Talk:Husband selling

more research a possibility

Research is possible, provided there was anything more published on this topic. I haven't done Google or literature database searches. Feel free to edit accordingly. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the hyphenation?

Wife selling isn't hyphenated, so why is this article's title? Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought it was obvious from the identity of the main author. Think about the only legitimate way you could use the hyphenated title in a sentence and you will have your answer. 101.118.20.22 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As an adjective you mean? But the main author is Nick Levinson, who has been involved with the wife selling article, which obviously doesn't have a hyphenated title. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I hyphenated it because it's correct (primary dictionaries don't generally distinguish between spaced, solid, or hyphenated for any word) and because the wife selling and wife selling (English custom) articles are not dispositive on point; and I provided a redirect from the nonhyphenated spaced variant. Regarding the IP editor's post and the reply, it could also be used as an attributive. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If primary dictionaries don't distinguish, why do you believe hyphenation is correct? What do the sources say? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In typical writing of sentences and longer texts, hyphenation would likely be more common. Cf. (hypothetical clause) "in the husband-selling tradition", for which omitting the hyphen and using the spaced form would easily be confused into a discussion about a husband selling a tradition, and, of course, a husband could sell information about his family's tradition on some matter. As to the sources, I'm not at home or holding the sources at the moment, but I recall that they discuss the selling of husbands, and Wikipedia article titles do not generally need to quote sources. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But in "husband-selling tradition" "husband-selling" is a compound adjective, and therefore quite properly hyphenated. That's not the case with the title of this article, which categorically ought not to be hyphenated. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the last edit summary, this title is grammatically correct. The other way might also be, especially if there are differences between the several English standards, but most usage likely would call for hyphenation, thus the relevance of the example. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens offers some guidance and Wikipedia:Article titles adds nothing on point. So this is consistent with standard grammar and Wikipedia style. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. The purpose of hyphens is to reduce ambiguity, and there is none here, therefore no hyphen is required. And you are still to address the inconsistency with wife selling. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is; the purposes are several, as mentioned in a linked reference, not just the one purpose you mention; but if you have a source saying it's wrong, please cite it. And I did address the issue regarding the style in the wife selling article title in my first post in this topic/section. I'll probably be back online tomorrow. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There are obviously going to be no sources stating that "husband selling" isn't hyphenated when not used as and adjective just as there are no sources saying that "tomato-sauce" isn't hyphenated when not used as an adjective, because no rational person would do it. Your contradictory position vis a vis "wife selling" and "husband-selling" is logically untenable, but it's too frustrating to debate further with someone who is impervious to all logic and common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was soliciting a source on the generalization of hyphenation being wrong; as specific terms, both husband selling and husband-selling would be rare enough that we'd want a reference to a principle anyway. For the general discussion, a good source on the syntax is Wilson, Kenneth George, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (N.Y.: Columbia Univ. Press, [1st printing?] 1993 (ISBN 0-231-06988-X)), entry Hyphen. I don't have a British English source, but I can probably find one if needed. A primary dictionary that generally does not distinguish between hyphenated, open (or spaced), and solid stylings is Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (G. & C. Merriam (Merriam-Webster), 1966), as discussed in The Writing of Compunds, section 1, in id., p. 30a, col. 1.

Both wife selling and wife-selling were available when I wrote the article. I chose the open form for consistency with wife selling (English custom), but the hyphenated form for husband-selling because that's more likely to be used in a sentence and the consistency was less important with topical distance. Editing is based directly on policies and guidelines rather than directly on what was done on other articles, so that when two choices are correct and consistent with policies and guidelines either choice may be chosen.

No intent to frustrate was present. I took your opening question on good faith, applied both logic and common sense, and acknowledge your disagreement. If you disagree with one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, a talk page there is open for you to present a persuasive case for change.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

separating frequency from definition as barbaric?

In the interest of adhering to WP:BRD, rather than revert, I'd like an opinion on how separating frequency from definition is barbaric. I don't think the Edit Summary meant that husband-selling is barbaric, given the doubt on whether wife selling is sexist, never mind barbaric. So I take it the issue is with the lede's structure. Please explain how barbarism applies. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What's barbaric is the three-word sentence "It was rare" tagged on to the end of the lead's only other sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Would you please propose a more suitable sentence? If it should turn out that in some culture husband-selling is common we would not rewrite the definition because what it is and how often it occurs are separate matters for the lede. This sentence was accurate and simple and the definition should come first but if a better styling on how common it isn't would be, say, more readable I'm for it. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove the word "rare" and fold the Frequency section into the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edited. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

within slavery

Slavery is probably not adequately covered, although I made a start at it. While selling of slaves who just happen to be husbands is not relevant here (other articles being more suitable), when being a husband is sourceably important to a sale or nonsale then it is reportable in this article. I found some sourcing but there's probably more I missed. Feel free to add it. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What is "husband selling"?

I just stumbled on this article and am a little confused. What is "husband selling"? Is it an unmarried man being sold to someone to be their husband? Someone selling their own husband to be someone else's husband? Thanks, I think it would help if the introductory paragraph elaborated. Mehaveaccount (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind clarifying statements, but I'm not sure what to clarify here without simply making the lead more wordy. The lead already says "[h]usband-selling was the historical practice of: a wife selling a husband, generally to a new wife ...." (Boldfacing omitted.) That includes both of your formulations, considering that, at the time, same-sex marriage did not exist. If you were wondering whether it included a husband selling himself to a new wife, that's not in the article and I don't know of a source for that proposition, so it can't be added to the lead. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (Corrected by same editor: 00:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC))