Talk:Bæddel and bædling#OED misrepresented in article lead

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Bæddel and bædling}}

{{Talk:Bæddel and bædling/GA1}}

This article is written in such a way as to try to use some ambiguous Anglo-Saxon terms to justify modern gender-ideologies and practices. Some of these issues have already been addressed on this talk page. Articles should be unbiased, cite all claims, and not be used to bolster a socio-political ideology of the writer(s). – Dyolf87 (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I second this. 209.23.188.218 (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Articles should be unbiased, cite all claims}} - good thing that's already the case here seeing as it's an FA. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::"It was featured therefore doesn't have a bias" does not follow logic. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The logic is more that gaining FA status requires extensive review and discussion, so an article with a notable level of bias would not pass that process without being fixed. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:: That doesn't mean the article isn't biased. There have also been issues with this article citing claims which aren't backed up in the cited sources. This is, by no means, a good article. – Dyolf87 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What claims are not backed up in the citations? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I suspect this entire article is written with WP:OR and as a Coatrack. These terms were probably simply used as derogatory terms for homosexuals and bisexuals (and by extension, males that someone wanted to "insult" by using a term to imply effeminacy). It is an illogical jump to go "scholars debate the meaning of the terms" to the lead's "these terms refer to non-normative sexual or gender categories". But hey, people have their biases and agendas. Will be interesting to see what happens when all the USAID funding finally stops. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do you have any citations to back up what you think is "probably" true or is this just your own bias/agenda? Again, what exactly in the article is not backed up by the sources? I also have no idea what USAID has to do with anything at all. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::you have enough experience on this website to know better than to throw around frivolous comments about "USAID funding" and make baseless claims of OR. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::While the current state of the article is inexcusably bad and it should never have made it anywhere near FA status in its current state, there is no need to invoke USAID or anything else of the sort. The production of terrible articles does not require a conspiracy theory. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::What specifically about the article is inexcusably bad? I see people on this talk page continue to make vague complaints like this without pointing out any actual issues or even any claims that aren't supported by sources. Calling something "bad" or "biased" doesn't mean anything. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you have a background in historical linguists and are familiar with the works of scholars like Liberman and his writings on the etymology of bad, this article will immediately stink of confusion. In short, it spends very little time discussing etymology, which is the crux of the question around these words, and instead strongly emphasizes theory. This is not how philologists handle word histories: it instead reads like a confused essay. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agreed with the above. There can be legitimate criticisms of an article's content (see, for example, bloodofox's comments, which I have no opinion on). There is no need to make unfounded allegations that the article's creation has anything to do with "USAID funding", which neither Wikipedia nor its editors receive, and which can be construed as an ad hominem statement. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is a bit of a mess. For example, it needs to clearly and objectively list exactly where the terms appear, which is crucial for a small group of sources. It primarily consists of a bunch of contemporary commentary from who knows where exactly, often devoid of context, whereas "definition" and "etymology" are strangely divided. This may well need to be rewritten and at least should not have made it to "featured" status in this stage. This is very rough in its current state. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:In any case, it being a featured article will at least get it some much-needed attention from editors at least. Stickymatch 06:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think it needs to at least be restructured and the references reviewed. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Additionally, all theories here need to attribute directly where they're coming from. Wade 2024 is, for example, an activist source primarily focused on promoting the opinions of Leslie Feinberg. Feinberg is not a philologist (and not even an academic). If this or that interpretation of the Old English record is coming from individuals like Wade, appearing in an activist piece, this needs to be at minimum clearly and directly attributed to Wade. Interweaving Wade's Feinberg-focused commentary in this manner and presenting it as fact is WP:UNDUE. This is an article about linguistics and, more narrowly West Germanic philology, and it needs to emphasize commentary from linguists. As written it emphasizes interpretations without emphasizing consensus and with unclear structure. It's not focused. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Bloodofox that's why this whole article smells of BS 64.59.204.5 (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps you want to cite reliable sources to substantiate your above claims before tagging the article. We are not here to discuss our views and impressions. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::We're here to discuss Wikipedia articles, including their sourcing, structure, and body, including this one. I get that some editors believe that featured articles shouldn't be touched. I'll add it to my list to rewrite in the future. For example, historically, the core discussion around these words has been their connection to English bad, which Liberman emphasizes.

::Specifically, there are three big questions: a. if the words, clearly synonyms, both just mean 'bad man' like contemporary 'bad' does, b. if bad developed from the Old English forms and had a different meaning that was perceived as negative or became that way, or c. the question of no connection and, if no connection, what the etymology is. This is all really buried here.

::Liberman, for example, proposes that the word began as an Old English (or West Germanic) babble word with the meaning 'negative, bad', which then resulted in the words discussed in this article, and that negative meaning remained into the present from its original status as a babble word. This kind of thing, which should be the stuff of this article, is barely touched on. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to the FAC reviewers, who may be interested in this discussion: {{yo|Nikkimaria}} {{yo|UndercoverClassicist}}, {{yo|Crisco 1492}}, {{yo|Gog the Mild}}, {{yo|Tim riley}}, {{yo|MSincccc}}, {{yo|Jo-Jo Eumerus}}, {{yo|Borsoka}} Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:My (perhaps wrong) impression is that a specific linguist suggests an alternative etymology. If this is the case, it should be decided whether a reference to their view is needed in the article, taking into account WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::This looks like a case of "Everybody's out of step except our Willie". I have reread the article and the FAC exchanges and see no reason to attempt to rewrite the text to accommodate the uncited assertions of one hitherto uninvolved editor. Borsoka's comment, above (07:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)) seems to me very much to the point. – Tim riley talk 07:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ping me when you refer to me, please. But I'm here now (I saw the FA on the main page) and I'm bringing no shortage of important sources and discussion to the table. I'm not going anywhere and will continue to improve the article over time.

:::This article should not have gotten anywhere near WP:FA in this state: It didn't even bother to cite OED or outline Liberman's full etymology, although the article's etymology section (and more) was largely built on Liberman's research. A more thorough review for WP:GA would have touched on the matter of toponyms, which I've just introduced, and there's a lot more to add where that has come from. There are also other details that should have been checked: For example, the brief article from Sayers was published in 2019 and not 2020.

