Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:00, 4 February 2015

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Who killed this article?

Seriously, not mentioning the "half you age plus seven" rule is just bad. It's a general rule of thumb used do define if age disparity is within ethical limits. I'm very sad to see it not only has been removed from this article, but there is even a redirect that points you to this hoples article. This article then skips the whole point. This article doesn't tell the reader the basics. There are references available to the "half your age plus seven" rule, it has been mentioned in movies and in xkcd.com those references should be a valid source for a pop culture guidline like this. I saw there was another topic here talking about this problem, but I thought I'd make a new one just to state how important this is. After reading this article, will the reader know the answer to basic questions about this topic? I think the answer to that question, sadly is no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.248.149 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to sign on to say I completely agree. Anytime a friend mentions they have a new older, or younger date, you can watch the people in the group quickly run the math. The bottom age limit is usually taken as x/2 + 7, with x as your age. The upper limit is usually taken as x/2 + x - 7. Similarly, this is often used to point out who is in the right/wrong of the relationship. If a man is 40, and he's dating a 28 year old, that's not normally considered too much of a social faux pas, depending on the people involved. But for a 28 year old to date a 40 year old is a bit strange (max 35). As such, it is feasible to show a range of values for healthy age disparity for both members of the relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.99.110 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick killed the article long ago. Actually, it's not entirely his fault. Somebody erased everything on the "Half your age plus seven" rule and put "TYRA SHOW!". I've been around Misplaced Pages long enough to know. Although I haven't registered until recently. AVanover (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's add the rule again but not call it "ethical" like the first comment does. It's not an ethical rule, it's rather a rule "what is usually accepted within a surrounding community" like the second says.

Also the explanations of slang like "cougar" or "quail from St.Quentin" was a usefull below-the-line reading. Exactness is fine but it's literally worthless to have a nothing but an exact article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.248.77 (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are arguments to be made on either side. I would suggest responding to Jimbo's comments below if you feel the need to reinstate. – RobinHood70 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"never date anyone under half your age plus seven" So a six-year-old wouldn't be allowed to date anyone younger than ten? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

That's why it's labelled "a rule of thumb"...there are clearly situations in which it becomes inappropriate, or just plain non-sensical, to apply it. – RobinHood70 05:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

198.144.192.45 -- The most natural interpretation of the "half-age-plus-seven" rule is that no-one under 14 should be in a relationship at all, since in that situation the rule intended to give a lower age limit results in a number greater than one's own age! (see the green zone between the intersecting lines on the chart)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only is that the most natural interpretation of the rule it also is the only interpretation that works when you consider that both parties are subject to the rule. So the 6 year old should date nobody younger than 10 but the 10 year old should date nobody younger than 12 whcih doesn't include the 6 year old. And while 14 is the theoretical minimum on the day you turn 14 you are only mutually compatible with people who share your birthday. SPACKlick (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

History?

There really probably should be a history section at the very least describing historical acceptance of these types of relationships. Maybe mention something about how, not even 100 years age women who weren't married by late 20's would likely end up being old maids. (not that the date or age is exactly correct, I just don't feel like looking it up in this particular moment. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. I will have to find some citable sources before I add to the page; however, I do not believe that age disparity in sexual relationships is a modern phenomenon. I read a recent (scholarly) paper which suggested the age gap (particularly between an older male and younger female) has not significantly changed throughout generations, but rather, the societal norms have. As the article has not yet been renamed to the previously suggested "Age disparity in sexual relationships in popular culture" (which, if implemented, would exclude much very important history), and since no historical content has yet to be included, I will make an attempt to find the paper and introduce a new sections (or sections) focusing on historical age disparity and changing societal norms.Jtrnp (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible illustration

Painting where the "old" has a bag of gold which his "young" counterpart lacks. AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

other images

Some entertaining images in commons:Category:The unlikely couples by Lucas Cranach (I)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Does it have to be a painting? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Which unbiased picture should be the lead?143.176.62.228 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• 3)
• 4)

• 5)
• 6)

Not sure if this one (pic5) is biased, since it depicts a 'dirty old' man. But most others from Cranach depict 'gold diggers' 143.176.62.228(talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked over Commons for a more appropriate painting (i.e., one depicting age disparity without the additional element of force). I found a few, and selected one in particular. The ones I considered, in case you folks have a different preference:

