Talk:Josephine Butler

Infobox

The infobox was deleted with edit summaries "(Trimming bloat)" and "perhaps a discussion about why something so awful is beneficial".

Obvioulsy "bloat" and "so awful" are arguments which are impossible to rebut other than with "no they are not". Therefore please describe your reasons more specifically. IMO the infobox at George W. Bush is way bloater and awfuller, but I wouldn't dare to poke it with a 7-foot poke. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• To try and claim that IBs are "standard practice" misses the point. The MoS does not prescribe them, but says that they should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Have you thought how little benefit there is with the one here? A list of non-notable relatives? Really? Death place of "England"? "Natural death"? That's just so bad it's staggering. Let the lead tell the story of who she is and why she's notable, not a box full of pointless and distracting factoids, stripped of nuance, context elligent information. And yes, the on on Bush is awful. Probably not as bad as that on Winston Churchill, but neither of them actually aid the reader is much about what is truly important or interesting about the person. – SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, convincing enough for me to reconsider my opinion about infoboxes. I admit I have never read infoboxes myself, but I had an impression that these are a poor man's substitution of a database (wikidata sucks). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Staszek Lem. There are too many people who hold these things as being immutable without actually thinking about what they are and how misleading (and therefore damaging) they can be. Thanks for taking such an open-minded approach here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's time an essay was put up on Infoboxes and them not being "standard practice" or "compulsory" as so many seem to think. The fact is they're not, and are often added as furniture pieces.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld, checkout WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

These comments lacks a basic understanding of how people use the internet and why Wikipedia did so well. I think it is time for an essay ....one on the basics of how to disseminate information bases of studies and the format used by leading websites. -- Moxy (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And you are the font of knowledge when it comes to what people want on the Internet? So we should all just ignore what we think and feel on that say so alone, and regardless of what our own guidelines say? – SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I just have a basic understanding of how people use the internet and why the info-boxes where created in the first place years ago. Dont you think its odd there all over? You sure all want to read the whole article for simple info? The comments I dont see to many comments above address any concerns for our readers...mostly "I dont like this or that". Are you sure that full deletion is better then selective info there. Not saying what was there was good ...saying some basics is what readers expect to see and how people use the internet. -- Moxy (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"You sure all want to read the whole article for simple info?" That's a great argument for having a lead, not so much for an idiotbox. What I know isn't odd is that we have an MoS that says the use is not compulsory, something I heartily agree with: the one-size-fits-all approach is not the best. – SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

