Talk:Bæddel and bædling

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Featured articleBæddel and bædling 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 April 17, 2025.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2024Good article nomineeListed
February 2, 2025Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 8, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that scholars have suggested that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?
Current status: Featured article

Rewriting an FA article due to numerous issues

[edit]

What's the process for requesting a total rewrite for an FA article? After false statements about one of the core sources for it, OED, came to light after it had hit the Wikipedia main page, this article really needs to be completely scrapped. The primary author didn't even have access to the OED etymologies. Unfortunately, it's by far the worst FA article I've seen on the site and it shouldn't have gotten anywhere near FA in this state. So where do we go from here without any necessary large-scale changes being revert-warred by the editors that rubber-stamped it on to FA without even looking over its sources? This article is a a mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a process to request that someone else rewrite an article. There is a process to review whether an FA should retain FA status, and indeed the old-fashioned method of proposing a change, explaining a rationale, and building consensus for it. All of those depend, as with most things on this site, with building consensus among editors that the change would be an improvement. I'd suggest starting that process from the acknowledgement that there is already a strong consensus, which includes many skilled and experienced editors, that the article does meet the FA criteria. That doesn't mean that this consensus is fixed, particularly if new facts come to light that weren't apparent during the FA review. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nobody needs your permission to edit this article (WP:FAOWN: FA articles are "open for editing like any other"). Editors like yourself didn't even bother to check the sources before approving it and have now repeatedly attempted to argue away even the use of WP:RS on this talk page: review WP:LAWYER. Please stop trying to dissuade editors from fixing the many problems here. Let's hear from others actually interested in improving the article rather than just you attempting to defend the current mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of routes, Bloodofox. The logical procedural step for any editor who believes that an article does not deserve its FA status is to nominate it at WP:FAR; you may find this script helpful for the practical gruntwork. I would advise clearly setting out your reasons for believing that "it's by far the worst FA article I've seen on the site and it shouldn't have gotten anywhere near FA in this state".
Alternatively, if you feel that this article is surrounded by WP:CABALS of editors who "rubber-stamp and revert-war", you are necessarily seeking participation from a wider range of editors. In this situation, an WP:RFC is the logical candidate—you will need a simple opening statement and question, perhaps "Are this article's references to [X source], [Y source], and [Z source] problematic?", and your first vote will clearly and logically set out your reasoning for why you believe this to be so.
The nuclear route, of course, if you believe this article is completely unsalvageable and an insult to Wikipedia, is nominating it for deletion on the justification of WP:TNT—that the only way to improve it is to blow it up and start over. (If you are wondering, FAs are not immune to deletion, see e.g. Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 or ANAK Society.)
Those are your three main options; perhaps take a little time to consider which route you think best; if you try all of them, you might be accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Oh, and by the way, your first question: "What's the process for requesting a total rewrite for an FA article?" Like most things on Wikipedia, the best process is to do it yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For the record, I actually did begin a rewrite refactoring with new sources, extensive additions, and a wide variety of corrections but it was met with mass reverts by the FA approvers. When I have the time, I'll simply rewrite the article from scratch with a summary of the article's numerous problems.
Meanwhile, while I doubt it matters given how few specialists there are in this material active on Wikipedia nowadays (and it seems fewer by the day), I would strongly suggest the FA approval process try to involve more subject matter experts where possible. For example, it's simply not OK for oe of the very first lines of a main page FA article to have a completely falsified claim about the OED. Only after much questioning here from did the primary author admit that they had no access to the source and simply relied on 'someone else'. This is just one of numerous issues that have plagued this article and I have found the process to be really disheartening with where we're at in terms of quality for the FA process. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When I have the time, I'll simply rewrite the article from scratch with a summary of the article's numerous problems." Isn't that what you've been doing thus far? How well has it been going? They say that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over hoping for different results; perhaps trying an alternative route might be better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How well has it been going? They say that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over hoping for different results; perhaps trying an alternative route might be better.
Perhaps he was given misleading advice, somewhere?
"Like most things on Wikipedia, the best process is to do it yourself." wait what's this
Himaldrmann (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Himaldrmann "Like most things on Wikipedia, the best process is to do it yourself." is good general advice, probably AirshipJungleman29 found out more about this article before saying How well has it been going?. And hopefully everybody in this conversation knows that not all advice on Wikipedia is good advice. TSventon (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, I'm (mostly) just kiddin'—although the tone reads a tiny bit condescending, to me, esp. in the latter comment, esp. esp. without any acknowledgement that essentially the exact opposite has been said immediately prior, esp. esp. esp. without any acknowledgement of the rest of what bloodofox asserted (like, if it'd been me, I'd probably have tried—in both initial comment & response—to at least mention "I see you have been trying to do just that, but sometimes, in cases like these, I might recommend that one try [...]"; or "Yes, I can see why that'd be disheartening"; or... somethin').
Then again, I suppose @AirshipJungleman29 would hardly have been the first to be—nor the most—condescending, herein (& if indeed he meant to be at all—re-reading the comments, I don't think I'd actually impute any such motivation to 'im); and the first comment is helpful & the latter advice is good. No worries, I say!
Himaldrmann (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he was, I can't say with any certainty. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

@Generalissima: I have had a look at the Definition section and think it needs some more work. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on early medieval texts, so I apologise for any misunderstandings of my own. (There are scans of the four glosses and the main excerpt from the penitential on Commons, so I have created Commons:Category:Bæddel and bædling for convenience.)