• 7) my choice
• 8)
• 9)
• 10)
• 11a)

24.224.198.212 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Happy couple (pic3), Konstantin Somov (pic6), Maurycy Gottlieb (pic7) and Admiral Nelson(pic10) are all good. I'd vote for picture 6 or 10. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, "7" is supposed to depict a father and daughter (see Merchant of Venice)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

p.S. If you think the woman in "6" has gray hair, she doesn't -- she's wearing a powdered wig, according to the fashions of the time. AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of picture 10? It depicts a historically accurate age disparity (non-fictional and well documented). 143.176.62.228 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Photographs instead of paintings

Or perhaps a photograph of a well known couple?143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• 11b) Princess Beatrix
• 12) Bill Gates
• 13) Ashton & Demi

The age difference between Princess Beatrix and Prince Claus is over 12 years. There is no definition of a "significant" enough disparity. But does anyone think 12 years is not signifigant enough? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I lean towards 10 or 13 as they depict relationships where it is the woman who is older, leading away from the stereotype that it is always an older man with a younger woman. Or we might include one of each type, wherein I would also vote for 7 to be included. Lozen8 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, we'd developed two images numbered 11. I've added letters to resolve the discrepancy without affecting other numbering.

I also favour 13, since, in addition to the unhappiness issues with the current picture, mentioned elsewhere, both members of the couple are recognizable to nearly everyone, making this seem less like an esoteric topic. – Robin Hood  02:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed-wing aircraft opens up with a picture of an aeroplane; Leaf opens up with leaves that are green; Tiger opens up with a Bengal (orange) tiger. We look for the most emblematic and representative picture to open the lead, as opposed to a less common and less representative picture. So it should definitely be a man with a younger partner, not an older one. We're interested in representing things as they are, not "leading away from stereotypes" (unless you want a Siberian tiger for Tiger's lead). I !vote 4. Red Slash 01:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictures dipicting the subject of Hypergamy or Trophy wife do not belong here. They have their own seperate articles. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I vote for No. 10. The story of Nelson and Lady Hamilton is certainly well-known, and it has received multiple Hollywood treatments. It's the only one of these couples I knew about before I came to this page. NotUnusual (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of terminology

One recent edit removed the quotations around various terms, which I believe to be incorrect. In searching Misplaced Pages, I found nothing specifically commenting on that particular usage of quotation marks, but I did find several things suggesting that neologisms (also Neologisms and new compounds) and jargon are generally considered undesirable. I'm wondering if we shouldn't "resolve" the grammar question by simply removing that section altogether. Anybody else have opinions on this? – RobinHood70 18:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Double standard

Why are all of these terms about women's sexuality listed under slang (most of them disparaging) but not negative slang about men being "dirty old men" or "cradle robbers"? And homosexual relations are ignored completely. This mainly seems like an article to bash women, not delve into an understanding of a subject. 63.143.216.178 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I reviewed the section. It looks like a reflection that is not based on published materials and we don't publish original thoughts. Since it showed little relevance to the article, I removed the section.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Clearly the proposed title is not favoured here. There also doesn't seem to be any broad consensus that another title is necessary. This does not preclude further RMs if desired, however. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Age disparity in sexual relationships → Age disparity in intimate relationships – I think the existing title with the word "sexual" is a bit narrow, particularly considering the content of the article. Not all age-disparate relationships (or even similar-age relationships, for that matter) include sex, where the title implies that such relationships are focussed entirely on sex. I'd like to suggest moving it to the title above, though I'm open to other suggestions as well, since it is a bit wordy either way. – RobinHood70 17:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Renaming this article to "Age disparity in intimate relationships" would be making this article too broad, considering that an intimate relationship can, for example, refer to a relationship between a mother and her child; this is despite the fact that the term intimate relationship is usually used to refer to a sexual relationship or one that includes sexual aspects. While the Age disparity in sexual relationships article is not only about sexual matters, it's about relationships that are sexual in addition to those other aspects that it addresses. There is no need to rename the article just to get across the point that the article is about more than sexual components. If it weren't redundant and were an improvement, I would suggest renaming the article to Age disparity in intimate and sexual relationships; but like I stated, I fail to see where the line would be drawn by indicating or possibly indicating that any intimate relationship where there is age disparity can be included. Or perhaps having no line in this regard is the point, and even friends that have an intimate, non-sexual age disparity relationship can be included. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically oppose, since "intimate" sounds like a vague euphemism, and could be confusing for some people or in some contexts. The article title could probably be improved, but I'm not sure that's the way to do it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - the article is almost entirely focused on sexual relationships. In this case "intimate" would be a euphemism, and inaccurate to the content of the article. If the article were to be expanded to cover other kinds of relationship then the change may be valid, but the article would need changing first. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Age disparity in romantic and sexual relationships or other broad-topic title, but I agree that "intimate" is not the best word here. Red Slash 05:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Intimate" is too unspecific and very wishy-washy.--Rushton2010 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article may need to be checked for POV