:::Did anyone involved in these reviews have a background in linguistics? This is a philology topic that requires the attention of historical linguists and an emphasis on the analysis and discussion of notable philologists, which we are fortunate to have in discussion from Liberman. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Ping|Bloodofox}}, I took into account your message on my Talk page when reverting your edits for the second time and you again reverted me. Why do not you want to discuss your proposals on the Talk page? Please also note WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am discussing them extensively as I add them. In fact, I am easily the most active individual on this talk page. Please don't revert-war: if you have something to contribute to the article, do it. You don't need to remove WP:RS or reinstate incorrect dates: that is simply disruption. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it because of the recent UK Supreme Court ruling that the female gender, "woman", is literally the adult biological female human? I sometimes wonder why poorly written articles are featured at the same time as something relevant happens in the news. 81.166.117.210 (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:The process of making a featured article takes several weeks and often months. This one was not "rushed" due to recent events anywhere in the world, it's just a coincidence. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:The Featured Article review of this article began in early January and successfully passed back in February. Can you point to what made you think the review process was rushed? Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for being even more specific than I was. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Additionally, the featured article appearing on the front page is determined weeks in advance, as can be seen on the queue for April and May. There's unlikely to be any conspiracy here. MediaKill13 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yep. Given the fact that the article was promoted to FA status back on 2 February after extensive discussion, one may as well be asking, "Why was the UK Supreme Court rushing to make its ruling just before this article was featured?" That the ruling was made recently is a complete coincidence; the article was scheduled for TFA on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/April_17,_2025&oldid=1276997970 21 February], so it's very, very unlikely that there's a conspiracy here. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:While the reason for such a brief article being featured is obvious, the process for becoming featured does take some time. Eladynnus (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This article strongly emphasizes the non-philological, activist commentary of Wade while downplaying the works of philologists like Liberman. At the very least we need to be very clear where Wade's proposals are in the article. Right now it's a thick soup that needs to be check and clarified. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|Bloodofox}} I understand you have very strong feelings about this article, but your rush to correct things has lead to a bunch of work for other editors to clean up, and I really advise you to get consensus on the talk page before making these sweeping edits; classic BRD.

Some specific points:

• The introduction of new citations has broken the formatting. The new Liberman 2015 isn't an actual SFN, and the two Oxford English Dictionary cites don't follow the format of the other web cites.
• In swapping the paragraphs around, various terms are now introduced and linked after their first use.
• {{green|Scholar David R. Wyatt describes bædling as having an "extremely pejorative sense".}} For all the flack given to Wade's inclusion here, an offhand mention by a historian writing about an entirely separate topic seems hardly worth including, let alone name dropped (And couldn't the quote be paraphrased quite easily? The cite would be fine if it was included in running prose about it being derogatory or what have you)
• The 'who' tag is misused; as the link it goes to states, you don't to attribute who said something if it immediately goes on to explain who said it and why!
• The analysis section from the initial version of article should be included as part of the section on the definition and corpus because a) any analysis of the term is fundamentally based on interpreting what these glosses say. One doesn't make sense without the other
• Why move the etymology first? These etymologies only make sense in the context of knowing what the term means, otherwise it's all meaningless.
• Liberman is a very important linguist, but his focus on Germanic linguistics as a whole is so broad that it's hard to call him the most qualified specialist in the field.
• Meanwhile, Wade *is* a specialist in specifically Medieval English literature, far from an "activist source"! He doesn't mention Feinberg in the 2020 article, and He's not "citing Feinberg" in the 2024 chapter, he's incorporating a different analysis framework in studying homosexuality in medieval England, and doesn't even incorporate that in the section where he talks about the term!
• The terms are not unambiguously synonyms - Liberman said he thinks they are, but various other interpretations exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalissima (talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::First, nobody needs to ask for permission to add and correct WP:RS. Formatting can be fixed whenever, what's important here is content.

::Second, the article needs major work and the attention of a linguist: this is a linguistics article. I have a background in historical linguistics. We need more quotes in this article and less interpretations or paraphrasing. Precise source wording is very important here, especially as this topic is ripe for wikieditor activism.

::Third, the article mentioned the OED throughout this without citing it. That needed to be resolved early on and it is only now being resolved by my edits. It also made no mention of toponyms. There's plenty more that could be added here. Given the small number of attestations, we need more attention on this as well, ideally listing all attestations in a clear and objective matter. The article could also use way more definitions from various Anglo-Saxon dictionaries. I've now added the OED ones.

::Fourth, you are way too intensely emphasizing Wade's 2024 activist piece (it is clearly that). It indeed strongly promotes Feinberg, even chastizing scholars for not taking Feinberg as seriously as Wade would like. Wade's purpose is not philological, it is activism, and the strong showcasing of Wade's apparent proposal of the words referring to a "third gender" among the Anglo-Saxons (rather than for example the words just meaning 'bad men') on this article is undue. Commentary on usage is fine but it needs to be directly attributed.

::Fifth, Liberman is a major philologist and easily the most qualified and specialized figure discussed in this article. His interpretations should be emphasized. This is a philology article, specifically a West Germanic philology article, and more specifically an Old English article. Liberman is as good as this article is likely to get (and a significant amount of this article is already built on Liberman's research).

::Sixth, etymology needs to be first because it is the crux of this article: These obscure terms primarily receive attention because of the etymological pickle that is the word bad. If things need to be moved around, they should be moved around.

::Seventh, the two words are clearly synonyms. Liberman states this as fact. If you take issue with this, we can simply continue to directly attribute Liberman, but this is an important aspect to approaching this topic.

::My "very strong feelings" are more minor annoyance that this article got to FA in this state. This should be a very straightforward article to cover and especially proposals like Wade's should be easily presented as simply that, Wade's.

