Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Toy boy seems obscure and localized to a particular region

There is a source for the term "toy boy" from the UK paper, The Times. However, the term is still obscure and possibly localized. In the U.S., for example, we always say "boy toy" and never "toy boy." Just because it's in a newspaper doesn't mean the topic isn't obscure or local to a particularly small geographic area. For instance, The New York Times, can report on something that's local to a small town in South America. Just because it's in the paper, doesn't mean it's familiar to the world. The inverted term, "toy boy," may be something local to the U.K. or a particular part of the U.K. It's certainly not familiar the U.S. Other countries, I don't know but will need to be researched. But I would not assume that the rest of the world is familiar with this term just because it's in a U.K. paper. I think we need more evidence (other sources) to show that the term "toy boy" isn't localized. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As it's sourced, I see no reason to remove it. There is no indication from the article that it is a local term. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While "boy toy" is more common here in Canada, I've heard "toy boy" occasionally, so I don't think it's all that localized. Given that we know it's used in two different countries, even if it's the less-popular term, I think we can remove the dispute tag, which I will do. If someone disagrees, by all means re-instate it. --Rob (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Toyboy" - without the split - is certainly the common term in New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.81.195 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Toyboy" is also the common term in Australia. User:katblack —Preceding undated comment was added on 13:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC).

No, "boytoy" is. --60.240.126.92 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm with katblack, "toy boy" (not sure about the spelling, as I hear it more than I read it) is the term I've heard & used most, having spent 30 years in Australia.

2. It really is (or at least comes across as) rudely dismissive to post (what amounts to) "no, my opinion/experience trumps your opinion/experience" in response to someone's post (especially on a POV topic and especially with no objective or other back-up). Please show more respect for other people's points of view.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you should re-examine that accusation. If you AGF instead of trying to extrapolate a motive, 60.240 did not assert superiority. All s/he did was make a bald assertion that contradicted katblack's bald assertion. By contrast, you directly asserted your superiority right before chastising 60.240 for having supposedly done so. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with katblack. Toyboy is the only expression I have ever heard in New Zealand - and I am 45. Boytoy in this context is probably just a mistake. The only time I hear anything like that is in "boys toys" - meaning boats and trucks, etc.JohnC (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here in the UK, "Toyboy" (or perhaps "toy-boy" or "toy boy") is the only usage I've ever heard of in the context of a younger male and an older female. The meaning is well known throughout the UK and I had never heard the term "boy toy" until I read this article. Astronaut (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Per this thread and the similar one below - the source in the article refers only to "toyboy." I appreciate that "boytoy" might be used in some parts of the world, or alternatively it might have the "Madonna" origin suggested below. Before we include it in the article, however, it needs someone to find a reliable source to support it. In the interim I've narrowed the article sentence to refer only to the slang term in the reference. other opinions, disagreement welcome. Euryalus (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG, I love this article

Probably wouldn't stand up to WP's deletion policy, but mommy, mommy, can we please keep it? I <3.--Loodog (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GILF

I know it's a silly slang word, but who say's that to be considered a GILF that the woman be 55 or older? I know a woman who is 45 and she is a grandmother. Technically that makes her a GILF. It has nothing to do with age, but the fact that she is a grandmother.JanderVK (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Point well taken, I think. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC); redacted on 05:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. A woman could be a grandmother in her thirties (but hopefully would not be). Julesagogo 14:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesagogo (talk • contribs)

Half-your-age-plus-seven rule

Why was this section deleted? It is apropos to the article, and there is no (other) discussion on it.

I am 29 and my girlfriend is 22, so I've actually come to this article numerous times to show others the references that succinctly support its validity. This is exactly what this kind of entry, in this kind of article, is for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.88.181 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've repeatedly had the 'rule' quoted to me, with no references to wikipedia at all (definitely known outside the article). However, the point is, it's reasonbly sourced. (That said, only two of the five sources are actually valid. xkcd is an online comic strip, not a verifiable reference. One of the links is outright dead now. And one of the references uses the rule for the "ideal mistress", not a 'normal' relationship.) 209.90.134.252 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen an article in the 14 Aug 2009 issue MX News in Birsbane Australia:

"[...] I turned to that handy bible of etiquette matters—Wikipedia" Wiki's rule of thumb to determine an acceptable age gap in a relationship : halve your age and add seven years. [...]"