This issue is so sensitive to many people, including myself (I am only attracted to men who are at least 25 years older than me). In my opinion, mentioning the "half your age plus seven" rule undermines the neutrality of this article by endorsing the perspective that intergenerational relationships that do not fit this rule are immoral. Also, the tone may have to be checked. Some of the content on this article bordered on offensive for me, someone who is not attracted to men who are anywhere close to my age. JRhorstman (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not Misplaced Pages's place to judge, just to report - whether an article is of a sensitive nature or not. The article is sourced and the sources support that the half-plus seven formula is a socially acceptable rule of thumb. I'm not going to bother quoting the sources here, because they're already in the article, which is where they belong. If you find the content of the article offensive, you have at least two options:

• Don't read it. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and material won't be removed just because it offends thine eyes.
• Read it, but don't assume that it's intended to offend you, rather that it's to support a point of view you don't personally agree with.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

JRhorstman -- read the comment of 15:23, 1 April 2011 above. Half-your-age-plus-seven is not serious relationship advice offered by a certified medical or psychological professional (and has not been claimed to be serious relationship advice offered by a certified medical or psychological professional), but it's a rough rule of thumb which has been circulating in some form among some people since at least 1951... AnonMoos (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Echoing what was said here, please see Misplaced Pages policies at Misplaced Pages:Offensive material and WP:NOTCENSORED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"half-your-age-plus-seven" rule - notability/OR concerns

I cannot find any reliable academic discussion of it. mentions it - citing this very article... I am not seeing any significant discussion of this in books. We need better sources; I am concerned over this topic notability; that entire section is ORis now. Is there any reliable source which discusses it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's in Stephen Potter's "Lifemanship", dating from 1950. 86.14.9.87 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a page number for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Condom Use?

That's a the biggest pile of bull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.11.108 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

International Stats

Found AUS and UK stats quite easily to broaden from US stats only. Could not find any from other countries. e,g, India has lots of stats on marriage ages but not on age difference at marriage ? Diggers2004 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC) PS: AUS and UK do not include raw data so cannot create a graph of table. Assumed that the graphs in their articles would be copyright and not available to wikipedia (perhaps this is why they don't want the public to have the data ??) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggers2004 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Unequal

The Unequal Marriage (1862), is a painting depicting the wedding ceremony of an elderly, high-ranking official and a young, visibly unhappy girl.

Adding this picture to the article suggests that age disparity leads to an unequal relationship. This is a point-of-view, so the picture should be removed. With this picture the article cannot be neutral. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The picture is also offtopic: it refers to an arranged marriage.

V.V.Pukirev - The Arranged Marriage.jpg

Happy couple_(8098153918).jpg

Couple_sitting_at_a_table.jpg

• EDIT: Moved suggested pictures to the 2013 discussion

143.176.62.228 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with having this picture, which you removed, as the lead image. I do see something wrong with the picture you replaced it with; the picture you used as a replacement is a typical middle age or old age couple (see the definitions in those articles for what is middle age or old age). "Age disparity in sexual relationships" is not so much about couples that are only a year or two, or a few years, apart (except for close-in-age matters with regard to age of consent); it's more about couples that are significantly apart in age. Then again, "a few years apart" is "significantly apart in age" to some people. Also do read the WP:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) policy carefully and thoroughly; being neutral on Misplaced Pages does not mean what you seem to think it means. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what the article says about couples that are significantly apart in age:

...the exact definition of a "significant" age disparity have developed over time and vary between societies...

These views are rarely uniform...