::As an FA article, I shouldn't need to step in and make these comments, but when it happens, it should be welcomed. A healthy, functional system would welcome improvements and additional sources to articles that make it to FA rather than discourage them. The project is fortunate to have specialist editors who volunteer their time to improving these articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It should really be a priority that we list all instances of these words in the Old English corpus. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:No, it shouldn't. That's not what any WP article should ever try to do. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, it should, because right now it's a partial overview and can be expanded. It's a small corpus and easy to handle. We do this all the time when it comes to small groups of attestations. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, it should not: it would fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's far outside anything we should be doing. We should be reflecting the secondary sources in their descriptions of the use of the words. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Secondary sources do this all the time. Are you new to this kind of topic? :bloodofox: (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It would still fail INDISCRIMINATE. An examination of how or why the term is used is of use; a list of uses is sub-standard and against policy. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:INDISCRIMINATE is totally irrelevant to including more coverage of the corpus. We could even include it in a list format and it would be perfectly appropriate. You are as all volunteers here welcome to contribute to the article but it's a bit tedious to tell other editors that we shouldn't include more coverage from more sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|SchroCat}} is right, though it strikes me that we only have five examples, of which three (I think) are already discussed, with their sources, in the text. Assuming that secondary sources have done more than acknowledge that the other two exist, it would seem fairly easy and uncontroversial to work in a footnote saying "the other two are in Text X and Text Y". Agreed with Schro that a blunt list is unlikely to meet the PAGs: if the mentions are germane to the article, we should be able to work them into the text. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::”{{tq|it's a bit tedious to tell other editors that we shouldn't include more coverage from more sources}}”: I couldn’t agree more, but neither I nor UndercoverClassicist have suggested anything remotely close to that. My eye was drawn to the comment that we should list the uses of the words, which we shouldn’t. If you think we should examine the uses of the words, giving context to the use and an explanation of why it is notable/interesting/important, then that is a very different thing. Either way, no-one in this section has come close to saying you shouldn’t have coverage from more sources.{{pb}}As a side note, your edit warring on this article will lead to sanctions at some point if it continues. You’ve thrown the label at others a lot, but you are equally culpable: it takes two to edit war, regardless of how much you think you are in the right. - SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Sorry, that's exactly what you've done. The reality is that FA articles are not enshrined in stone and that FA editors make mistakes and miss a lot of material that should have been included or discussed, and this is a great example. It is completely inappropriate to enshrine an article because it has recently become an FA article and discouraging editors from adding more isn't OK: it's bizarre behavior. If you have something to discuss about the article, go for it, but so far all I've heard from you is 'don't try to add anything else' and 'if you don't know your place, you're going to get banned by somebody'. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I’m not being defensive about anything, and neither was I ‘one of the editors that passed this article into FA’. I am also not stopping you or anyone else from doing anything at all. My comment here was to point out that simply listing all uses of the two words would be inappropriate unless there is sufficient context to explain to lay readers why each particular use is notable or important. - SchroCat (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::To clarify your understanding of this material, what is your background in linguistics? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I’ve ignored that question once already and I’m going to do so again now. You’re not in listening mode, so it really doesn’t matter what I or anyone else says. All I will add is that it’s just a lie to say that I have said ‘don't try to add anything else’: you have missed what both I and UndercoverClassicist have said rather clearly in this thread. - SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::The reason you're ignoring it is because you lack familiarity with the topic. Before discussing a topic, you really need to be familiar with it. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::That's deeply wrong given we are not discussing the minutiae of the topic, but the general approach and the state of the article. Your rather divisive and abrasive approach to this seems to be missing the "collegial" part of Wikipedia and, combined with your edit warring, lying and inability to understand what people are saying to you, suggests a sanction won't be too far away. You've created a toxic enough atmosphere that many will not want to deal with this situation for long, which is largely on your own shoulders. There's no need to reply to this, I'm unwatching and won't respond, so I leave you have Wikipedia:The Last Word in your mistaken belief you will have "won" something that was never a competition. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given the recent changes, I think this article may be taken to FAR shortly. The "improvements" are anything but, and the article seems to have been downgraded considerably. I appreciate that this may be a passing phase while work is still undertaken, but unless the quality of writing is raised considerably, FAR will have to be considered. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:You don't think it's important to correct citation errors or to cite discussed sources? Should we ignore key elements like the potential for toponyms because nobody added them during the GA or FA reviews? The improvements have been and will continue to be plentiful: the article needs them. I've added lots of new WP:RS and corrected data that was incorrect. This article should not have passed WP:FA in its current state. It'll need to be cleaned up when these additions have become stable but in the meantime there's plenty of work to be done here. The complaints here are inappropriate: we're here to improve article quality and that can be a messy process. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I concur with @SchroCat here. The significant recent changes have, unfortunately, undermined the article’s quality. While improvements are always welcome, these edits seem to have introduced more issues than they’ve resolved. MSincccc (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Care to explain what issues adding necessary WP:RS, core elements of this discussion, etymologies, and correcting dates have produced? Or is this just another inappropriate complaint that someone dared to take the time to correct and assess an WP:FA that shouldn't have passed WP:GA? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think there's two separate issues here. It strikes me that {{u|Bloodofox}} has raised some questions that, on the face of it, would seem to deserve discussion -- as I understand them:

::* Should the work of Liberman and Sayers be included under WP:DUEWEIGHT?

::* Should Wade 2024 be hedged, couched or given less emphasis, on the basis of its scholarly standing?

::* Should the Etymology section come before or after the Definitions section?

::I think we need to seperate these from both a) the manner in which those questions have been raised, which perhaps could have been done in a way more likely to lead to collegial and productive discussion, and b) the details of how changes towards them have been implemented.

::I agree with the editors above that the formatting and clarity of the article have suffered from the latter, but if we can establish a consensus as to what the end goal is regarding those three questions, we have enough skilled editors here that making the end result clear and well formatted should be easy enough. Personally, I think a call for FAR is premature, but it might be wise to discuss the intended/recent changes more formally, in line with WP:FAOWN: {{Green|it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first}}. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Adding to this, one of the sources cited throughout, Sayer, is the wrong date, Liberman is downplayed througout (although much of the article is built on his work), the article does no cite the OED's entries or present it definitions, and the matter of toponyms are not touched in this "FA" article. There's plenty more: Almost all the discussion around this topic centers on consensus that it is connected to the contemporary English word bad by way of an unattested Old English precursor. As it stands, this information is either not in the article or it is only lightly touched on in favor of spotlighting Wade. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Largely agree: the battering ram approach is typically only helpful on Wikipedia when there's no-one to ram through, but hopefully we can move on from that heedless beginning to address what seem to be valid points of discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Procedurally, whatever the merits of the various points of view (which I have not evaluated), this should not go to FAR quite yet. This was promoted quite recently—three to six months is the usual minimum before a potential FAR—and FAR is not a venue for dispute resolution at any time. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::The issues here are plentiful but even so much as correcting a date on a source (which is clearly wrong) leads to reversions from embedded editors here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, the correction of a date does not lead to reversion. I fixed the problem. Thank you for noting it. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Right now all citations to Liberman, except those I've added, are simply listed as Liberman 2015. However, Liberman 2015 is actually (at least) three entries. These should be listed something like Liberman 2015, part 1, etc. They also have unique, if unusually formatted titles ([https://blog.oup.com/2015/06/history-of-word-bad-origin-etymology/ part 1: "From Bad to Worse"],[https://blog.oup.com/2015/07/history-word-bad-origin-etymology-2/ part 2: "From Lunatics to Hermaphrodites"],[https://blog.oup.com/2015/07/history-word-bad-origin-etymology-3-dutch/ part 3: "The Dutch Uncle"]). Right now only untitled direct external links are in the reference section for the latter two.

