Talk:List of child brides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for List of child brides:

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Removed sections[edit]

I don't agree with the removal, while common in older times, something unusual by today's standards and its examples among already notable people are relevant examples. As for the query about sourcing, TRPOD could you clarify what you mean? The ages themselves are derived from birth and wedding dates from the articles we already have about these people. Ranze (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

sources that may or may not exist in another article do not matter. content and claims in any particular article, list or not must be referenced within particular article in which the claim is being made.
the title of the article is list of "youngest" wives- therefore each entry must be identified as the " youngest" by a source. If this is just "people who I think got married very young" then you are in WP:IINFO territory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
given the introduction, you might be able to make the case that List of girls who were married before they were 18 might be a legitimate subject, but the 18 is quite arbitrary and culturally and time specific. List of girls who were married before the age of consent presents similar issues in determining what the age of consent was at the time for each entry, and historically I am not sure that age of consent was concept in many cultures. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
on consideration, List of child brides would appear to be an encyclopedic approach to the subject as you have initially laid out in the introduction and so i have moved it to that title. Note that your introduction is flawed with both original research making sweeping claims from primary sources that are about a very limited scope and a very modern western bias and will need to be cleaned up with sources that speak more directly on the subject. Each list entry will need a citation here in this article describing the subject as a child bride. As an overall organizing structure, I think ordering chronologically makes the most sense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The tabulated layout separating ages was obviously clearer and easier to reference. As previously stated the links contain citations. If for some reason you disagree, please give a clear and concise explanation on here of why you thing a column of names is better.AlwynJPie (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

1) sections containing one person are unnecessary creating an overly long table of contents and bloated appearance. 2) the age of historical entries is often not known for certain making the entry position impossible to be known. 3) arrangement by historical date allows a better understanding of how the concept and application has changed over time.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The list may have looked bloated when it was sectioned according to age but I feel it is a lot less appeasing in the way it is laid out now. TheRedPenOfDoom Did you really have to delete all those entries? As I previously said, there was supported evidence in the links on all the entries that I looked at. I respect of removing the sections: whilst I agree that some of the age divided sections were sparse, this should be expected with any new article. I would expect the number of entries in all age sections to increase as I am pretty sure there has been thousands of notable child brides throughout history. Most articles on Wikipedia have started out small and it's probably more convenient to put the framework in place first as I suspect this is what the founder of the article had in mind when he composed it. I agree with you that putting the entries in chronicle order is helpful and reduces the need to estimate an age especially where there is uncertainty or dispute. Another problem lies in exactly what constitutes a marriage; for example Aisha, "who was six or seven when betrothed to Muhammad, and nine, or ten, when the marriage was consummated"; and Margaret Beaufort's marriage to John de la Pole: she herself never acknowledged this marriage. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

1) if the only criteria for the article is "easy to read" you might have a point. but that would also lead to 24 point font and no words of more than 2 syllables and no sentences of more than 6 words. or maybe no words at all and just an infographic.
2) even if a "source in another article" was sufficient excuse for not having a source in this article (it is not) many of the other articles do not actually HAVE sources supporting any type of claim of "child bride" status. I have been looking.
3) we do not base an article today on what an article in the future might look like, particularly a list article when we do not have any criteria established and so we do not have any possibility of knowing how many valid entries and what type of organization scheme might be most appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you RedPen for your clear and concise response. AlwynJPie (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


I have removed the statement

  • "The list is limited to child marriages (girls married before turning 18). "

Utilizing that as an inclusion criteria is problematic. Defining the contents as "child marriages (girls married before turning 18)." is an a-historical view, when most of the entries will have taken place well before such a conceptual view applied.

We need to come up with some other more appropriate cross cultural and cross historical definition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)