Clearly, the author of that piece doesn't understand Wikipedia. I agree that as long as it is reasonably sourced and presented as source-supported info rather than as original research by WP editors, the section does belong in the article. 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha...yes, clearly he doesn't understand what Wikipedia is all about. I'm not sure how "reliable" a source we can get for a rule-of-thumb, but given that it's clearly presented as a rule-of-thumb I think we're okay. This is why I've reverted the recent wholesale deletions of it which only offered "broscience" as an explanation. Societies everywhere have different standards, but this is probably the most common one I've heard, at least in Western society. Googling "half your age plus" will come up with a large number of hits, with a few different numbers after the "plus", but seven does seem to be the most common. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a 45 year old man, the graph says it is acceptable for me to go out with a 75 year old woman. This is wrong. Older men traditionally go out with younger women. It is not symmetrical. It is also not >=. The equation calculates the ideal age of a woman going out with a man. So for a 45 year old man the ideal age of the woman is 45/2+7 = 30. But for a 30 year old woman the ideal man is 45.

It might be wrong for your situation, but it can, and does, go both ways for other people. Julesagogo 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern women do not like the idea of older men always choosing younger women and want equality, in that case this equation should be scrapped altogether. Nowadays couples are much more equal in age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.80.27 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've read more into the rule than is actually stated. It's considered a "rule of thumb" or perhaps "social convention" would be a better wording. Whatever you call it, it's not meant to be flawlessly accurate, nor is it meant to impose any kind of limitations on anybody. I've never seen it quoted as "ideal age for a woman", and in fact, I've seen it applied in the gay community as well, where age-disparate relationships are fairly common. Regardless of its applicability to modern relationships of any gender, though, the fact is that it's highly popular and as such, it is appropriate to document it in an article on age disparity in sexual relationships. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this section should be readded as well - I just spent the last half an hour looking for it to back up a discussion on a message board. I think it's relevant regardless of whether it's just a "rule of thumb" or "social convention". There is no other place on wikipedia which discusses this rule and it is relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.112.225 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be readded as a "rule of thumb" or "social convention." Julesagogo 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article suggests that a cougar is a woman over 40. But other sources say over 35, or more commonly just "older". Is it appropriate to state an age, or should we define the expression in terms of an older woman in pursuit of a younger man?JohnC (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Eddietoran

UGH! Normally I would stay away from a page like this but it was presented to me. I feel there is a severe lack of definition for "elderly" and "older" females or males that may be referred to in this article. I think the terminology is severely insufficient to explain the phenomenon we deal with in actual cases of "age disparity." In fact, though I've rarely done it before, I may have to edit the article to give it a hint of merit. Eddietoran (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Can you state it more simply? Powers ^T 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

At second glance, I think I overreacted. I really only wanted a range of years that society considers 'older' and 'elderly'. I can just look that up on my own, though. Eddietoran (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

why?

Why isnt there a section about children being attracted to adults? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetheart2009 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources and then add the section. Powers ^T 13:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's quite interesting but I wonder how it would be possible to find unbiased information... I wonder if it's even possible to research this reliablywhen you consider children with attractions to adults. Perhaps using legal-age participants only would make the research flow more smoothly, and I think there has been work on that. Somewhere on WIkipedia I was reading about Gerontophilia. Is this what sweetheart2009 is referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.53.107 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

boy toy

this article and almost everyone in the world has it wrong. madonna coined the phrase "boy toy" in reference to herself, meaning she is a toy for boys to play with. i will say it again. madonna,a woman, wore a belt buckle that referred to HERSELF as a boy toy. americans,cuz there are so many morons here, screwed the whole thing up. i would think the creator of the phrase had it right. if you were shopping for a birthday present for a boy, would you buy a girl toy or a boy toy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates as an encyclopedia, so if you can prove your claim and provide appropriate reliable citations for it, then by all means add it to the article. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think your analysis is dead-on right. But in an effort to combat truthiness, WP has to ban logic in favor of sources. You can say