The couple in the picture clearly show an age difference. It depends on someones personal view whether this is significant or not (as mentioned in the article).

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by 'nothing wrong' with the previous picture of the arranged unequal marriage? I don't see how it suits the article. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked my post a little before you replied, and I stand by that post. The couple in the picture you added do not "clearly show an age difference" (well, the man does look older and the image description states that he is, but some couples who are the same age look a little or significantly different age-wise); they are a typical middle age or old age couple. The vast majority of romantic/sexual couples are a year or two apart in age, or a few years apart in age; that is the norm, and, unless talking about a close-in-age matter with regard to age of consent, is not much of an age disparity, if any at all, to whatever couple in question. As for an arranged marriage image, an arranged marriage is a part of the topic of age disparity in sexual relationships if the couple has a significant age difference. I don't care if the younger or older person is looking happy or sad in the image; I care about what image is better for the article. I have nothing more to state on the topic of your image preference. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Noting here on the talk page that the IP has also removed the image that I questioned. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no sources that proof there is a norm. The age different chart applies to the United States, but the world does not revolve around the US. It is mentioned in the article introduction that the views are rarely uniform. What you view as being the norm, may as well be an age disparity in someone else's view.

Both my suggested replacement pictures (see above) show a couple in which the man is older. Especially picture 1. However, I do not have a preferred replacement picture, but I do disagree with a biased picture showing a sad looking girl in it. Such pictures contradict with the articles introduction.

Although I did quote the article, we seem to disagree about the articles definition of a significant age difference. That's why I removed my replacement picture from the article. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Besides it being something that is witnessed by interacting with average couples or observing celebrity couples, there are WP:Reliable sources that show or outright state that it is the norm for romantic/sexual couples to be a year or two apart in age, or a few years apart in age. Romantic/sexual couples being the same age is the minority. That is not a matter that is regulated to the United States. And, no, I'm not interested in listing sources. Like I stated above, "I have nothing more to state on the topic of your image preference." Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I must repeat: I have no image preference. An introductory image however, should not show a bias and should show an age disparity. The article clearly states that there is no exact definition of a "significant" age disparity.

What you observe, from what you think are average couples, has nothing to do with objectivity. Hollywood does not set the definition, science does. I have not seen any reliable sources, so I will not just assume that there are any. All I have seen so far, are personal views. And as stated in the article: views on this matter are rarely uniform. Therefor, my assumed preference or your personal view about what would be a significant difference are unimportant. Unless you also dispute the content of the articles introduction. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You clearly have an image preference, as in you prefer that the image you removed not be the lead image. As many at this site know, I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, which is why I mentioned that aspect in my "00:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)" post above in addition to what is common sense/WP:Common sense. Yes, it is common sense that romantic/sexual couples being the same age is the minority. If you want sources showing that to be the case, Google Books, Google Scholar and various other sourcing outlets are at your disposal; I've been very clear that I am not interested in listing sources for you. I care not that you translate that as "you don't have the sources." I care not if you translate that as "those are only United States sources." If I were interested, meaning truly interested, in discussing this matter with you, then I would debate with sources (as is a common editing style of mine, as recently as this case). I, however, prefer not to debate with editors who show up to an article removing images based on their personal preference and acting as though the removals are supported by a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Like other editors, I get tired of explaining what WP:NPOV actually means. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The removed image cannot be the lead image, as I have explained earlier. You have brought zero arguments into that discussion. Accusing me of doing disruptive editing or having a preferred image will get you no where (argumentum ad hominem !!!). There was never consent about the biased picture, see the 2013 discussion above . Therefor, it has been rightfully removed. If you are not interested in contributing to this article, then just don't. If you are, then please stop explaining your personal views and bring some facts into the discussion. We both have better things to do. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who has brought zero arguments to this discussion; as I've already been clear about above, I don't count an "it's non-NPOV/biased to me" type of argument as a valid argument for Misplaced Pages content. I never stated anything about not being interested in contributing to the article; I did, however, state things about not being interested in discussing this image matter with you. You kept pressing, and so here we are. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And there you are doing it again. Making accusations instead of bringing arguments into the discussion. Let's just stop this discussion, it will take us no where. Someones personal view is not an argument. The unequal marriage should have been (and can still be) suggested in the 2013 discussion above . 143.176.62.228 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been making arguments. So, yeah, I did it again my "01:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)" post. Someone's personal view is not an argument? As far as any personal opinion expressed above goes, then exactly...if not supported by a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Otherwise, the personal views of WP:Reliable sources are allowed...with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the talkpage again, it's allready been explained to you. I rest my case. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read and comprehend the WP:NPOV policy. Your contribution history shows that you very much need to read it and comprehend it; I reiterate that I don't count an "it's non-NPOV/biased to me" type of argument as a valid argument for Misplaced Pages content. Hopefully, you have rested your "case." Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem, again...143.176.62.228 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of argumentum ad hominem is severely lacking. But I do sometimes enjoy the challenge of WP:The last word. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The painting of the unequal marriage was okay for the lead image. The fact that it shows an arranged marriage doesn't make it off-topic; this article is about age difference in marriage, not limited with regard to how the marriage was formed.