:bloodofox: (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are looking for Sayers's "The Etymologies of Old English Bædling “Sodomite” and Modern English Bad" (2019), it is on his Academia.edu page ([https://www.academia.edu/111346754/The_Etymologies_of_Old_English_B%C3%A6dling_Sodomite_and_Modern_English_Bad]). It is a very short piece. It is not linked in the article's references. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Recently a big wave of changes and corrections I've made, including the addition of numerous WP:RS and data correction like correcting cited works dates, has been reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=1286203410&oldid=1286189850] by {{ping|Tim riley}}. This kind of wholesale, edit-warring removal of numerous additions and corrections simply because an article for whatever reason has made it from WP:GA to WP:FA turns away specialized editors who work to correct issues with articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:You have been asked already to seek consensus for any proposed major alterations. Pray do do. Tim riley talk 11:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Nobody needs permission to correct errors or add WP:RS to the article. Edit-warring isn't going to get you anywhere: all it's going to do is escalate the matter. Please self-revert your reversion. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The cycle of bold edit, reversion and discussion is established and expected practice, not edit-warring. The correct approach now is to discuss and establish consensus for intended changes, per WP:ONUS. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Bloodofox If you feel that your revisions are justified, take your time to discuss it with the community and reach a consensus rather than edit war. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I could say the same to some of the editors here: they're keen to revert-war but refuse to discuss the numerous problems that plague this article. It is good to know that somehow getting to FA status now enshrines an article. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:no one on this talk page has agreed with your approach on this article. you ought to reflect on why that is ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::We don't need to sit around and wait for agreement for correcting dates on references and citing etymologies from mainstream scholars. The primary issue here is that article was rubber stamped by editors without a background in linguistics (or care to learn enough about the topic to even discuss it) and haven't checked the sources but are very happy to edit-war to get their way. This just leads to problem articles and pushes away specialist editors who act to perform the check the article should have had before it passed GA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, the principal problem is that you are unwilling to discuss possible changes. Here, you could list your proposed edits and share your argumentation with us. Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've discussed them all here, unlike yourself. Your contribution to date has been two attempts at edit-warring. You've contributed nothing to the article and have not attempted to discuss its contents. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, you have not discussed anything. You made declarations and edits without waiting for other editors' comments on your suggestions. Be patient. Editing is not a holy war for spreading the Truth by force. Again, list your proposed edits and share your argumentation with us here. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You might read the talk page before mass reverting. I've dicussed and continue to discuss a variety of issues involved with the article and introduced numerous WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Sorry, but I must stop this discussion. You have been repeating your statements without trying to reach a consensus for a day. All your unilateral edits will be reverted, so you are wasting your time by editing the article without seeking consensus. Furthermore, read Wikipedia:Edit warring very carfully because your warring mentality can easily lead to the suspension of your editing privileges. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I see that you're new here so a word of advice: don't threaten other accounts, especially when you've twice revert-warred on the article without contributing to it or engaging in any meaningful way in discussion of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::For what its worth, the "corrected date" for Sayers is incorrect - I have pretty uniformly seen sources dated by the year the journal issue they were in was published, not the year they were approved by the journal and made available online. Sayers was published online in 2019, but Volume 33, Issue 1 of ANQ is dated 2020. This happens all the time on big journals like Antiquity, where there is often a considerable wait between the article being approved and it actually going into print. This does of course mean that sometimes you have to cite a source before it has a known date or issue number, and it that case you defer to the date published online and specified that it was a online publication. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Fair point. I was misled. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You were not. Generalissima is incorrect. [https://www.academia.edu/111346754/The_Etymologies_of_Old_English_Bædling_Sodomite_and_Modern_English_Bad The completed, post-editorial and peer review article was first published in 2019]. We're not discussing a pre-publication version or a submission version here. I've had articles wait for years before seeing print publication but physical publication is irrelevant when the journal makes the final, print-ready version available digital first (and that is also more than likely the version being cited here, for that matter). :bloodofox: (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Online publication dates are usually ignored for citing academic sources; it may be a holdover from the days of paper journals, but physical publication date is generally the date used for citing. Obviously Wikipedia doesn't have its own in-house style guide, but the current edition of the APA has separate instructions for citing an "advance online publication" (different than a pre-print!) and a published journal article.

::::::For reference, Bell 2023 cites the article as {{green|Sayers, William. "The Etymologies of Old English Bædling 'Sodomite' and Modern English Bad." ANQ 33, no. 1 (2020)}} Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"Online publication dates are usually ignored for citing academic sources", where are you getting this? Citing digital copies is now extremely common and exactly why Sayers uploaded it to Academia.edu and precisely why the journal's digital edition he uploaded outright says to cite it as 2019 ("To cite this article: William Sayers (2019) ... "). Unless you're specifically citing the physical version, the correct year is 2019. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Sawyer777}} Be that as it may, no one has been quite bold enough to dispute {{u|:bloodofox:}} on the content either. All hurdles thrown up have been essentially procedural, and don't grapple with what seems to be a highly pertinent series of critiques. For all the procedural flak being thrown at bloodofox, don't miss the wood for the trees - he's the only one who's made meaningful attempts to advance the discussion. Riposte97 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::that is not even remotely true. Borsoka, Generalissima, UndercoverClassicist, and Schrocat have all engaged with the content discussion. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::A lot of that "content discussion" can be summarized as little more than 'don't you change the article we promoted to FA!' followed by a mass revert, leading to a situation where numerous issues are raised and then the editors are not familiar enough with the topic to respond (one below even attempted to claim that the OED's stance of "unknown etymology" is somehow a support for "it came from the root of bæddel", maintaining misattribution to the OED just so we don't change the FA article). So far I am indeed the only editor here to bring up a variety of issues with this article, such as misattribution of the OED's stance on the etymology of bad in the introduction to the article, among a variety of other problems.