It has been conclusively proven that the moon is made of green cheese _{according to XYZ notorious nutcase}

but you can't say 1+1=2 unless you have a reliable source to prove it. Sorry, that's just how it works. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Epilogue: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,957025-9,00.html - Not an RS except to note Madonna's usage of it to refer to herself, but it's interesting. That, coupled with the OED's cited 1981 origin of toy-boy and 1984 origin of the "boy toy = toy for boys" definition, seems to add up with the fact that it doesn't show up as the "boy toy = boy who is a toy" definition until later. Except that it's completely-forbidden WP:SYN to do so. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We also have to take into account what the purpose of the article is. In this case, we're presenting phrases as they're used, so even if the OP is correct and there are "so many morons" responsible for creating a definition for it that previously didn't exist, it does seem to be in common usage. While neither constitutes a reliable source, both YourDictionary.com and Urban Dictionary would appear to confirm that fact. For this article, I would tend to think that the origins of the phrase are at best a minor side note; if "boy toy" were made into a full article, then the origins of the term would probably merit more attention. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. When language evolves, it doesn't always (or even often) go by the most correct route, but that doesn't negate the fact that it has evolved. Case in point: "moron," which in the future may be spelled "moran" thanks to an unknown protestor who held up the infamous "GET A BRAIN MORANS" sign (and has been mocked for it ever since). (^_^)

And as you said, this is neither an article on etymology nor one on boy-toy-boys. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source tag

Since it does say to see the talk page, I added the {{Unreliable source}} tag because the article has a number of references to sources like blogs and pseudo-news (like The Daily Show), which are undoubtedly less-than-ideal sources. Given the nature of the article, however, high-quality sources are likely to be hard to find, so I only removed the absolute weakest of sources and left the remainder (tagging a few with {{Verify credibility}} that I thought were particularly weak). —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

New Slang Lynx, Bobcat

I propose we add Lynx for a Lesbian who have relationships with younger women and Bobcat could be used for Lesbians who have relationships with older women.

No one to credit but myself (Liptonweb) on this one. Came up with the idea after reading this article. There does not seem to be any labels for this dynamic yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liptonweb (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia (or at least one of them) is to document current information, not to propose new ideas. In that light, new slang terms should not be added to articles unless it can be proven that they're in wide-spread usage. So if you know that these are being used, by all means, add them and provide a source. If not, then they'll only be removed by the next editor who looks at your changes. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Math

I would like to add more formulas to the article, something like this:

${F\geq {\cfrac {M}{2}}+7{\text{ years}}}.$

${M\leq 2F-14{\text{ years}}}.$

${D}={M-2F+14{\text{ years}}}.$

Where

M = Age of older individual

F = Age of younger individual

D = Time until/since the limit was reached

Dorit82 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't see a big problem with that, given that they're just the various permutations of the existing formula, solving for each different variable. It might be redundant, but it makes it easier for people who aren't strong in math. I would, however, avoid the variables M and F, since they tend to imply a male/female partnership where the male is the older partner, which is obviously not always the case on several different fronts. Probably O and Y are better choices there. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of theory, this is absolutely true. But as it's been applied, the oversize type and multiple reiterations give the false appearance of being a scientific principle.

I defer to your excellent explanation in another thread: "I think you've read more into the rule than is actually stated. It's considered a 'rule of thumb' or perhaps 'social convention' would be a better wording. Whatever you call it, it's not meant to be flawlessly accurate". 76.22.25.102 (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer to reduce the size of the forumula, personally, but the <math> tag seems to auto-size the text. I'm completely unfamiliar with that aspect of wiki editing, so if there's a way to decrease the size, I don't know it. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea, but since the formula doesn't involve complicated terms that particularly require WPMath... why not just use normal text and italicize it if desired? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the half your age plus 7 graph back in

It really should never have been removed - I believe it was likely an oversight after replacing the section. Yes it's a short section but graphs like this are what make Wikipedia great. People's politics, gender roles, and the validity of the statement are not up to debate here and the graph simply visually represents the same knowledge the section is conferring. The graph makes the section well rounded and complete. The only argument I can see for not including it is that it runs off into the next section, a weak argument to me. I'm archiving a link to the image here so if it is removed again it is easy to find to replace again. 71.59.192.76 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1/2 + 7 Rule (and graph) are a joke . . .

and neither belongs in Wiki.

The thing is this "joke" is a long lasting cultural gem. Wikipedia is not supposed to be haha funny, but it does encompass the cultural aspect of humor and common wisdom. 109.186.169.130 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the supporting citation? A student newspaper's article by a columnist who wrote, "I remember someone telling me once that it was okay as long as she was half your age plus seven." So, the great body of evidence to support this "rule" is a columnist in a student newspaper claiming "someone" "once" told him it. LOL! "But, . . . but, . . . it was a MIT student newspaper!" Even more LOL, this time while shaking my head.