As of now your philosophy seem to be all or nothing ...I am suggesting a mid point as with the spirit of all guidelines. ....display the basics ...no need for all to be gone is there? You do understand that most readers are looking for quick info on the internet ...not all will wade through the article for simple info like age of death ect... the infobox does some basic calculations and is fast for our readers to look at....that we hope will read the whole article if we get there attention of the bat. -- Moxy (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't try and tell me what my philosophy is: you've got that very, very wrong indeed. It appears that you have not read what I have written either: I have said that people do not need to read the entire article to find basic information: that is why we have a lead, which provides the important information in a balanced way that provides context. If people what to skim for for information, that's what the lead is excellent for. – SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You really believe in this case the lead has the same info as the box? Thus far your logic looks flawed to me. Why not give our readers a chose on how to see info?--Moxy (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, please actually read what I've written, as I've said nothing of the sort. – SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What I see above is you saying the infoboxs does not contain the right info...thus its a reason to delete the whole thing . No mention of what should be there or the merits of giving our readers a choice in how to get the info. Within context is not the only way to disseminate info nor is it preferred by all our readers. Best to be flexible in our approach to editing and how info is presented. -- Moxy (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you try not to incorrectly summarise my argument, but to focus on your own. You have, once again, completely incorrectly presented what I have said. – SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct ..but you dont really have one to begin with ...just my assumption on your replies and actions. If you really think presenting the info here in only one manner is best ...I dont think I cant help you see why that is not not so. You wont here from me again on this topic here as I think its best others explain why we have theses boxes next time you run into the same thing. Odd people dismiss there value when they are all over and in many different styles and now the norm for search engines. We are a world leading website because of how we presented info in many manners.....think is best to change that to one POV because a few think they know best? Simply the wrong way to do things and to approach the project in this manner.-- Moxy (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's shocking that people have opinions contrary to yours. You obviously think you know best, and that's fine if you want to keep believing that. As I've said, you'll not convince me to change my opinion of IBs (about which you don't have the first clue, by the way). – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a bit over you head I guess....I dont know what is best thus why i suggest both-ways...not just they way you think is best but both-ways that have been used here long before you arrived and told us your one way is better. Holding a position stating one way is best is the narrow POV. -- Moxy (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would be before you crossed the line on civility. Time to do something useful elsewhere, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if at any point you would try to rebut any point made.....I guess not. --Moxy (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Structured information (which was added in 2012 and not questioned as far as I can see, not by respected editors who are not known as the greatest friends of infoboxes such as Eric Corbett and Iridescent) was removed with the edit summary "removing bloat", - where is the misunderstanding that leads to in "structured information=bloat"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please let me explain the reasoning why I "switched sides" on the infobox issue. Of course, this is not the place for such a general issue, but as a courtesy to the editors here:
    • Infobox occupies a precious 'real estate': top of the article
    • Infobox does not really contain information important for understanding person's notability. Yes, DOB, spouse, terms in office are basic info, but it is not the first thing I want to learn about the person.
    • As I wrote, infobox system plus categories is a "poor man's database": infobox fields are basically "key->value" and categories are database indices. However just as wikipedia is not wiktionary, it is not wikidata either. WMF cash awash, delivers a shitful of database in wikidata. It is indeed extremely useful to have one, but wikipedia is not a substitute.
    • Information density, "bang per buck", is much lower in the infobox compared to plain text.
    • I have no recollection when succession boxes sneaked from their rightful place at the bottom of the page all way to the top, but they made infoboxen oh dear really ugly.
    • Due to rigid format many infoboxes are a battlefield, with battles often resolved by numerous footnotes, which make them even uglier.
    • Yes, some infoboxes are useful (IMO), such as geographical ones: in geography I indeed want to know all these "where/how much/when"; it is essential info, but for a person the essential info is what the person has done, not when he/she/xe/they died.
  • Now, regarding Josephine Butler, Let's take a look.
    • Spouse/children/parents. -- IMO way much better to have a section "Family"
    • Occupation: "Social reformer" -- vague, inadequate, basically useless. Yes, it is an exact answer, but reminds me a joke about men lost while riding hot-air balloon and a mathematician.
    • Other names: "Josephine Elizabeth Butler" -- Hardly "other name". It is the very first words of the article
    • Cause of death: Natural death -- now, that's a weird item. Yes, some people are known primarily for how they died. But does it really important for, say, a war hero, to know whether he was shot by a sniper or stabbed in an ambush?
    • Known for: Victorian feminist -- known for which Victorian feminist? -- weird grammar due to rigid infobox structure
    • Nationality British - redundant; the first line say so.
  • Now, please explain in which circumstances the infobox in this article is indispensable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You answered many questions that I didn't ask, and now you ask me a loaded question ;) - Just a few seemingly unrelated points, just for fun:

• I also switched sides. On Talk:Samuel Barber#Infobox, I voted against an infobox beause its information is redundant. Half a year later, I understood that yes, it's redundant, but for a purpose: it's structured, which is better for some readers. I became ready to serve those readers also.
• Never in my life have I said that an infobox is indispensable. It would also not be true, obviously.
• I am always ready to discuss the value of certain parameters in an infobox, and am usually quite happy with just those that we used to have in Persondata: born (name, date, place), died (date, place), and why this person is notable (occupation, known for, work, - you name it). The infobox is redundant to the lead, right, as the title page of a book is to the book. Would you want one without it?
• I typically don't go around and insert infoboxes, - I actually avoid doing so when I know that a user who did a lot for an article doesn't like it. But I come - as here - when I notice that the efforts of others were removed.