::::A healthy system would welcome and invite expansion and correction of any Wikipedia article, and encourage assessment of representation of sources. An unhealthy system seals off an FA and discourages any further development. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Right now the article lead reads (all bolding in the following quotes comes from me):

:The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, supports bæddel as the etymological root of the English adjective "bad", although various scholars propose alternative origins, including a shared root with both bæddel and bædling.

This is repeated in the body but is false. Although the contemporary online OED is not cited in the article, the OED's bad entry actually says:

:Summary: Uncertain origin

And then:

:Origin uncertain. Perhaps related to Old English bæddel hermaphrodite, homosexual man, man who does not conform to traditional notions of masculinity (quantity of stem vowel uncertain: see badlingn. ([https://www.oed.com/dictionary/bad_adj?tab=etymology])

The OED simply says it is "uncertain" and says "perhaps" there is a "relation". This is especially important because, a.) bad is a notoriously difficult word for philologists to trace and b.) as Liberman 2015 (and others, like Sayers) correctly highlight, it is natural to suspect that there is an unattested Old English form that produced the two words in the article. We must be more careful with sources than this, especially for GA and FA articles. I've changed this in the article before but the misrepresentation was mass-reverted. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Although I think the article's text does not contradict the OED, how would you rephrase it? Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The article's lead and body directly contradict what the OED actually says and this sort of thing is why I've made such a big fuss about the article. The OED by no means says it "supports bæddel as the etymological root of the English adjective "bad"". It explicitly says the etymology of bad is "uncertain". It would be accurate to say that the OED says it is uncertain but possible ("perhaps") that there is a connection between bad and bæddel. It only reports that it is a common philological proposal and it certainly does not claim that bad derives from bæddel (as Liberman and Sayers say, it is likely that an unrecorded Old English precursor to bad was in use that subsequently led to the development of, for example, bæddel, and seperately contemporary bad).

:::The reason that philologists are so cautious here is because there is no clearly attested Old English precursor to contemporary English bad, which is the major problem one encounters when attempting to trace the history of the word bad: it has no clear cognates in other Germanic languages and it only appears on the record after the end of the Old English period. Nonetheless, it appears to have been well-established when it does enter the historical record. This situation isn't unusual in historical linguistics (the historical record only provides so much insight.

:::To accurately reflect what the OED, Sanders, and Liberman (among other philologists) say, I would rewrite the sentence to instead highlight that etymological discussion around the two words this article covers frequently involves a suspected connection to the contemporary English word bad but because no Old English form of the word is attested, linguists have come to no agreement about the potential beyond suspecting a relationship. The article's body should also fully describe the proposed etymologies of, for example, Liberman. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The article does not say that OED asserts that "bad" derrived from "bæddel", but the fact itself that it mentions this possible etymology shows that it supports it. You have not still offered alternative wording here. Borsoka (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wrong. The OED's unambiguous position is that bad is "Of uncertain origin". The entry's etymological summary is simply (direct quote): "summary: origin uncertain". It commits to and supports no etymology. The OED's statement that the etymology is "uncertain" cannot accurately be reframed to become "the OED supports X etymology". The OED, among a lot of other text reviewing the literature, says "Perhaps related to" and never that it supports any etymology for bad, an important distinction.

:::::Again, the article incorrectly says: "The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, supports bæddel as the etymological root of the English adjective "bad"". The article claims the OED "supports". It clearly does not "support" any specific etymology for bad. A quick check of the OED should have picked this up in the GA review and, if not there, FA review.

:::::The whole section needs to be rewritten to accurately reflect what the sources like the OED, Liberman, and Sayers say on this matter. Additionally, although you were a reviewer for its FA status, you seem confused by this topic and I would advise becoming more familiar with it before approaching it further: you simply cannot be reinterpreting a source that clearly communicates "origin uncertain" as "source supports x etymology". The OED is rightly cautious and that is one of the reasons why it is held in such high regard as a source. Misattributing claims to sources is not OK, FA status or not. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You are still repeating that the whole section should be rewritten, although all editors watching this page must have understood that this is your main goal. Instead of repeating yourself, could you please propose alternative wording to be discussed? Borsoka (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And it does need to be rewritten. Although the OED is mentioned throughout the article, it is uncited. First, the misinformation about the OED needs to come out and second the etymology sections need to be rewritten to reflect what the sources actually say and what the linguists are actually proposing. I'll sit down and rewrite it as I have time: the urge by FA-reviewers to mass re-add misattributed sources has not been helpful in this process, but the etymologies of Sayers, Liberman, the OED, and others need to be presented in an objective manner. Right now the article downplays mainstream reception of these terms by philologists and this is the first thing that needs to be fixed in this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Instead of allowing other editors to comment your suggestions, you again arbitrarily edited the article. I fully agree with you that even FAs can significantly be improved, but you may want to be more cooperative to avoid severe sanctions. Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::As you've aggressively shown that any changes to the article from me will be met with your revert-warring and you seem to be unfamiliar with the this topic and the sources it invokes, see this discussion at RSN instead. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::RSN has nothing to do with this discussion. No one has challenged the reliability of any of the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Your interpretation of the source as "supporting" your claim is the issue at hand and RSN is a good venue to sort that out. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Putting my money where my mouth is: the cited source for the OED is Sayers, who quotes the OED ("updated in 2008"; I think the online edition is meant) as follows:

:::::::::::::{{tq|"Origin uncertain. Possibly related to baeddel ... it has been suggested that bad adj. could perhaps show the reflex of baeddel.}}

:::::::::::::I agree that this is short of "supports Zupitsa's theory" (it's more like "allows the possibility that Z. is correct). For the moment, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=1286503609&oldid=1286502684 this edit], I've gone with:

:::::::::::::: {{tq|The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, states that {{lang|ang|bæddel}} may be related to the the English adjective "bad"; other scholars have proposed that the latter may share a root with both {{lang|ang|bæddel}} and {{lang|ang|bædling}}.}} (lead)

