if some editors thought the article itself did not support the sexism categorization then more sourcing might be needed and therefore planned to research the point and began to, only to find out eventually that you objected to my even doing the research, even though Wikipedia encourages research (not original research, but research). Also, I wonder if your placing part of your post into a comment and thus invisible to most readers was a good move. And, no, I was not violating Wikipedia policy; if your post of 9-1-11 2:22a UTC (I take it that's the post you're referring to, since no other seems to fit) was not adequately responded to as showing no violation (in the interest of brevity and because parts of your post I thought didn't need responding to, as I thought you already knew what Wikipedia would want, but I hope not responding to those has not inconvenienced you), let me know and I'll be glad to show how. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I'm sorry but other matters are pressing, and my interest in this page is limited---I read Thompson's article 20 years ago, and Hardy even earlier. Sorry,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest Nick I've never really been able to get very excited about Wikipedia's apparently ever changing sea of categories, so if you feel strongly that such a category might help someone somewhere then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with any proposed categorisation of this practice as sexist, no matter how much Nick waffles on about it. Read his very first post on the subject, here. It's clear he has pre-conceived notions of what this practice represented. If he adds this article to the sexism category, I will remove it. Parrot of Doom 12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Parrot of Doom, I'll wait a little longer, so that you have reasonable time to respond to any point. First, one I have not raised yet is that your criticisms of me, being personal, suggest that you might accept the categorization from someone else but not from me. However, Wikipedia editors include many who know their respective subjects well enough to write about them (such as someone who wrote about Greyhound buses and probably a variety of scholars) and editors who edit in areas they don't know well but where they have general edits they can helpfully apply (such as copy editors, one formerly from a newspaper). There are subjects closely related to those on which I edit substantively; but in some related subjects, I do not edit substantively; for example, sometimes I only post to the talk page bibliographic information about a reference I think someone might consider, someone with more expertise than I have. So please reconsider your attacks on me personally and whether I have prior knowledge of a subject (what you call preconceived notions) should disqualify me as an editor. Second, if you believe that Category:Misogyny is better, I'll be glad to categorize there instead of into Category:Sexism, although the contrary argument could be that apparently a small percentage of known sales were of husbands by wives and therefore Sexism is the more accurate category. If there's no preference stated between the two, I expect to choose when I categorize. Overall, I don't want you to feel that you didn't have a chance to discuss anything adequately, so I will wait a little.

Nick Levinson (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You're talking like some extra categorisation is a foregone conclusion; it is not and furthermore, this article is not about a misogynous practice. I expect you to reply with another condescending load of tripe, you can expect my answer to remain unchanged. Parrot of Doom 15:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nev1, it can hardly be disruptive to edit within guidelines and policies and article consensus is expected to be within them to be valid. The only concern from you to my knowledge is the one about disruption. If my efforts to find another solution within policies and guidelines have not been sufficient, please tell us any other concerns you have, so I may address them. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

image alt text deletion

What is the objection to having alt text for people who can't see the image the caption refers to? I'm glad one or more editors went to the trouble of providing usability for people with visual impairments. While the caption is available (as far as I know) to the visually impaired and unimpaired alike, the picture requires sight, and the alt text is therefore useful and appears to me at first glance to have been properly composed as a description of what a sighted user would see, so that others can share what Wikipedia has to offer. If a better wording is to be proposed, go ahead; but merely removing it wholesale seems ill-advised. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of alt text. It's an alternative to the image, not a description of it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The long alt text removed by Malleus [5], but to understand this requires some imagination or a test with a browser that does not display images. Whereas the image can be taken in by the reader in a few seconds and works more like an ornament than an integral part of the article, the long alt text is 7 sentences of excessive details about a historical image that is of some, but very limited, relevance to the article. E.g. it could easily be replaced by another historical depiction of wife selling that would require a totally different description. The result of including this alt text would be excessive, undue weight on a barely relevant illustration. For screenreader users it would be even worse than for users who simply turned off image display: Reading this stuff out takes a lot of time, and skipping it is cumbersome. Hans Adler 16:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

An alt text is usually required by Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Alternative text for images but whether it should state the larger meaning or be specifically descriptive is not clear there and is the subject of disagreement among outside authorities (e.g., Nielsen, Jakob, Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity (New Riders, 1st or 2d printing 1999 or 2000 © 2000 (ISBN 1-56205-810-X)), pp. 303, 305, & 306 (captions not mentioned) vs. Powell, Thomas A., HTML: The Complete Reference (Berkeley, Calif.: Osborne McGraw-Hill, 1998 (ISBN 0-07-882397-8)), pp. 221 & 223.). For something official, see especially WCAG 2.0 section 1.1.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#text-equiv), <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#qr-text-equiv-all>, and examples at http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/text-equiv-all.html (Examples of Success Criterion 1.1.1), all as accessed 8-31-11

It's not so much that users are confused. The argument that it should state the larger meaning appears to arise where no caption is expected. This image has a caption. If no alt text is provided, the image's filename will be read aloud by software. The alt text should be what the caption is not (between larger meaning and specifics), so the caption and alt text are complementary and informative, without adding to the alt text anything that users who don't use alt text wouldn't find in the article including the image Thus, the alt text should not be redundant of the caption. The caption in question is about the larger meaning; therefore, the alt text should be specifically descriptive. The alt text that was serving this image appears to have been too long. If an image is changed, so can the caption and the alt text.

The solution seems to be a specifically descriptive alt text that is brief. Does anyone want to propose one or should I work on it?

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As you persist in misunderstanding the purpose of alt text I doubt that you would be doing anything other than wasting your time by working on it; the present alt text is perfectly adequate. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick, a point of information: alt text isn't required. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The MoS says quite clearly that "In addition to a caption, alt text—for visually impaired readers—may be added invisibly to informative (rather than decorative) images" (my emphasis). But you're just a girl Nikkimaria, what do you know? ;-) As a serious aside, given the number of female editors I bump into every day I really do find the claim that only 13% of Wikipedia editors are female to be rather a stretch. But I digress. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the correct answer to that question is "as a girl, I know where to kick" ;-P Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently hung out with an avid Wikipedia user who is completely blind and uses a screen reader. He said that his biggest peeves with the site were:

1. That it says "Edit" after every header
2. That he can't access the menu items under Interaction and Toolbox (since they are collapsed by default)
3. That he has to listen to both image captions and alt text which are usually redundant

Of course, this was just one user, and I'm sure other users may have other opinions, but it would seem to support the idea of not using lengthy alt text. Kaldari (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think the opinion of a blind editor is of far more value than that of a mindless zealot. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)