Talk:Whipping Tom

	Whipping Tom 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 6, 2025 Peer review Reviewed January 27, 2025 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 9, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in late 17th-century London, men put on women's clothing and walked the streets in hopes of catching the eye of Whipping Tom?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Unexplained reversion

@SchroCat: Would you care to explain why you thought this utterly atrocious piece of writing deserved to be reinstated to the article?

The report of the Wallis's activities and trial are from the report "The Tryal, Examination and Conviction; of Thomas Wallis, Vulgarly Called Whipping Tom"

I'd also like to know what prompted you to revert my other edits. Zacwill (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to rephrase your question in a less aggressive manner I'd be absolutely delighted to. Apologies for the reversion not having an edit summary: I was editing on a mobile and mishit the post key while scrolling down. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you were actually sorry you would rectify the omission now instead of tone policing. Zacwill (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't go back and fill in an edit summary; all I can do is apologise. If you want me to respond in an aggressive and abrasive manner, I can do that too, but starting a thread in such a manner is not really conducive to a constructive conversation, particularly as I'm still in a good mood after a nice dog walk this morning. Again, if you want to ask nicely, I'm happy to respond nicely; if you really don't want to, I'll respond in kind. Your call. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice reverted an edit of mine without explaining why and are now ignoring my request that you do so because you feel that it was phrased in an insufficiently deferential manner. This is bordering on disruptive. Zacwill (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive, and no-one has asked you to be "deferential", just not abrasive and aggressive: if you are unable to communicate in a fitting manner, that's very much a 'you' problem. Still, if you insist on getting all hissy about it, I reverted because the changes were, by and large, crap. What was there previously was, with a slight exception, stronger than your replacement. The exception has now been edited. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you've moved on from talking about your morning and are prepared now to discuss the matter at hand, but I don't accept your assessment of my edit, which corrected several grammatical and stylistic errors. You cannot use a definite article before "Wallis's". You cannot use "identify" to mean "note". Your use of "while" in "while calling Wallis 'a dangerous deviant'" makes this seem like a concessive clause in spite of the fact that it is not at odds with the rest of the sentence. The comma in the final paragraph is superfluous. Zacwill (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on one of those points only. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving those points to one side, what about "the report [...] are from the report"? Do you really think that this is a well-written phrase? Zacwill (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that a while ago - not sure how it got back in, but it's been removed again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The incorrect conjugation survives, however. Also, what "report" are you even referring to? The summary given in this article? Zacwill (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the repetition of "the report" has been fixed, and the sentence now is clear and better than Zackwill's version. As for their other proposals, the dates presented are clear and "18th century" was wrong to describe 1681; "notes" is wrong, as this appears to be the historian's assessment, not a fact; and "a total of five times" is redundant. So I agree that Zackwill's edit was correctly reverted. This is a WP:Featured article, which means that a lot of very experienced editors have already reviewed it; when I propose changes, especially "grammatical and stylistic" changes, to an FA article I try to approach my proposal with humility and patience, and without assumptions like "I am right, and what is there is 'error' ", because a. I could be wrong; and b. the idea may have been considered and rejected at FAC. Of course, even FA articles can be improved, so with the above in mind, clear (and, I hope, WP:civil) suggestions will, of course, be considered. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the substitution of "described" for the duplicate "reported/report is an improvement. The other proposed alterations are a matter of the new editor's personal stylistic preference and are unnecessary, it seems to me. Tim riley talk 16:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The pictured map dates from 1754.

If you object to "notes", then "writes" or "claims" would be better. You cannot use "identifies" in the way it is being used in this article. Zacwill (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Claims"? Good grief... It’s fine as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't. Correct usage of "identifies": "X identifies Y as Z". Incorrect usage: "X identifies that Y". Zacwill (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its use is far wider than that rather restrictive effort. - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend caution with "claim". These are Gowers's wise words on the matter: The proper meaning of to claim is to demand recognition of a right. … The enlargement of claim ought to be deplored by all those who like to treat words as tools of precision, and to keep their edges sharp. Why should claim, which has its own useful job to do, claim a job that is already being efficiently done by others? Perhaps the idea underlying this usage is that the writer claims credence for an improbable or unverified assertion. The final words are key here, I think: "claim" when used in the suggested manner has the implication that one doesn't necessarily believe it. I much enjoy Fowler's original article on "claim" which begins A vulgarism that has made its way, probably through the advertisement column, into journalism, & is now of daily currency, is the use of claim in the senses of assert, maintain, or represent, with the infinitive construction admissible after them, but not after it. The only legitimate infinitive after c. occurs when c. is in the active & also has the same subject as the infinitive (he claims to have proved his case, to be the heir, to be rewarded). Examples of the false idiom are : — This new product, which Mr Sandow claims to be absolutely pure (asserts)./an automatic self-starter, which is claimed to be very reliable (represented). /The gun is claimed to be the most serviceable weapon of its kind (asserted)./ Failure to live up to what we c. to be oar most serious convictions (represent)./ Usage is not, as it is often claimed to be, the absolute law of language (asserted)./A play by Tolstoy, which is claimed to take the first place among . . . (represented)./ A problem which is claimed to be among the most pressing (maintained). That was written a hundred years ago and usage has moved on since then, but nonetheless there is wisdom in the old boy's comments. Tim riley talk 13:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...and also MOS:CLAIM. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I suggested "claim" was that you seemed to think it was important that Inglis's assessment not be presented as fact. My original suggestion was "note", which you took exception to. Zacwill (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a certain weight to ‘note’ which makes it inappropriate. Again, see MOS:CLAIM. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then "write". Anything is better than "identify", which, again, is not natural in this context. Zacwill (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s absolutely acceptable here. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus for a change either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are all right as we are, I think. Unless Zacwill can obtain a consensus to the contrary I suggest we close this discussion. Tim riley talk 20:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that subject-verb agreement errors are acceptable in a featured article? Zacwill (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Wikipedia:Cleanup of this discussion, because I think that it would benefit from additional perspectives. Zacwill (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about "states"? That being said, I don't really see anything wrong with "identify." InfernoHues (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"He claimed"

Coming from WP:Cleanup, I wanted to share my thoughts. A claim should not be presented as a fact. I attempted to review the cited source, but the available preview is limited. If the statement is based on second-hand reporting (e.g., someone hearing him say it), then the attribution should reflect that, such as: “It is believed that he claimed…” or “It was reported that he claimed…”.Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley, Zacwill, SchroCat, InfernoHues, and Ssilvers: Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeurbanite, Is this connected to the above thread or to a different point? If it's to do with the above thread, then I think we've already got a consensus (and the MOS, in the shape of WP:CLAIM) against its use. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeurbanite repeats what has already been explained above and so I have no quarrel with his/her interpretation. Nothing has emerged that indicates any redrawing of the existing text. Tim riley talk 14:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The topic seemed to warrant its own section for discussion, but feel free to remove it if you think that’s more appropriate.Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]