:::::::::::::: {{tq| The OED Online and the 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary continue to state that {{lang|ang|bæddel}} is "perhaps related to" bad" (body)}}

:::::::::::::I don't have access to the OED itself: it would be beneficial, I think, for someone who does have access ({{u|Tim riley}}?) to check that Sayers 2020 is still up to date, and add a citation if so: otherwise, we should amend the text to say that this was true in 2020. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Again, I have access. The OED said (and says) "perhaps" there is a relation to bad but it does not mention Zupitza at all. The only scholar the OED mentions by name is Robert Coates in reference to the opposite of what the article's lead currently saddles the OED with ("... On the possibility of the word's occurrence in Old English place names (and hence an argument that bad adj. is the reflex of an unattested Old English form *badda of which bæddel is probably a derivative, rather than vice versa) see R. Coates ‘Middle English badde and related puzzles’ in North-Western European Language Evolution vol. 11 (1988) 91–104.)". :bloodofox: (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::It sounds from the body that the Zupitza citation may have only existed in the previous editions (he's cited [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.99992/page/n655/mode/2up here] in the 1913 edition, and the editor says he "sees with great probability" a root in Baeddel"). I'd have no issue with a change to say that the OED previously endorsed Zupitza (following MOS:LEAD).

:::::::::::::::Coates, incidentally, has (p. 99):

:::::::::::::::{{blockquote|{{tq|I am claiming ... that an OE adjective *badde is likely to have existed ... [not] very far removed from the present-day senses of the word bad ... It is furthermore probable that the word baeddel 'hermaphrodite', far from being the source of ME badde, is in fact an *-il- derivative of its ancestor, just as the synonymous OE baedling ... would be derivative.}}}}

:::::::::::::::If I understand that right, he's claiming that "bad" probably isn't a descendant of the words we discuss, but he is equally asserting that they are probably related (specifically, that baeddel etc are derives from the early form of bad). This would seem to support the lead statement that {{tq|other scholars have proposed that the latter ["bad"] may share a root with both bæddel and bædling}} UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Coates is saying there was likely an OE precursor to contemporary English bad that not only developed into bad but also produced the subjects of this article (Liberman and Sayers agree on this). The article's claim that contemporary English's bad derives *from* bæddel is a huge jump that is not in the 2025-era OED entry.

::::::::::::::::The whole coverage of bad, the OED, etc, needs to be disentangled and expanded upon using the works of philologists. The article body currently confuses what is and is not the contemporary OED (for example, there is no longer an OED Online: Web OED is now just the standard OED).

::::::::::::::::Right now this philological material is only partially covered (Liberman's is briefly touched on and stuffed at the end, for example). In fact, the article seems to avoid mentioning the definitions provided by these philologists in favor a strong emphasis on a proposal unique to an activism-focused paper by Wade 2024 ("third gender"). :bloodofox: (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::{{tq|The article's claim that contemporary English's bad derives *from* bæddel is a huge jump that is not in the 2025-era OED entry.}}: the article no longer says that the OED does say that. In fact, I don't see it mentioned as a contemporary view anywhere in the article. As for changing the name of "OED Online" to something like "the present online edition of the OED", I doubt anyone would have an issue with that. It certainly wouldn't be a "major change" within the meaning of WP:FAOWN. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Once again, don't mirepresent WP:FAOWN: It actually says that FA articles "are open for editing like any other" and that even assumes that the article was in fact "checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the featured article criteria". This article was barely even checked before it was passed on to FA and sent to the Wikipedia landing page. In fact, many, if not all, of the FA approvers were demonstrably unable to even access some of the most important sources used in it, liked OED. I certainly wish it was in a great state: I'd have left a congratulations on the talk page and would currently be working on something else with what little time I have for volunteering on Wikipedia rather than being met with hellfire and having to write a talk page essay to so much as correct a single sentence of the introduction to this little article. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

While a significant amount of this article was built on Liberman 2015, Liberman's proposed etymology for bad and the development of bæddel and bædling are only briefly touched on in favor of showcasing non-philological sources like Wade 2024. Liberman is a very well known philologist who specializes in Germanic languages (as many historical linguists do), including West Germanic languages (Old English is West Germanic language).

Previously I added a full account of Liberman's etymology, which involves development of the word from a baby word (yes, this is a thing that happens), yielding a precursors to Old English bad, which in turn produced the subject of the present article. However, as with other corrections, this was mass-reverted by the FA reviewers of this article without explanation or even acknowledgement of those well-sourced additions.

The absence of Liberman's full etymology, like the misrepresentation of the OED's stance on the word, should have been caught during the review of this article, either during its GA acceptance or its FA acceptance. For this to then be caught by an editor like myself who spotted it on the Wikipedia landing page and then for it to be mass-reverted by FA reviewers is not good and implies only editors with familiarity with linguistics should have been involved in the review. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Could you please share your proposal with the community here? Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::That'd be to add the full etymology rather than an excerpt buried at the end. Which I did—and was reverted for daring it. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Considering the current status quo of the article (apparently due to FA status, this article cannot be notably changed without agreement from the users who approved it for FA), might I request an explanation on why the matter of toponyms did not come up during its FA ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bæddel_and_bædling/archive1]) and GA reviews while the article so strongly emphasizes proposals apparently unique to Wade 2024? The matter of toponyms and personal names are commonly mentioned in WP:RS (including the OED: "It is possible that the word is found also in place names, but these could alternatively be explained as from a personal name *Bæddel..."). For context, I've tried to add RS on toponyms and personal names here in the past only to have those additions repeatedly mass-reverted by former FA reviewers. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:As many people have explained to you, there is an easy and well-established way to do this -- suggest the changes here before (or even while) making them. If it were me, I'd write a bulleted list of my concerns, copy in the part of the article I had an issue with, and write underneath what I proposed to do instead, and why. For example:

:* {{tq|The OED Online and the 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary continue to support Zupitza's theory}}: the OED online currently says [whatever the OED currently says that makes you doubt this]. Suggest instead {{tq|[another wording that you feel conveys the source accurately]}}.