Displaying this "rule" as a graph does not help things. Young people (or old fools) may actually rely upon this garbage to either enter into or break up from a relationship. Don't the "contributors" who put this "stuff" on Wiki care about that? Are there any adults (nowadays that means someone over 30) who monitor this Wiki article?

And some people wonder why Wiki has such a bad reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom in ca (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- there's no half-age-plus-seven law in any country, and no established professional organization has formally endorsed or recommended the half-age-plus-seven rule; but on the other hand, it has achieved a significant degree of dissemination as a "meme" (including in the xckd comic, etc.), and overall is at least as noteworthy as the majority of the listed slang terms. AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So if someone declares (i.e., no citations) an "urban legend" (I'm being polite) to have "a significant degree of dissemination as a 'meme'," it becomes authoritative? Like you said, "Whatever."

I dumped the non-supporting "citation," left the "rule" and flagged its weaknesses. Hopefully, someone (a sociologist or psychologist?) might stumble upon this page and improve it, esp re this "rule." Phantom in ca (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know why you have a bee in your bonnet about this, but if you take a deep breath and try to control your agitation, then we might be able to discuss it rationally (as opposed to scattershot tagging of every other word in a sentence, something which does absolutely nothing whatsoever to foster constructive and cooperative article improvement). The half-age-plus-seven rule is not sound professional or medical advice, and probably in the vast majority of cases was never seriously intended or offered as such, but it has achieved a certain degree of circulation, and is more notable than some of the other items included on the article page. The MIT student newspaper link which you took such exception to would be unacceptable as evidence for the rule's "sociological or psychological" status (which I doubt was ever the intention), but it might be acceptable as one indication of the rule being fairly widely known... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The half-age-plus seven formula is mentioned by a character in the 1953 film The Moon is Blue (can be seen at the moment (2010-02-27) 7m10s into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v76HGgggsI&feature=related). So it's not a transient fad - it's lasted at least a couple of generations, and has continued to have some sort of superficial plausibility to people even after sexual revolutions and women's liberation. Some scholar here should be able to find usages that predate 1953, or even find the place (magazine article? pseudoscience? Benjamin Franklin almanac?) where it was invented. It's genuine modern folklore, its sources, currency, and usage are a valid subject of scholarship, and I hope it's worth a couple of paragraphs in a Wikipedia article. 93.107.89.52 (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is a joke

Just step back...far back...and think about the quality of this article, the subject matter, the sheer juvenile fanboyishiness of it. Then think about all the TEXTBOOK areas of Wikiepedia that lack well written, Brittanica quality pages. And we are several years into this experiment?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When "Cougar" was a separate article on its own, it was read out loud over the air on the David Letterman show... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Older than a Cougar

35 plus seems too large a group, I think that over 50 we should classify Cougars as Saber-tooth Tigers as they may be a little long in the tooth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cravistest (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cougars = predatory?

Maybe the origin of the word has to do with cougars being predatory ambush hunters. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 00:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Manther

"A male 40 years of age or older, who pursues younger women, typically more than eight years his junior."

I am 49 and my wife is 40. Does that make me a deviant? C'mon guys, this article is for the dumps! Rastapopoulos (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What is a Gold Digger?

Quoted from the main article:

"Gold digger—someone (typically a female) who develops a relationship with a much older partner or someone who she does not find attractive physically, intellectually or congenially for primarily financial reasons, especially to inherit the partner's wealth upon death (which is expected to come soon)."

I disagree with the notion that someone is considered a gold digger only when in a relationship with a "much older partner" or "someone she does not find attractive physically, intellectually or congenially." I think this is irrelevant to being a gold digger and thus loses a bit of relevance with the main topic of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.44.195 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in Lede and Body

A few editors have made valiant attempts to salvage this train wreck of an article, but the fact remains that there is little or no context to support an article with such a broad and amorphous subject area. Witness the blatant contradiction in the article lede and the first sentence of the body ("risen significantly" vs. "not once across all ages"). There does not seem to be any decisive research to support the contention that "age disparity in sexual relationships" is a verifiable or notable phenomenon, statistically speaking. Perhaps this article's title should be changed to Age disparity in sexual relationships in popular culture. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I partially fixed the contradiction by removing a sentence from the lede. The research cited in the article is still contradictory and indecisive. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how the phenomenon is historically, but recently it has garnered a lot of attention, particularly with 'cougars'. A lot of books written here aside from what is already in the article. So, I say I would have to agree with you that it is a popular culture thing.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Half Your Age Plus Seven "Rule"

I've removed the content concerning the legendary "half your age plus seven" rule on the grounds that it is inadequately sourced and unverifiable for inclusion in an article that is supposed to approach the topic from a scientifically verifiable standpoint. Of the three sources cited, one linked to a web comic and another linked to the advice column in a defunct lifestyle magazine. Neither of these sources seem appropriate to establish the existence of this "rule."

