Talk:Simeon Monument
 | A fact from Simeon Monument appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 January 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
What is a "p****** post"?
editIt is not explained anywhere else. What does this fact even mean? Usually the number of asterisks implies the length of the word but no 7-letter "naughty" p-words come to mind. Is the censorship obvious to native UK speakers? —Akrabbimtalk 14:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Almost certainly "pissing post", but the asterisks are self-censoring on the part of the anonymous 1804 correspondent, not on the part of either the newspaper that printed the letter or of Wikipedia. In the absence of a source that explicitly says "yes, pissing post is what was meant"—which obviously will never exist—it would be original research for us to write the word in full. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Does the secondary source (Sowan) say anything about it other than reprinting the original verbatim? That such a source "obviously will never exist" isn't true; if there was a modern-day RS that stated as such then we could use it. —Akrabbimtalk 16:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- If a modern day source were to make such a statement, it would by definition be an unreliable source and as a consequence unsuitable for use in Wikipedia, as that would be prima facie evidence of fabrication. ‑ Iridescent 17:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Does the secondary source (Sowan) say anything about it other than reprinting the original verbatim? That such a source "obviously will never exist" isn't true; if there was a modern-day RS that stated as such then we could use it. —Akrabbimtalk 16:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a fitful stream of references to micturation in the sources.
Hylton says, after referring to the "paltry gew-gaw" comment: "Others, less polite, called it a 'p*****g post' or, as we would more politely say, a place for urination."[1] And then the BBC link on the 2007 restoration mentions it "sometimes even being used as a spot for men to urinate" (presumably for those who for some reason found themselves unwilling or unable to make use of the public conveniences nearby). So something further could be said if it were thought desirable.
May one ask, does our gentle author have access to copies of the Reading Mercury from September 1804? I've tried at BNA, but the relevant dates appear to be absent. 213.205.240.246 (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- The archives of Reading Museum and Reading Council (they share a building) will have original back issues; the Bodleian should do as well but don't quote me on the latter. Much as I respect the principle of verifying sources as thoroughly as possible, I'm not inclined to spend the time and money to trek all the way out to darkest Berkshire for the sake of re-confirming from primary sources a trivial point on which every available secondary source agrees, for an article that gets an average of nine views per day. One can say with absolutely certainty that the only point in question is whether the original was formatted "p******" or *p―" (the horizontal bar was the typical style of self-censorship for the period, but every source I've seen that quotes Man's letter uses the asterisks); an 1804 English local paper would no more have printed the word "pissing" in full than a 2018 English local paper would print horse-porn. ‑ Iridescent 10:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)