:On the toponyms, I wouldn't personally have an issue with adding that in isolation, but that's not what you did: you made a whole series of changes -- some perhaps beneficial, several which introduced demonstrable problems -- without discussion. Had you made it more straightforward (by discussing here) to work out the rationale behind the different aspects of the changes, it would have been much easier to integrate them in a constructive way, and ultimately to get them to stick in the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've done that and the responses were confused or the matter was met with silence. Those "many people" you're referring to are mostly just the FA reviewers (including yourself), some defending their decisions, some floating that something may be wrong but what, and others evidently annoyed that I've actually put in the time to check out the various issues in the article that they did not before rubber stamping it for Wikipedia's landing page.

::Hostility to specialized volunteers who are actually checking the articles is bad for Wikipedia, but accurately reporting on sources and expanding articles with WP:RS is good

::Now, if you'd actually like to discuss improving the article, I'm interested in that but what I'm not interested in is being lectured by you about how you'd like to approve every change made to it before it goes live (or you'll revert it). Do you have anything to discuss here about the article itself? Have you accessed any of the sources in the article, like the OED's entry? :bloodofox: (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It is a matter of policy that major changes to an FA should be discussed before making them. Nobody has said they would "like to approve every change made to it before it goes live (or [they]'ll revert it)", but I don't understand how you can so consistently misunderstand so many people explaining to you exactly how to get what you want. Could you set out the changes you intend to make here, as the policy asks? If you think that reading the OED (a paywalled source) would change people's minds, why not copy-paste the excerpt in question? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::No, it is not a matter of policy: The "matter of policy" is that FA articles "are open for editing like any other" (WP:FA) and that assumes that the FA article is "checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the featured article criteria", which this article was obviously not. It's courtesy for a well-built, well-researched, and well-vetted article to not see major changes without presenting them before the panel on the talk page (changes to well-made, well-researched, and transparent FA and GA articles are typically easy) but this article is unfortunately not that.

::::I could dump the entire OED entry here but the issue is fair use. So here's some of it:

:::::Summary

:::::Of uncertain origin.

:::::Origin uncertain. Perhaps related to Old English bæddel hermaphrodite, homosexual man, man who does not conform to traditional notions of masculinity (quantity of stem vowel uncertain: see badling n.1): it has been suggested that bad adj. could perhaps show the reflex of bæddel, with loss of ‑l as also in much adj. and wench n., although the phonetic environment differs significantly; with the semantic development perhaps compare more general use of badling n.1 (a derivative of bæddel) as a term of abuse or contempt, although this is poorly attested; with the assumed development of adjectival use compare wretch adj., erming n.1

:::::Notes

:::::Old English bæddel is recorded only in glossarial sources; compare:

:::::[...]

:::::It is possible that the word is found also in place names, but these could alternatively be explained as from a personal name *Bæddel, pet-form of Badda (see below). It is perhaps ultimately < Old English bǣdan to force, constrain, impel, to require, demand, exact, to urge, incite, cognate with Old Saxon bēdian to drive on, force, Old High German beiten to force, to request, require, Old Icelandic beiða to ask, beg, to hunt, chase, Gothic baidjan to compel, exercise a moral constraint (probably ultimately a derivative formation < the same base as bide v.), although perhaps compare also Old English bǣdan to defile (of uncertain origin, and recorded in only a single attestation, which could alternatively be interpreted as showing an example of bǣdan to force, above).

:::::A suggested derivation of bad adj. directly < gebǣded, past participle of bǣdan, is less likely, although for the suggested semantic development compare the development of French chétif, ultimately < classical Latin captīvus (see caitiff n.).

:::::bad adj. is earliest attested as an element in surnames (compare quots. 1203 at sense A.I.1a, 1276 at sense A.I.1b). It is uncertain whether the Middle English surname Badde, Badd shows this word (compare William Badde (1221), Petri Badde (1264), etc.), or alternatively the Old English personal name Badda. It is also possible that Old English Badda could itself be related, but there is no positive evidence to support this supposition. On the possibility of the word's occurrence in Old English place names (and hence an argument that bad adj. is the reflex of an unattested Old English form *badda of which bæddel is probably a derivative, rather than vice versa) see R. Coates ‘Middle English badde and related puzzles’ in North-Western European Language Evolution vol. 11 (1988) 91–104. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::We're having this discussion in two different places, but I think the MOS:LEAD and WP:TSI case is prety clear, so I've removed "citing the philologist J. Z." in the lead. I don't think I can see any further disagreement between what's said in the sources and in the article -- noting that a detailed discussion of the etymology of "bad" (outside its connection, or not, to baeddel etc) would be out of scope in this particular article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Right now this article strongly emphasizes discussion about a supposed "third gender" associated with the words bæddel and bædeling. Is this a proposal in fact specifically from and limited to Wade 2024, an activism-focused and non-philological source? If so, why is this not explicitly and clearly attributed as just Wade's proposal? And if it's just Wade's proposal, is it not WP:UNDUE to emphasize it in the lead?

At the same time, why are philologists so briefly represented and discussed in this philology article? The philogy section reads in a confused manner (many of the philologists agree that there was likely a precursor to bad that *also* spawned bæddel and bædling). It is also not clearly presented in this article that philologists typically render these words as having a very negative semantic value (for example, Liberman translates bæddel as 'a bad man' and Sayers renders it as 'sodomite'). Why are these definitions and the definition of the OED, which is similarly negative, not included in the article? And why are the etymologies of philologists only partially presented and placed at the very end? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:We have four references on {{green|Bædling is thought by scholars to denote some sort of gender nonconformity, sexual passivity, or possibly a third gender}}. I've just added a reference (with quotation) from Clark, which does explicitly say that bædlings may have been thought of as "not-men". Not all of those sources endorse all three parts of the sentence, but Clark has the quote mentioned in the footnote, and Bell has {{Green|It is not out of the realm of possibility that Alcuin [in glossing the word Bædling] could have been familiar with the concept of a “third gender” ... Or could beard-lessness even be read as a mark of what we would call a trans or non-binary identity?}}. That's a lot more than just Wade's proposal, so I think it's entirely WP:DUE in the lead, especially as we've only couched this as a suggestion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::This is a good example of why transparent sourcing is crucial: That sounds a lot like a lump of WP:SYNTH and nobody should be wondering exactly who said what or why, especially in an article topic that is invariably a magnet for activist editors. Who said what and where needs to be much clearer.

::That said, as an FA reviewer, do you have an explanation for why these are so strongly emphasized but the definitions of the OED, Sayers, and Liberman—the latter especially a major philologist—are not included?