An image that shows unhappiness at larger age disparity is okay, too. A state of unhappiness does not disqualify an image. Plenty of marriages have unhappy moments, with or without age disparity.

The Cancer Society image of the older man and a middle-aged woman sitting at a kitchen table probably does not show a married couple. These two people are not wearing wedding rings on their left-hand ring fingers.

I should think that the long-standing image would remain in place while a new consensus is being hammered out for a new image. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has EVER suggested the unequal marriage as the lead image (see the 2013 discussion). That biased image just sneaked in one day, disregarding the talkpage. So there was never concensus about this image. This is why it cannot be put back until it is suggested to the 2013 list, and until there is consensus. If you want the biased image to be the lead picture, you can suggest it in the 2013 discussion . Could you please move your commens about picture 4, up to the right section in the 2013 discussion? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that three different editors have reverted you over theis image being in the lede is pretty indicative that consensus has been reached, regardless of the lack of talk page or discussion. Whilst I'm aware that Wiki is not a democracy, nor a vote, it is pretty plain that there are more editors for the image than those against it. If you wish to further this, then following the process of leaving the image in place while it is discussed would probably go some way to showing your good faith. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you say "That biased image just sneaked in one day, disregarding the talkpage" - it's been there since at least 2010, and I can't see any discussion about it from around that time. Where are you seeing the talk discussion that was ignored? Or do you mean that nobody asked on the talk page for permission to add the image? I hope not, because that's certainly not required. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been paying close attention to the back-and-forth here, but I have to agree with the IP's assertion that a lead image showing an unhappy couple is potentially quite biasing and therefore against the NPOV goal of Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, this topic has gotten split up, but I'd much prefer the Demi & Ashton pic added in the other discussion as the lead image. I think that's relatively neutral. – RobinHood70 21:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see her as sad, that is highly subjective, and original research. It is called the "unequal marriage" not the "sad marriage". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

While it is subjective, Vasili Pukirev's article notes it, and in Googling, I found several other non-reliable sources that think so as well. To me, she looks sad, as she obviously does to many others. Why not replace the image with something with less possibility for interpretation? – RobinHood70 22:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(←) So, what's the verdict on this? Even if the IP is now blocked, I'm still advocating for a change of image, given the potential bias introduced by the current one. Or, as suggested below, we can add a couple of images to give it more balance. I don't mind an unhappy couple if there are happy ones to balance it out. That would simply reflect the reality of any relationship. – Robin Hood  01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

List of notable couples

I'd like to suggest adding a list with notable disparity couples, such as:

• Former Queen Princess Beatrix & Prince Claus;
• Former President Nelson Mandela & Winnie Madikizela;
• Former President Johannes Rau & Christina Rau;
• Olivia Newton-John and Matt Lattanzi;
• Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher;
• Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller;
• And many others such as Madonna and people from royal families.

143.176.62.228 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

See may running list at List of relationships with age disparity --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Second or third image

I think the article can support two or three images. What should the other ones be, should we stick with paintings? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't even agree on one, and you want to introduce more? :Þ Seriously, though, I'd be open to that idea. I don't feel the need to stick to paintings, though it does give the article a bit of a theme. If we do, we should see if we can find any modern ones to go with the more traditional ones. I'd also be less concerned about the one that's on the article now, if there were others depicting happy relationships to balance it out. – RobinHood70 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The now-banned anonymous IP could have had a kernel of a useful idea -- it would seem to be reasonable to balance off a 19th-century painting of a not-100%-consensual marriage with a 20th- or 21st-century photograph of a happy couple. (Not sure that Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher are ideal, since that ended in divorce...) AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A great many marriages end in divorce, so I don't see why we can't have a photo of a couple that was once married but is now not.