  • It [Bædling] is given three different Latin glosses used to gloss three different Latin words in the four extant sources, including mollis 'soft person' Bædling does not gloss mollis, it is possibly used as a translation in the penitentiaries, so mollis could be removed here.
  • mollis 'soft person' needs to be explained. According to Frantzen 2020 Recent scholars are in general agreement on the meaning of "molles.” Boswell argued that "molles" means "weak-willed” or “debauched," possibly "wanton" or "unrestrained."
  • The Old English translation of the penitential handbook Paenitentiale Theodori makes a distinction between men and bædlings the article should explain that the translation is based on categories in the Latin penitential. According to Frantzen 2020 Theodore's Penitential uses three categories to describe men who have sex with other men: "masculus,” “sidomitae,” [presumably "Sodomitae"] and “molles" (1.2.2, 1.2.5–6, CED 3:178).
  • The Old English translation of the penitential handbook Paenitentiale Theodori Two translations of the Paenitentiale Theodori mention bædlings, so it would be helpful to mention them both.
  • a similar comparison with adultery is also applied to bæddels in the Antwerp Glossary. I can't access Bell 2023, but, as far as I can see, the scanned Antwerp glosses don't mention adultery.

TSventon (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd have no disagreement with any of the first four here being done as bold edits.
Bell 2023 is available on TWL -- the relevant quotation is This occurs in Antwerp, Plantin-Moretus, MS 32, where the Latin hermafroditus (hermaphrodite) is glossed as scritta (scrætte, “adulteress”) and bæddel. That's pretty unequivocal: does the citation there help you find it? It's not impossible that Bell has misread, but I'd generally be very cautious about proposing to overrule a scholarly source's statement of fact with a Wikipedian's observations, however expert they are, as that's WP:OR by any definition. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, Thank you, I will try to update the article. The usage of mollis is quite complex, as I expect you know. I am not trying to overrule a scholarly source, I wanted to find out what it said first (I couldn't find Project Muse under M in TWL, but now realise it is under P). TSventon (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Mollis" in classical Latin has strong connotations of effeminacy and non-normative homosexual sex (in fact, that's pretty much its only meaning when applied to a person), but I'd need to defer to an early medievalist as to whether that was still true in our period. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wæp(e)nwifestre"

[edit]

Is it really in the glosses? Is there an up-to-date available mirror of the glosses to show this? All online search results seem to lead back to this Wiki page and the corresponding (equally unsourced) Wiktionary page, where it was added by an IP-address with no cited sources; are we dealing with citogenesis? Inimicvs-voster (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E: What makes me suspicious is the fact that it's said to be "uniquely attested" but the Wiktionary page lists two alternate forms. Inimicvs-voster (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to the body: you'll find it cited to Bell 2023, page 18. Specifically:

Bædling is unattested anywhere else in the surviving Old English corpus, aside from two tenth-century glosses: one in London, British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra A.III, where effeminata is annotated as molles/bædlingas; and MS Harley 3376, where the Latinate cariar is translated as bædling. It is possible that the word has links to bæddel, another obscure Old English word that is preserved only in a glossThis occurs in Antwerp, Plantin-Moretus, MS 32, where the Latin hermafroditus (hermaphrodite) is glossed as scritta (scrætte, “adulteress”) and bæddel. In this manuscript, scritta/scrætta and bæddel are further associated with another word wæpenwifestre, also not attested elsewhere. This last word seems to function like wæpnedman, delineating a woman (wif) that has the phallic masculinity of a wæpen.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've in the meanwhile found a dictionary citation for it, which I'll add specifically under the word. The alternate form (without -e-) on Wiktionary should probably be recommended for deletion, as it seems to be citogenesis there Inimicvs-voster (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inimicvs-voster you can see scans of the glosses discussed (and the longer version of the penitential) at Commons:Category:Bæddel and bædling. Commons:File:Hermafroditus in the Antwerp-London Glossaries.jpg has a link to the whole manuscript and the relevant page is 15r. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I found it later; my issue was primarily because I found the e-less variant and searching led me only to here and Wiktionary (I actually have a physical OE dictionary that does include wæpenwifestre that I saw later, but no e-less variant). I added a citation to it here, and requested a deletion on Wiktionary to remove the ghost form that seems to be producing citogenesis. Inimicvs-voster (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]