![]() | Mary Toft 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. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2009. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Is it known how Manningham explained her parturition of rabbit corpses? JFW | T@lk 09:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another source is here. Carcharoth 11:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It is also the reason, according to some magic history scholars like Dr. Abo, that magicians started to pull rabbits out of hats. If she could pull them out of there, magicians could pull them out of hats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazoo23 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This was moved from Mary Toft but "Toft" not "Tofts" is her name according to everything I've read on the topic and the move seems to have been done without discussion here. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't request that it is moved back but I'll leave this open for a bit before getting the ball rolling. ( Emperor 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
Discussed before at Talk:Mary_Tofts#Name, I want to see what the opinion on this is. Just about all the early literature I have read on this subject uses 'Toft' instead of 'Tofts'. I don't think there is any longer a rationale for retaining the use of 'Tofts', and therefore want to move the article to 'Mary Toft'. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Do "hoax", "rabbits", "newspapers" and "porter" really need to be linked? This seems a little excessive to me. Graham Colm Talk 10:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Since, apart from the prurient exhiliration it arouses, this story is about maternal impression, I was surprised to have to work so far down into it before the old medieval idea was first introduced. I'd have edited it into the opening, but I know Wikipedia's august Featured Article vetting committee has passed the article for the Main Page. So there must be a reason for its omission.-- Wetman ( talk) 03:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has both American English (skeptical) and British English (coloured) spelling. It should consistently use one or the other. 86.152.23.225 ( talk) 06:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"... between twenty-four and twenty-five" I don't like the way this is phrased. "twenty-four or twenty-five" OR "about twenty-five" OR "approximately twenty-five" would surely be better. I'd like to re-phrase this. Any thoughts? Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, someone beat me to it! Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a great article, but I'm curious how this played out in regard to the " childbed fever". This story dates to a period when the disease had become rampant, but long before it was understood. Did she have no fear of infection from all these procedures? How is it that she did manage to escape infection, despite the attentions of so many filthy-fingered surgeons?
Also, the current version states that she went into labor in September 1726 and delivered a daughter in February 1727, a feat to rival the other. This should be fixed - it would be interesting to know for sure that despite loose cat claws and all she still remained fertile. (But isn't it a pity that this did not lead to the invention of the intrauterine device?) Wnt ( talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The parenthetical addition weighs down what had been a completely entrancing first sentence:
"Mary Toft (née Denyer) (c. 1701–1763), also called Mary Tofts, was an English woman from Godalming, Surrey, who in 1726 became the subject of considerable controversy (and minor celebrity) when she tricked doctors into believing that she had given birth to rabbits."
"Controversy" implies some degree of public attention, celebrity, or notoriety, so the added phrase provides no useful information (and is elaborated sufficiently later), interrupts the sentence's "pay off," and is not reader-friendly. It's the kind of diddling and over-nicety to which Wiki editors are prone. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The letter beginning with "Since I wrote to you" is written with long S, but it includes the word "Satisfaction". Is the presence of "s" instead of "ſ" in this word in the original? We either need to correct the text here or to insert a [sic]. Nyttend ( talk) 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't see the need for an edit war ovwr this, at the time the mass population would not even have heard of her, well known is more than plenty see is not even famous niw, actually she is nit even "well known" now. Govindaharihari ( talk) 10:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Worthless attempts at childish insults won't make you right either. Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to give compliments to all the writers of this article. It is a fascinating and disgusting story that I couldn't stop reading! A good job, well done, ツ Stacey ( talk) 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Mary Toft 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. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2009. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Is it known how Manningham explained her parturition of rabbit corpses? JFW | T@lk 09:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another source is here. Carcharoth 11:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It is also the reason, according to some magic history scholars like Dr. Abo, that magicians started to pull rabbits out of hats. If she could pull them out of there, magicians could pull them out of hats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazoo23 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This was moved from Mary Toft but "Toft" not "Tofts" is her name according to everything I've read on the topic and the move seems to have been done without discussion here. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't request that it is moved back but I'll leave this open for a bit before getting the ball rolling. ( Emperor 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
Discussed before at Talk:Mary_Tofts#Name, I want to see what the opinion on this is. Just about all the early literature I have read on this subject uses 'Toft' instead of 'Tofts'. I don't think there is any longer a rationale for retaining the use of 'Tofts', and therefore want to move the article to 'Mary Toft'. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Do "hoax", "rabbits", "newspapers" and "porter" really need to be linked? This seems a little excessive to me. Graham Colm Talk 10:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Since, apart from the prurient exhiliration it arouses, this story is about maternal impression, I was surprised to have to work so far down into it before the old medieval idea was first introduced. I'd have edited it into the opening, but I know Wikipedia's august Featured Article vetting committee has passed the article for the Main Page. So there must be a reason for its omission.-- Wetman ( talk) 03:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has both American English (skeptical) and British English (coloured) spelling. It should consistently use one or the other. 86.152.23.225 ( talk) 06:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"... between twenty-four and twenty-five" I don't like the way this is phrased. "twenty-four or twenty-five" OR "about twenty-five" OR "approximately twenty-five" would surely be better. I'd like to re-phrase this. Any thoughts? Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, someone beat me to it! Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a great article, but I'm curious how this played out in regard to the " childbed fever". This story dates to a period when the disease had become rampant, but long before it was understood. Did she have no fear of infection from all these procedures? How is it that she did manage to escape infection, despite the attentions of so many filthy-fingered surgeons?
Also, the current version states that she went into labor in September 1726 and delivered a daughter in February 1727, a feat to rival the other. This should be fixed - it would be interesting to know for sure that despite loose cat claws and all she still remained fertile. (But isn't it a pity that this did not lead to the invention of the intrauterine device?) Wnt ( talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The parenthetical addition weighs down what had been a completely entrancing first sentence:
"Mary Toft (née Denyer) (c. 1701–1763), also called Mary Tofts, was an English woman from Godalming, Surrey, who in 1726 became the subject of considerable controversy (and minor celebrity) when she tricked doctors into believing that she had given birth to rabbits."
"Controversy" implies some degree of public attention, celebrity, or notoriety, so the added phrase provides no useful information (and is elaborated sufficiently later), interrupts the sentence's "pay off," and is not reader-friendly. It's the kind of diddling and over-nicety to which Wiki editors are prone. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The letter beginning with "Since I wrote to you" is written with long S, but it includes the word "Satisfaction". Is the presence of "s" instead of "ſ" in this word in the original? We either need to correct the text here or to insert a [sic]. Nyttend ( talk) 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't see the need for an edit war ovwr this, at the time the mass population would not even have heard of her, well known is more than plenty see is not even famous niw, actually she is nit even "well known" now. Govindaharihari ( talk) 10:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Worthless attempts at childish insults won't make you right either. Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to give compliments to all the writers of this article. It is a fascinating and disgusting story that I couldn't stop reading! A good job, well done, ツ Stacey ( talk) 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)