::Right now the minor scholar Wade (2024) is repeatedly referenced in the intro while major philogists like Liberman are ignored. This article also implies that the article's subject words are somehow positive rather than outright derogatory/negative (whereas they are typically rendered as 'bad man', 'sodomite', etc. by philologists). :bloodofox: (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Borsoka}} suggested above that you set out what you propose to add from Liberman -- what do you think is missing? In general, few people are going to have a problem with someone who adds good material from a reliable source, but if they do, we have a well-trodden path for sorting out that disagreement. As a word of warning, the Liberman sources you've mentioned above are all from a blog, which would normally fail the standard of WP:HQRS, WP:SELFPUB etc required here -- has Liberman said the same things in peer-reviewed print? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::So, it sounds like you're angling to get Liberman out of the article: shall we simply go to RSN with that one to avoid any further wasted time? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The relevant bit of policy:

:::::{{blockquote|{{tq|...Self-published material such as ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.}}}}

:::::It's not out of the question that a discussion would conclude that Liberman is enough of an expert to allow under WP:SELFPUB, but in general, it's unlikely that such a discussion would allow a self-published source to be used to contradict peer-reviewed academic sources, particularly if the material in question is only found in self-published sources. How it's used is probably going to be more important than whether it's used. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Now, now: the details. We're not just discussing the blog of Liberman, an expert as one can find alive in the field. No, it's the Oxford University Press's blog that maintains his column called "Oxford Etymologist". But since you've implied you'd like to bump Liberman out of the picture because he "contradicts" sources like Wade 2024, let's cut to the chase and go ahead and get some more opinions before we discuss it any further. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Given that the blog is published by Oxford University Press, :bloodofox is clearly correct here per policy, so what's the problem? {{s|And why does the "Connection to bad" section of the article cite the 1989 second print edition of the OED, using the present tense, no less, rather than the 2010 third print edition, (I have access to the online version), which says, "ORIGIN Middle English: perhaps from Old English bǣddel "hermaphrodite, womanish man"? It appears that the second edition is cited only to support the "perhaps related to" bad" wording.}} Carlstak (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps the problem here in part stems from the title "philologist" sounding a bit antiquated in English. It may need to be emphasized that "etymologist" and "historical linguist" are functionally equivalent when discussing questions such as the antecedents of bæddel and modern English "bad". {{pb}}The broader question, though, is what should happen when an FA turns out to be problematic, as this one turns out to be. Is a formal FAR required? Or can the problem be resolved through collaborative editing now that it's been identified? Since it was promoted very recently, and those who worked on it and approved it are still active, I believe this falls under IAR and it would save a lot of time and agita to just go ahead and fix it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have read both the [https://online.ucpress.edu/jmw/article/2/1-2/11/110810/The-Beast-with-Two-BacksBestiality-Sex-Between-Men Wade 2020 source] and the 3-part Liberman blog ([https://blog.oup.com/2015/06/history-of-word-bad-origin-etymology/ Chapter 1]; [https://blog.oup.com/2015/07/history-word-bad-origin-etymology-2/ Chapter 2]; [https://blog.oup.com/2015/07/history-word-bad-origin-etymology-3-dutch/ Chapter 3]), and it is interesting seeing the differences between the blog style and the academic piece. What is noticeable, if you read the entire Wade 2020 piece is how small a part the 'Bæddel and bædling' discussion takes up of the whole piece. It is around 4 paragraphs in the 'Gender and Race in the 'Paenitentiale Theodori’s Afterlives' section. It is clearly relevant, but to what degree really needs one to have available an academically peer reviewed publication dedicated to the etymology of the words. You need experts to get this sort of overview done right.

Liberman's blog, being a blog, allows him to say more and in a more informal way, than he would have done if publishing as an academic article. There will be a number of reasons why he wrote about this as a blog, rather than as part of a formal piece of academic writing. Trying to bring the two together, as this Wikipedia article attempts, is not easy. I am not about to suggest how to do that, but it does need to be a consideration that the lack of mature and focused academic publications on this topic needs to be made clear to the reader, rather than attempting to synthesise something from the existing literature.

On a minor point, would it be possible to tidy the current five references to Liberman's OUP blog entries (a, b, c, d, e) to say which of chapters 2 and 3 are being referred to, and maybe to include chapter 1 (they should really be formally separated into Liberman 2015a, Liberman 2015b and Liberman 2015c)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The "third gender" element is mentioned in Wade 2020 ("Clark notes that bædling might imply a third gender but suggests that there is not enough evidence for this" and "There is evidence to suggest that the word bædling implied a third gender or some form of gender nonconformity." However, I don't have access to Wade 2024 (this source is 11 pages in The Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature, with the title 'Religion and Trans Literature'). What I can see is the abstract:

This chapter considers the historical relationships in literature between religion and what we might call trans experiences. It takes the historical scholarship of the activist and novelist Leslie Feinberg seriously in order to explore Feinberg’s claims about the history of Christianity and trans life in the early Middle Ages. Feinberg—a secular Jewish writer—focused on European Christianity to expose the source of European imperialism’s gender binary. Feinberg argued that European Christianity suppressed a previous trans-positive communal pagan tradition while importing some trans figures from pagan religions into Christianity as trans male saints. I test Feinberg’s historical hypotheses by examining three premodern sites of gender variance: pre-Christian burials in northern Europe, the obscure Old English gender category bædling, and the trans saints tradition as depicted in the Old English Martyrology. The burials and the bædlings hint at an early transfeminine category of gender surviving into early Christian England. At the same time, the trans male saints suggest that the church, indeed, imported Greek gender-variant figures into itself but sidelined transfeminine figures such as the bædling. These trans figures, however, are all racialized. Christian documents associated both the trans saints and the bædling with foreignness while portraying Jewish and Muslim people and people of color as gendervariant. My chapter thus suggests that scholars have misjudged Feinberg’s work as without historical value. I build on hir work by making two further points: that Christianity has used portrayals of gender variance to further racism and that the rise of Christianity led to a surge of transmisogyny while platforming transmasculine saints.

:{{yo|Carcharoth}} Within the body of the text, Wade writes for about a page about bædlings without mentioning Feinberg. That is only circled around to later in the text, and the article does not cite those portions. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)