The third source links to an obscure Australian autobiography that attributes the "rule" not to Western dating norms but to Islamic marriage customs! This third source is the only one that approaches the reliability threshold, yet it does not seem sufficient to establish the existence of this phenomenon in Western culture. I think we need multiple, verifiable sources that do not contradict themselves before we go forward with adding this information to the article again. The graph is completely unnecessary and silly as well, since this "rule" is, if anything, an approximate "rule of thumb." Uncle Dick (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's rule of thumb. That's why quotations were put in it. So many people know this rule yet you consistently insist on a "reliable source". How about the world? the internet? forums? web comics? CULTURE! Seriously, I don't see how you can make an argument over this. It's rather silly. (Copied from Uncle Dick's talk page) The "half your age plus seven" rule is well known in society, especially urban areas and online. I don't see why you would consistently removed a section of cultural relevance. My source is reliable considering the context. But even if I didn't have a source, their would be no reason to delete it unless you're distanced from particular areas of society. The rule is pretty common in my area and it's used quite a lot online. You even see it in various media, such as this online comic: xkcd. Again, I don't see your point in deleting this section. A search on Google for "half your age plus seven" with the quotations reveals 6,090 results. Searching "divide by two add seven", the alternative name, with the quotations reveals 1,030 results. The main term on urban dictionary for half-your-age-plus-seven, of which there are five entries, reveals the first entry to have 10,020 thumbs up. How can you not accept this cultural phenomenon. AVanover (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that this "rule" exists as an Internet meme and schoolyard joke. According to the Wikipedia policy of Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Editor consensus has established that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Therefore, it cannot be used to verify the "half your age plus seven rule". Until reliable sources can be found to verify this rule, it should be excluded from the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a schoolyard "joke". It's a cultural phenomenon. You just proved it. You said "I'm not disputing that this 'rule' exists as an Internet meme [...]". The Internet is a part of culture. Technically, in this case, I could verify the fact that it's an internet meme (which you agree with) and it would be allowable on Wikipedia. So again, why would it not be included in this clearly relevant article? AVanover (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It may very well be a "cultural phenomenon", as you say, but where's the proof? Again, the standard for inclusion of any information on Wikipedia is verifiability. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here's your proof: the “Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven” Rule The age difference that is generally accepted by modern society varies directly with the age of the individuals involved in the relationship;' http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=sv&safe=off&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=+%E2%80%9CHalf-Your-Age-Plus-Seven%E2%80%9D++The+age+difference+that+is+generally+accepted&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=. Halfyourageplusseven (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The "half your age plus 7" rule is completely irrelevant unless it will stand up in a court of law. hint: it wont. anywhere. on earth. PS: wikipedia is not a tool of social engineering. Write a book instead. Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- It has no official legal status (and has not been claimed to have any official legal status), and 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 nevertheless it is a somewhat notable cultural phenomenon whose exclusion from this page seems to be largely determined by "don't like it" reasonings. If Hampster Dance has a whole article devoted to it, I don't see why half-age-plus-seven can't be mentioned on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with mentioning it as a cultural meme, BUT if it's noted in the article, it should definitely be mentioned to be taken with a massive grain of salt. Mainly because anyone who genuinely believes any validity or universality to this "rule" is either uneducated or gullible. It's something that's generally mentioned and then laughed off, not something required by society, or looked down upon if it's violated. It's a colloquial saying, not a real social norm. Furthermore, the lower half of this article is terribly written. It looks like something you'd find on Reddit. Please, PLEASE keep a modicum of reliability on Wikipedia. Things like this are what make it the joke that it's rapidly becoming. 68.237.141.218 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No one takes it as graven in stone, or confuses it with sound professional medical, moral, scientific, ethical, or psychological advice; however it is a fairly frequently-mentioned rough rule-of-thumb reference point among some. Anyway, it's been pretty much banned from this article by Jimbo Wales, regardless of notability... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst article I have seen in Wikipedia in ages