I have an edit conflict and answered only to the above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"I typically don't go around and insert infoboxes" Eeermmmm...... –SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't believe me? Check my contributions, and perhaps reflect the other part, about removing the efforts of others. - Btw, I arrived at this article by a link by Cassianto, if that is what you call flash mob. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In between your first and second comments on this thread. Perhaps you'd forgotten adding it? As to removing the work of others, so what? I took Walt Disney to FA by removing over 25k from the article and replacing the the efforts of others with new text. That's how this place works: by improving, which is sometimes adding, sometimes taking away. – SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition... 27 May, ditto, ditto, 25 May, ditto, 24 May. That's about a week, and I may have missed a couple as I wasn't looking too closely. No "anti-IB-brigade" going round removing the things in such numbers it's interesting to note. – SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Opera, right, where infoboxes are welcome, one a day, none reverted in 2016 (vs. 7 in 2015, 19 in 2013). - It doesn't belong here (improving Butler) but I admire your work on Walt Disney. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• re: "The infobox is redundant to the lead, right, as the title page of a book is to the book. Would you want one without it?" -- I would generically say WP:NOTPAPER. But in this case comparison is inadequate: Title page does not repeat book content, now it wastes readable space, nor it distorts the beginning of the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• I find it slightly ridiculous that people who have probably never heard of Butler before are suddenly desperately edit warring over inserting an IB. Nice work, IB flash mob fanatics! Five million plus articles on Wiki, and you decide to be disruptive on something you've never come across before? This is a big enough place to avoid idiotic war and the same circular arguments. – SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  WP:OWN? Yes, wikipedia is glorious for tempests in a teapot in the media. That's part of fun our job, isn't it? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sadly many of those who try and force micro issues won't work on the article in question: just focus on that one issue, which is exactly what we have here and several other places, an attempt to own the top right corner of all articles, which is not supported by our own guidelines. – SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that this is a never-ending and undoubtably never to be decided issue until infoboxes are either mandated or abolished, and there are no new issues here, and the infobox is tasteful and appropriate (no weird colors, basic wikidata content and so on) the only point is that LOCALCONSENSUS is not controlling, the ArbCom decision that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis IS controlling, and based upon all previous arguments on record, I !vote KEEP THE INFOBOX. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ehm... "tasteful" does not really beat duplication in the most valued spot: article top. And "wikidata" content belongs to wikidata. Did you consider my arguments above? Any serious reply? Or tl;dr? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break 1

I will reply to the main points made above about the boxs overall....as the POV in not helping our readers...in fact making it harder on all.

• • • Infobox occupies a precious 'real estate': top of the article
      • No info in the top corner is leaving info out of one of the most looked at places on a page .... F-Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content - -Eye Tracking Web Usability Study Reveals the “Golden Triangle”
        • It may be so for high screen resolution. Even with this, when infobox is seven feet long it eats 20-30% of several sckeenpages.
    • Infobox does not really contain information important for understanding person's notability. Yes, DOB, spouse, terms in office are basic info, but it is not the first thing I want to learn about the person
      • Notability is inherent by the article being there...basic info may not be the first thing you want to see but what about others?
        • Yes, what about others? Did one eved conduct research?
    • Wikipedia is not wiktionary, it is not wikidata either
      • As per our purpose here...we should accommodate other sites and software that want to help facilitate the spread of knowledge. We are not here to gain readership or force people to read our articles by suppressing information to other websites or search engines.
        • Nothing is to be suppressed, rather seamlessly integrated. If wikidata were decent, I would gladly have used it to answer queries such as "How many feminists were born in 1890?"
    • Information density, "bang per buck", is much lower in the infobox compared to plain text.
      • Not about impact... not all want to or can consume information in the same manner nor do all have the same comprehension of English to do so.
        • Sorry, I was unclear. I was talking about the amount of information per article area. Yes, people have different ways of comprehension. We have "Simple Wikipedia". Heck, why don't we create "Manga wikipedia"? But I don't see how infobox helps in comprehension of things other than trivia. And information density is critical exactly for people who have limited access to this information simply because usually they are the ones who have limited computer resources as well.
    • Due to rigid format many infoboxes are a battlefield, with battles often resolved by numerous footnotes, which make them even uglier
      • Way of the mark here...our goals are to collect information on all branches of knowledge and to disseminated that information around the world and sources is the best way to do that...who care if they look a bit odd....they help facilitate information.
        • Sorry, I was unclear. I am not against footnotes used as references. I was talking about footnotes of plain text squeezed into infoboxes to alleviate the rigid format... and to make the infobox pretty as dry cactus. (Same problem when some editors try to squeeze half of the article into image captions)
    • Yes, some infoboxes are useful (IMO), such as geographical ones: in geography I indeed want to know all these "where/how much/when"; it is essential info, but for a person the essential info is what the person has done, not when he/she/xe/they died.
      • Again assuming what is best for our readers and what they want to see.... what about non-english readers looking for facts let alone tibits for other language wikis to use.
        • I don't think that non-English users are desperate about DOB of J.Butler any more than English ones. EVen so, where is the solid proof?

