Featured articleJosephine Butler is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 29, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 28, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
September 24, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 30, 2017, and December 30, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Infobox[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
User:Dr. Blofeld, checkout WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, please actually read what I've written, as I've said nothing of the sort. – SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"I typically don't go around and insert infoboxes" Eeermmmm...... –SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, I think I'll stick with my accurate summaries as they are. – SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then next time I will not use "bloat". "Cutting useless rubbish" will have to do. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There was no consensus when it was added either. CassiantoTalk 21:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Who's wrong? Or is it your desperate attempt to get the last word? CassiantoTalk 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEADHORSE. CassiantoTalk 21:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that train left some time ago. – SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"She wasn't Butler when she grew up"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
My point, Gerda Arendt, is that beginning that sentence with “Butler” is perfectly correct. — Hugh (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I try to avoid terms such as "perfectly correct", very generally so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Describing Millicent Fawcett[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thumbs up icon--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Categories