Wow, what a bunch of useless nonsense. Can we stub it, or revisit deletion. It's random opinions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a perpetual battleground, and not in a good way. When "cougar" was a separate article, it was read out loud on U.S. network TV by David Letterman -- which, of course, was a signal to immediately merge the article. Etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is perhaps the most unhelpful comment to this article ever. Why so critical, after this article was mentioned on "The View" by name it was hit by huge editing and every time it reruns we get vandals. Come help build the article rather than be so critical and useless with your criticism. I don't like this article, so lets delete it or stub it? Come on... I've watched this page for a while and it gets good page hits. Outback the koala (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the impulse that says when something receives major positive outside attention, that's the moment that it should pretty much be destroyed. This article has some long-standing problems, but I don't see how the rather rigid petty-bureaucratic approach which has mainly ruled this article for many months has done much to improve it... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, unproductivity has seemed to overcome the page. I share your sentiments. Outback the koala (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside attention is of no particular concern. Popularity is not a marker of quality. The fact remains: the article is unreadable nonsense, full of random opinions. I'll do some editing of it right now - but the first step will be to remove everything that is unsourced, poorly sourced, and random opinions about slang terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed large swathes of the article. It is by no means done. The sections I have removed were unsourced speculation or editorializing, which had been mostly marked as such for over a month, with no move towards sourcing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, not sure why "Cougar" is banned from Wikipedia notice (despite figuring in the title of the TV show Cougar Town etc. etc.) when Bunny boiler gets a separate article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion about that more general question, I just know that random slang is not helpful for this article. It occurs to me that if that is what this is all about, then the right thing to do is redirect Cougar (slang) to somewhere more appropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: upon looking into this further, it appears that the redirect of Cougar (slang) to here was not the result of any sort of formal process and can therefore be undone by anyone. What I would recommend, if you are interested in doing that, is that you not just revert to the last best version of the article that was there, but actually improve it to address concerns. I think the article, as it was written, was OR and dictionary definition - what it could be is an exploration of the slang term - it's origins and uses - with loads of sources. I have zero interest in working on that, myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Age of consent laws

This entire section was irrelevant to this entry and so I have removed it. What we need to be on guard against here (among other htings) is inappropriate POV pushing by pro-pedophilia activists cherry-picking research to put forward their agenda.

The section I removed contained two things: first, a highly idiosyncratic and poorly sourced (though, as a previous editor noted, it was sourced) view on age of consent laws, putting forward the dubious theory that age of consent laws are enacted by older women seeking to reduce competition. While this may be a view put forward by some sources, it is clearly a highly idiosyncratic view that doesn't belong here. (In order to properly address the issue of age of consent laws, you'd need a whole article, which is why we have one.)

Second, it contained some pop-culture fluff about "half your age plus seven" rules. I'm happy to address why that nonsense doesn't belong here if anyone wants, but in short: we'd need to have reliable sources to indicate the notability for the purposes of this article. (It is entirely possible that we should have an article devoted to that pop culture meme; I have no strong opinion about that.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your deletion. I was the one who reverted the original deletion, and did so only because there was no explanation provided. I should have reviewed all the material in the section before doing so; had I done so, I would have taken the same action you did. Most of the material is original research, or at the least doesn't merit inclusion per WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. However, I think we should retain the link to age of consent, which I've restored. Mindmatrix 16:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Age of Consent laws are relevant because they are one of the legal aspects that has to do with "Age disparity in sexual relationships". However, I tried to minimize discussion about them in this article and just mention them and redirect people to the relevant Age of Consent article. I also tried to clean out some original research, though the last section I added ("Sociobiological") is fairly original researchy. I am hoping some one will find the relevant discussion in the literature (I am sure it has been discussed), but if not I wouldn't mourn if the section were deleted. Kyle112 (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned Up

I stumbled upon this article and was appalled at the state it was in. I tried to remove a lot of the opinion and bias, and put some effort into making it presentable and adding some research. It still needs a lot of citations, and a significant expansion in the studies area and history area. I am hoping the History section will include examples of relations with significantly older and younger people from many cultures across time. And I am hoping the Studies section could be expanded to include more studies on more varieties of countries outside North America and the U.K. (I did add a citation about African age disparity, but I felt it was too specific to explain in the Studies section). Right now the Sociobiological section is looking like original research, but I know some one has put the idea forward before it's just a matter of tracking it down. I did this all on no sleep, so any suggestions, further clean up, or discussion is completely welcome!