To sum up.....forcing readers to gain knowledge only in context (read the lead), thus not giving them a choice on how to get said information is simply not the best way to do things. Some people dont have access to unlimited internet/data thus a browser search may be all they can do to get some info. Goggle, Britannica and many other places have adopted this format that has worked so well here because they understand most will never read the article.................so to accommodate this fact we made boxes in the top right corner so people can scan info and we hope they then will read the article. They have been studying this fact for years.... even way back in 1997 before Wikipedia only 79% of web users scan rather than read [1].....thus we made boxes when articles got to big....again why because many here understand how people use the internet. Want to keep readers or make them read your great articles...spoon feed them some basics (like current age) and maybe just maybe they will read on.....no tibits of info here...on they go somewhere else to find it.-- Moxy (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• • As the data on Butler is already held by Wikidata, it does not need to be retained here for Wikidata to import. Given we also have no requirement to provide WD with the data (which we have done already anyway), the Wikidata argument is, as always, a massive straw man. – SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Really? A bio grew so big, and the reader learns only DOB from infobox? and you expect to " hope they then will read the article" after learning that his cause of death was "natural causes"? That's bull. Infobox contain this data for one reason only: it is trivia trivial to maintain. "They have been studying this fact for years" - And you make me believe that their study concluded that DOB/DOD/Nationality is the info most sought for? Can you point me where these findings are reported? Yes, readers scan the articles. I do it myself. But they scan text not because they want to find the name of the spouse. That too, but there are zillions of other pieces of info people are looking for. Was this person a hero? a crook? Did he ever live in my city? Does he smoke? Was he gay? When did she invent tacky notes? And so on. In other words, your arguments are non sequitur. 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• My breath was baited in sheer anticipation of the possibility that Gerda may've pinged because she was mentioning my name in a positive context, or showing some appreciation towards my work, or defending me against a troll....no, it's this. Well, aren't I the lucky one?! I hope you don't mind, Gerda, if I pass on the cup of coffee, slice of Baklava, and a natter about this tired old subject; I really should be off doing something that benefits the project, like writing an article. Oh, btw, oppose infobox here. Complete waste of space and utterly redundant. Cassianto^Talk 23:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I pinged you because I mentioned your name. You caused a "flash mob", involuntarily. I had only one simple question on this page which has not been answered: "Structured information was removed with the edit summary "removing bloat", - where is the misunderstanding that leads to "structured information=bloat"?" (In other words: IF you (not you, Cassianto, any you) feel you have to remove something others created, can you show some respect, and some reason for your revert in the edit summary?) - I enjoy Marilyn Monroe today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As per the above, improvement is sometimes removal of bloat, sometimes addition of text. Edit summaries are often neither here nor there: "improving article" would also have been appropriate. – SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I admit that I sometimes regret that - unlike the rest of Wikipedia - I can't change edit summaries later. I try to word them with clarity (for example mention infobox, or ibox) and not to label something negatively. I think you could find a better way (than "bloat") of saying that you think something is excessive, which doesn't make it excessive in the eyes of others. Sorry, "improving article" is too general, - it could go with any good-faith-edit, but doesn't help finding a specific improvement when looking up an article's history. "Revert infobox" would be a neutral and precise summary, - leave it to others to see if that's an improvement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I think I'll stick with my accurate summaries as they are. – SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "bloat" is not a neutral way to express anything, - we seem to speak different languages, I won't waste more time here. Interesting also that you blame a user of beginning an edit war (a user who only restored the stable version before the discussion) in your fourth revert, and by now we have five. Not my style. - When you ask the community (Beethoven, Mary, mother of Jesus) you see a different approach, friendly also to readers who know less English. This Butler article is not present in many languages, so readers around the globe will have to turn to English: they are served better by structured information than by prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Then next time I will not use "bloat". "Cutting useless rubbish" will have to do. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So basically headed down the same path as the other article ...no consensus for change here either. -- Moxy (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus when it was added either. Cassianto^Talk 21:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