I'd like to see a flip: an older woman married to a younger man. For instance, File:Hugh Jackman with wife Deborra-Lee Furness in India.jpg shows Hugh Jackman and his 13-years-older wife Deborra-Lee Furness. Julianne Moore's husband Bart Freundlich is 9 years younger, but I don't see a photo in Commons. File:Reza Jarrahy and Geena Davis at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival.jpg shows Geena Davis and her 15-years-younger husband Reza Jarrahy. Another photo I don't see on Commons is Mariah Carey with either of her husbands, Mottola or Cannon, both younger. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Demi Moore is 15 years older than Ashton Kutcher... AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't add more biased pictures. The article already lacks neutrality. An painting of an older man buying a younger girl doesn't improve this article. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV template

It may need a new POV template. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a new template. A memberaccount(s?) is pushing their view that age disparity leads to uneqality and should be frowned upon. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV template. Basic rationale is that it was added by a since-blocked editor who took umbrage to a single image, rather than the content of the entire article. Despite assertions of the editor in question that the talk page was not being used - it is (and was) and the only person who had an issue with it went about it the wrong way and was blocked.

Short story - I don't think it was an appropriate addition, more wp:point than anything else. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Apart from the question of the image used, I see no substantive POV issues with the article itself. – RobinHood70 18:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I call them wp:rage tags, I have to write an essay describing them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite all the revert-attacks from you, your friends or your aliases, you did not enter discussion on the talk-page. You call yourselves vandalism fighters, yet you choose not to debate because you can simply revert. All you did was reverting, can you say the same about me? I've spend hours looking for images and arguments, they are all on this talkpage. Only after you got me blocked, you started talking. Well, I hope you are proud for abusing your knowledge of the system, your socialnetwork and your status. It is editors like you that create IPS like me. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Come now, a glance at your block log here, shows that you were blocked @ 2051h on Jan 6th. An equally quick glance at your own talk page history here shows attempts to talk to you by an editor regarding this page on 5th January - a full day before you were blocked (one might argue that your unwillingness to listen to that editor may have contributed to the block?), and again looking at the history for this talk page itself clearly shows contributions to the talk page from three different editors before your block, with multiple edits on both 4th January & 5th January. I don't even know why you're denying this, seeing as you spent most of your time replying to the editors in question, ergo you can't say they weren't using the talk page.

Incidentally, you also seem to be accusing an editor (although it's unlcear which one!) of being a sock puppet/master. Such accusations are pretty severe, and could lead to more blocks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit history proofs my previous comments. Your non-contextual linking won't change that. You can block me all you want. Game the system all you want, I will return. I can change my ip within 24 to 48 hours. Go take your prude conservative morals somewhere else. I will not let you kill free speech without a fight. Also, please stop adding more biased pictures. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Textual content only?

If the pov template cannot be added to alert the reader about a biased picture then there should not be a template. If what you are saying is true, then an image could never colour an article. That doesn't make any sense, but I'll ask anyway. So is it only possible to add the template based on textual content? Or can an image be seen as part of the context as well? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. An interesting question, and one you could bring up over at the Help desk perhaps. However in this case the template was removed because it was added in bad faith, and not because it represented any fundamental bias present within the article. It was my opinion - and one that others seem to agree with - that it fell under the remit of a pointy edit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would also say that a single instance, regardless of whether it's text or image, is not sufficient for a {{POV}} template to be added. My understanding is that the POV template is intended for when an entire article, or at least a large portion of it, is unbalanced. A single sentence or single image is more a matter for the talk page. – Robin Hood  20:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No "overwhelming majority" for change.

Until an actual "overwhelming majority" can be shown, there's no need to change the image.

