Talk:Thomas(ine) Hall

Name

I have reverted to the earlier article name as the title was change by "Epicgenius" with the airy declaration "incorrect use of parentheses". It doesn't matter in the slightest whether this is 'incorrect' in the opinion of someone, any more than that Oprah Winfrey's first name is an incorrect spelling of Orpah. That's how this person is typically referred to in the scholarly literature. The version Thomas(ine) is used in Vaughan's 1978 article "The Sad Case of Thomas(ine) Hall", and is adopted by Kathleen Brown, Kathryn Wichelns, Catherine Clinton, Mary Beth Norton and others who have discussed the case. The variant "Thomas/ine" is used by some writers, but is less common. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pronoun Usage

Considering that pronoun-switching is confusing for the article, I decided to use Hall's last name whenever possible; and switch to using the singular "they" when it is not. (10:02 PM, 6/14/2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.92.193.17 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this rewrite lost all the references and all the formatting, I have restored the previous version. Your talk page includes a link "How to edit a page". -- John of Reading (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have fixed the pronouns again, keeping references and formatting. Irenedelmar (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

IP 192: Good solution. Irenedelmar, thanks; I've added the {{article pronouns}} notice to the header section above. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Thomas(ine) Hall → Thomasine Hall – It is not clear that the subject of the article was ever actually called "Thomas Hall" but was certainly called "Thomasine Hall". The current kludge makes sense and is better (per WP:SLASH) than "Thomas/ine Hall" but if nothing else, since there is ambiguity about the name "Thomas", I propose that the simple "Thomasine Hall" maps more to reality and is sufficient without resorting to a fabricated name like "Thomas(ine)" that we know the subject never used. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The article states that the person's first name was written as "Thomas(ine)" or "Thomas/ine" in scholarly literature. If this can be verified, it seems to be the common name. At least this article should not be moved to "Thomas Hall" (which the person was apparently never known by) or "Thomas/ine Hall" (which is incorrect syntax for Wikipedia articles). JIP | Talk 23:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-published book citing a possibly useful primary source

See Special:Diff/989420468:

Lulu Press, Inc. is a self-publishing company. The unreliable source cites a primary source I couldn't find a copy of, but which – assuming that the book content is not completely made up – should be available somewhere somehow. Tagging instead of removing for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification for Dale Taylor book

See Special:Diff/1006125177. I just spent the past couple hours checking out "from the library" and scouring [ Taylor, Dale (1997). The Writer's Guide to Everyday Life in Colonial America. Cincinnati, OH: Writer's Digest. ] and while it's a nice read and rather informative, none of the sentences that use it as a source in the main article are anywhere in the book. I got suspicious when it made the following outlandish claim, and the citation failed to list any page number:

Taylor states that, in the early modern period, medical theorists and scientists considered that women were not a separate sex but "a flawed variant of men". They believed that male organs were tucked inside of women because they did not have enough heat to develop external genitalia. They believed that strenuous physical activity or even "mannish behavior" could cause testicles to exit from inside the vagina.

I went in to add a page number, and found absolutely nothing about this in the book itself. The various quoted text phrases that were in the article appear nowhere in the book. Even Google lists ONLY this wikipedia page for the "flawed variant of men" quote. I swear this must be an elaborate troll.

I'm throwing on failed verification tags for some of the lesser stuff, and outright removing the solid paragraph of clear misinformation that cites this source. ----Tustin2121 _talk 05:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tustin2121: Some of those quotations apparently come from the Kathleen M. Brown source: please see here. Cheers, gnu57 05:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: Yeah, I'm starting to think that perhaps several of these sources were mixed up. It looks like this article started as someone's term paper or something, as all the sources were numbered and possibly incorrectly cited in conversion. I'm checking the Merril Smith source, which is cited only once about cases in Europe (in a rather ambiguous way), and said source goes through Hall's history but never once mentions cases in Europe. I think some citation rearranging is in order...

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hails.ak (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Hails.ak (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)