And no need for Moxy to try and control the agenda, or try and pre-judge the consensus here: so far I have seen only one 'pro' comment that actually addresses this IB, rather than general POV about IBs in general and that some people like them. This isn't a vote, and weight of argument will win out over weight of votes–especially on an article that is an alien one to most who have come to this talk page in the last few days, driven only by the agenda of attempting to own the top right corner of all articles. – SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Its so cute you guys back each-other up even when someone says the wrong thing...got to give you guys credit for always being there for one and other. -- Moxy (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Who's wrong? Or is it your desperate attempt to get the last word? Cassianto^Talk 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• WP:EDITCONSENSUS ----Moxy (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not answered my question. Who's wrong? Where was the consensus at the point of the info box's implementation? Cassianto^Talk 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I restored the infobox once again. It WAS the stable version of the article, since 2012 and removed solely based on an IDONTLIKEIT rationale, with a somewhat deceptive edit summary, followed by this long discussion, which has had far too many personal attacks. While what is contained in the infobox may be debatalbe, the need for one is clearly evident; aside from the wikidata issues, the article looks amateurish, unencyclopedic and incomplete without one. Those who make the usual "it's in the lead" arguments forget the very legitimate needs of the casual reader for basic data and that there is not necessarily a need for certain biographical basics to be in the lead. Further, this became far to full of personal attacks far too quickly and the bullying needs to stop. Now. Phrases like "Moxy to try and control the agenda" are personal attacks. Enough of that. Montanabw^(talk) 03:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Oddly the "control agenda" comment was what Moxy accused me of elsewhere, but I'm used to such snide comments from the IB Warriors they are as water off a duck's back to me. I've removed the idiot box again for all the good reasons I and Staszek Lem have provided (and nothing "deceptive" there - although that's another PA I'll let slide). So far the straw man argument of Wikidata has been provided and refuted, and only the IDONTLIKEIT POV of the 'pro' side remains. There have been no good arguments placed for the inclusion of a box here at all, and the 'oh, but it's been here for a couple of years' argument is a weak one in response. Time to try and improve an article, rather than fighting this argument about someone none of you have heard about and moving on. As for "bullying", Montana, that's just way off the mark: the snark levels are as they normally are, but bullying is not a serious accusation. Is this a new tactic you're going to use? – SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
      • "...the article looks amateurish, unencyclopedic and incomplete without one. -- I'm sure all those wonderful biographers at ODNB would be thrilled to hear that. Cassianto^Talk 06:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose use of Infobox here. Before I begin, please note that Wikidata already has the information sought to be included in the box. Let's take a step back: The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, such as this Victorian era figure, do not. As has been noted before, "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader, or include ... irrelevant or inappropriate information". Here are some reasons why I disagree with including the infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) The box discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose info box for the reasons I have stated before elsewhere, that they add nothing to an article that isn't included in a good lead, and merely repeat that information. Jack1956 (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox Maybe I should write a short essay detailing the reasons why I always oppose infoboxes in these sort of discussions. It doesn't add anything to an article as the lead would usually summarise it. In addition, it looks terrible. JAGUAR  21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And we've once again gone into an ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT debate. Which is not helping anything. I personally think that the main objection folks have to infoboxes is that their formatting is difficult; aesthetics can be tweaked. The rest is probably a question of whether editors prefer a plain-Jane "ODNB" or "Britannica" look or a more lively populist one (and collapsed infoboxes could also be a compromise for those cases). In this case, I have been informed that one of the participants in this discussion has a very strong desire to work on this particular article, it wasn't a driveby removal, and while I disagree on the anti-infobox position applied to "liberal arts" articles here and generally, I believe it is in the interest of comity for me to back out of this particular article. That said, one of these days we re all heading for Arbcom II if we can't come up with something superior to arguing over every separate article (though apparently we helped kill LOCALCONSENSUS with our collective recalcitrance, which is regretful as it is problematic in other MOS areas, particularly capitalization conventions in the life sciences). Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I like infoboxes when they are used correctly, but almost all of the time I would never support the use of an infobox on a biographic article. Aesthetic taste is a factor, yes, but it's not that I don't like it. I don't think an infobox is appropriate in this case. JAGUAR  17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support restoration of infobox, since it a) it was deleted without consensus as part of someone's anti-infobox WP:GREATWRONGS campaigning, in defiance of WP:ARBINFOBOX, and more importantly b) infoboxes provided a helpful précis of key data, especially for mobile users, who are not in the majority. No objections to trimming some fields that consensus determines are not relevant or being misused in this case (any time someone attempts to fill every possible parameter the infobox allows, they are making a mistake).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Cassianto^Talk 21:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that train left some time ago. – SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