I invite the IP editor to show their arguments that show a majority desire for change - and to put them in a reasoned argument. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see an "overwhelming majority", either, at least not for that specific image. There does seem to be a concern about the current picture portraying a negative stereotype, however. It's hard to track with the discussion so split up, but I believe that myself and the 143 IP objected to it expressly, and a couple of others implied that they either object to the current one or at least wouldn't object to changing it. I think only one person expressed explicit support for keeping the current image. If those counts are correct (and I do have cognitive difficulties, especially when it comes to a wall of text, so I won't say that they are), I'd say that there's at least a majority in support of moving away from the current image. To my count, there were two images that were supported by more than one person, of which Demi and Ashton was one, and the painting of Admiral Nelson was the other. While I personally prefer the more recent one as being the most relevant to people, I don't really feel that strongly about it, just as long as we move away from the current one, which I feel is strongly biasing. – Robin Hood  22:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, unintentionally this got pushed to the back of my mind. My opinion is that it's a case of a "big so what?" Ok, the lady doesn't look particularly thrilled, and this is clarified in the article itself, but why is that such an issue? To put it on its head - if we use the image of a happy couple does that not imply that an age difference is bound to be happy? And looking at it, Ashton does't actually look especially happy in the image replaced either.

I still think that it's a good lede image because it's a famous painting, shows that age disparity is not a new phenomenon, shows an extreme of age difference - tbh it's hard to assess the age difference between Demi & Ashton without actually knowing about about either, and the fact that she's unhappy is wp:undue in this case - by which I mean it's not a major issue that we should be concerned about.

I grant that this is my own opinion, but the lede image shoudl be an extreme difference, rather than a subtle one, to show at a glance what the entire article is about. I would advocate an image of Anna Nicole Smith & J. Howard Marshall, except a cursory glance in commons doesn't show any. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In the #Unequal discussion above, I stated similarly with regard to preferring that the lead image show a significant age difference...since the topic of this article is not so much about couples that are one, two, or a few years apart in age; it is rather more so about being significantly apart in age. But, among other things, the IP got into a debate with me about what significant means. Well, then obvious is a clearer word. There, of course, are cases where the physical age difference between a couple is obvious. Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What about the suggestion by RAN to have multiple images? Like I said there, I'd have no objections whatsoever to the current image, even as top-most, if there were other images that lent a bit of balance. I agree with Flyer22 that a significant/obvious age difference is preferable in any picture(s) we use. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes would be a good example of an obvious age difference, though there again, that ended in divorce. – Robin Hood  18:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not have the time, or mood, to contribute to the talkpage. But when I did return, the discussion already died out. There was a majority that favoured a more neutral image. Only one person insisted that the biased image stayed.

It is indeed a famous historical protest painting, but we live in a different era now. Do you know why the painter made it? Perhaps it might help if you delve into the history behind the painting. Its meaning should not be ignored, the painters intent should not be taken out of context143.176.62.228 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the painting was made is not really an important point with regard to its inclusion on this page. We don't consider the reasoning behind the Ashton Kutcher & Demi Moore image - we dont' discount it from the page simply because it wasn't intended to show off their age difference, so why should we consider the reasoning behind "An Unequal Marriage" either? The point to consider is "What does the image portray?" - and it portrays a significant, sorry - obvious age disparity. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Art usually has a story behind it. This is a well know painting. And it is a well know fact that this painting was created out of protest. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, but those points have nothing to do with the intent or suitability of the image on this page - that it shows an obvious age disparity between the couple. A vast majority of pictures on wikipedia were originally taken for purposes other than what they are currently used for. Whether it was created out of protest, or for a different purpose does not detract from the the fact that it portrays an obvious age disparity. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Simple and then simpler

I am not sure why we need to explain something twice, so I cut off the duplicate explanation: "As people have chosen to marry later, the age differences between couples have increased as well. In other words, age differences are greater for couples who marry at a later age." If you need to explain it "in other words" then just rewrite the original phrase rather than duplicate the information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

If no one objects, I'm going to archive talk page sections which have comments from 2012 and earlier only... AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No Objection here. -- 17:24, 28 January 2015 SPACKlick

Done. AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Second image

While the anon IP was blocked we agreed to try more images on the page. The anon has removed the second image, and I have restored it. The article is so long, a third one would easily fit. This would be a good point to discuss what the third image could be ... should we stick to art thematically? Someone suggested showing Hollywood couples, the age difference doesn't show well in real people unless one of them is Hugh Heffner. Here is my list: User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)/List_of_relationships_with_age_disparity --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• High-importance Anthropology articles