![]() | Biddenden Maids 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 April 8, 2012. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 23, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Edward Hasted dismissed the existence of
Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst (pictured) of
Biddenden,
Kent as "
vulgar tradition"? |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article says they are conjoined twins, then ends by saying they were probably sisters, and "may have beent twins." Is there any question when they are conjoined at birth? Or, are we saying that this is a fraud?-- Esprit15d 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
left a piece of land of about 20 acres (81,000 m²) to the churchwardens of Biddenden, the rent from which was to provide a dole of bread and cheese (and sometimes beer and, today, also tea) to the poor (now the less well-off) of the village <-- Is this one of those silly political correctness jokes or do the Brits actually say "the less well-off" to the poor?-- Find mobius 10:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did metros remove my note? It was perfectly acceptable for people to know that there were no documented cases of this kind of conjoined twin.
IslaamMaged126 (
talk) 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the best uses of Measuring Worth I've seen including a statement of the limitations.
UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Measuring Worth: UK CPI. The rural Kent economy in this period was based on tenant farming and involved significant amounts of barter and payment in kind. Consumer pricing does not translate accurately into modern equivalents; 2010 equivalent prices should be treated as a very rough guide only.
You should cite Measuring Worth, they provide author, title and year for each data set (at the results section). Fifelfoo ( talk) 11:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we need a section explaining the 400 year discrepancy in the suggested dates for the twins? FWIW, the 1500 date is more plausible than the 1100 date for reasons given in the article. I think Coles Finch explains the discrepancy well. Mjroots ( talk) 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very happy about Coles Finch being treated as a RS in this context. It's a 1933 book, on a completely unrelated topic, which happens to mention the twins, and I worked pretty hard keeping this explicitly sourced from those few books by people who were either experts in teratology or significant historians and folklorists. By treating his opinions (which appear to just be cut-and-pastes from Clinch) as of equal weight to Hasted, Chambers or Bondeson, to my mind it gives far too much weight to Clinch's fringe view that the "1100" on the cake was actually "1500". ( This was the image Clinch was talking about when he made that claim; I can't see any way that can be seen as "1500" by anyone who hasn't already made up their mind what they want to see.) Clinch's view deserves to be mentioned given his impact, but I don't think anyone takes it seriously—the evidence against it is fairly strong. (A two-headed woman living a few minutes from Canterbury, in a period where anything out of the ordinary was documented obsessively, would surely have been mentioned somewhere, and there is no mention of anything resembling the legend prior to 1770, other than a single ambiguous "maidens who grew together" in the 1640s.) – iridescent 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely the names added in the C19 aren't the best material for a title. Shouldn't this be titled Biddenden Maids, as the article asserts they are "commonly known"? Not obscure enough? -- Wetman ( talk) 22:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The topic of this article seems to be the charity as well as the maids themselves... and the lands that funded the charities. Shouldn't it be the Biddenden Maids heritage ? 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 04:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is missing coverage of the bequeath, there is little detail about the "Bread and Cheese Lands". 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 04:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
As so often happens, the lead picture is a 19th century engraving of a completely fictitious nature. This picture is merely some 19th century artist's drawing based on no more evidence than that presented in this article. This picture has no current relevance whatever and as historical reference is only relevant to the date at which it was produced.
Can I propose that one of the many more "genuine" drawings is employed, either:
Amandajm ( talk) 07:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biddenden Maids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)