people say there is a consensus, but i do not see it? where is the consensus? why is there an edit war now after more than a year of discussion? 2607:FA78:1156:0:C2EA:E4FF:FEE3:CDDF (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"She wasn't Butler when she grew up"

Regarding the ridiculous situation with naming and this reversion in particular, it seems people are—perhaps willfully—entirely misunderstanding how the English language works.

The sentence "Butler grew up in a well-to-do and politically connected progressive family…" refers to someone whose surname at the time of writing is Butler. To say "Grey grew up in a well-to-do and politically connected progressive family…" is to refer to an entirely different person, someone whose name, right now, in 2018, is Grey. Yes, when Butler was young, her name was Grey—but it's not now, when this encyclopedia is being written She is known to history as Josephine Butler.

Is this really so difficult to understand?? I'm aghast that anyone intelligent enough to be reading and editing an article that is of such high quality would be so ill-read as to not understand how language works in this regard. I apologise for dredging this issue up again, but I really felt as if I had to comment. I shan't edit this article again, but I do hope this issue doesn't become pervasive: it, along with many other associated problems, will be the death of the whole project. — Hugh (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to miss that it doesn't say "Grey" but "She" which hopefully is fair. - We had enough questioning of intelligence, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

My point, Gerda Arendt, is that beginning that sentence with “Butler” is perfectly correct. — Hugh (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I try to avoid terms such as "perfectly correct", very generally so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Describing Millicent Fawcett

@SchroCat: - Hi - you reverted my edit; interested to understand why you consider intellectual a broader term than campaigner. To me, common usage of intellectual would imply academic, not a person active "in the street" (or parliament), writing popular material etc. I think it is far too narrow a description to refer to Millicent Fawcett as an "intellectual" - she was many things - writer, organiser, political activist, reformer, movement leader. There are few people past or present who led movements who would be considered intellectuals. Many intellectuals inspire movements, but rarely lead them. Leaving aside my personal views, I cannot find any reliable sources that describe Fawcett as an intellectual. There may well be one or two, but the overwhelming body of work about Fawcett does not discuss her as an intellectual. I'm not wedded to the word campaigner, if you have an alternative, please consider. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW some references, including one which uses intellectual:

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: "leader" "author"

Millicent Garrett Fawcett and the Meaning of Women's Emancipation, 1886-99 "intellectual leader" "skillful politician"

The Centenary of Josephine Butler: An Interview with Dame Millicent Garrett Fawcett "veteran leader"

Reviewed Work: A Different World for Women "leader"

Perhaps we could agree on "feminist leader" to replace "feminist intellectual"? --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with "feminist leader" too. "campaigner" was far too narrow for me (she was so, so much more than that). Mind you, I think she's more than a "feminist leader" too, but for the sake of a very brief introduction to her, this will do nicely. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Trafficking was not a term used at the time, the definition is incorrect

Human trafficking was not a term used during Butler's time. Applying a modern legal definition to an advocate is beyond imprecise and completely inaccurate. Further, conflation of "human trafficking" and "slave trade" is incorrect. The conflation of those terms was an intentional decision why white advocates to co-opt abolitionist movement spaces to apply to the sex trade, specifically to white women in the sex trades. 2601:14D:4D80:A180:5435:48BD:204D:96E2 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The term is one used by the reliable sources used - including works such as The Politics of Trafficking: The First International Movement to Combat the Sexual Exploitation of Women. This is how WP works - by taking the very best sources and displaying their information. It is not a place to right great wrongs, no matter how strongly felt those beliefs are held (and I have a certain sympathy for your viewpoint here). If you have something that says that Butler wasn't involved in the battle to stop human trafficking, then let's see it - we can add it to the article as a counterpoint, but without that, we have to reflect what the sources say. Thanks again for coming here, and I'd welcome any further input you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)