P.S. The "half your age plus seven rule" is not a scientific metric, nor is it a world-wide consensus on how one should act. 24.113.239.246 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that it was any of those things -- but the fact that the "half age plus seven" rule is de facto banned from this article, despite achieving a fairly substantial degree of prominence/notoriety, is one of those semi-arbitrary measures imposed in the name of "article improvement" which does not in fact lead to any observable significant improvement of the article in question... And I still don't understand why the "Cougar" article being read out on U.S. national TV by David Letterman was the signal to destroy the article. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an Urban Dictionary style online slang reference or a Trivia show style collection of sayings. If Half Your Age Plus Seven warrants discussion, than so do such headaches as "If There is Grass on the Field Play Ball", "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", "Save yourself for marriage" and other aphorisms. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes and lifestyle sayings. Kyle112 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no particular similarity or useful comparison between coarse expressions mainly used by 14-year-old boys trying to appear older than they actually are, and the "half-age-plus-7" rule, which is clever little bit of popular wisdom (though not intended to be serious advice from a certified medical or psychological professional) far from being confined to teenaged boys . AnonMoos (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter who uses them and which ones you think are witty, Wikipedia is not a compilation of aphorisms. Kyle112 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely fail to see how your beloved coarse sayings mainly used by 14-year-old boys trying to appear older than they actually are illuminates or validly compares in any way to the "half-age-plus-7" rule, or explain in any way why the "half-age-plus-7" rule should be de-facto banned from this article. In fact, they seem to be an irrelevant obfuscatory red herring. AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Because not every little social witticism, idiom, and aphorism is deserving of it's own article or section. If the incredibly popular "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder" saying doesn't get its own article, then neither should any other, including your poorly sourced "Half your age plus seven". If you can not understand this, then there is probably no explanation in the world that will convince you that your favorite pet saying shouldn't have prominence in a Wikipedia article. Jimbo Wales and many others have pointed it out to be unencyclopedic. Respond if you want, but this is my last reply to you. Kyle112 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations -- if the goal was to have a childish adolescent gross-out competition, then you win hands down. However, if the goal was to find cogent and valid reasons why the "half-age-plus-seven" rule should not be included on the article, then you lose (since you haven't been able to come up with any such reasons). AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirections

If key words like "sugar daddy" or "toy boy" are redirected to this articel those expressions should be mentioned here. At the moment it is not obvious what this articel has to do with the key words. CBa--89.0.18.83 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The title and content of this page is biased and inconsistent with other Wikipedia pages regarding people of different demographics who are in intimate romantic relationships

The title of this page represents a bias. To be consistent across wikipedia, this page should be titled "inter-generational relationships." When people of different races date, it's an "interracial relationship," when people of the same sex date, it's a "same-sex relationship" and both are named as such on wikipedia. When two people who are of two different generations date, it's an "inter-generational relationship." No other type of dating is defined solely in terms of its sexual content. There is no wikipedia page for "race disparity in sexual relationships," for example. That would obviously be ridiculous and biased. Or imagine the page on gay and lesbian relationships being titled "gender disparity in sexual relationships." That would be laughably bigoted. Yet, this page does the same thing and trivializes and sexualizes real people in real relationships. Here wikipedia is restating the media bias that when two people of different generations date, it defined as a "sexual" relationship or, even worse, an "economic" relationship! (see below for more on that issue). It's like when we used to say gay people only dated for sex. Look how that sabotaged them for years to be able to be taken seriously and accepted by society for basic marriage and parenting rights.

Also, the section on "slang" names for these relationships is inconsistent. On the "same sex relationships" page, for example, there isn't a section devoted to all the homophobic slang used to characterize gay and lesbian relationships over the years such as listed on onlineslangdictionary.com: auntie – bear – bender – bottom – bum bandit – butch – carpet muncher – catcher – chickenhawk – chicken hawk – cub – drag king – dyke – fag – faggot – femme – flamer – fruit – gay – gaylord – GLBT – hasbian – homo – lemon – lez – lipstick lesbian – minge muncher – mo – nellie – nelly – pole smoker – poof – Poofter – queer – shirt lifter – versatile

Can you imagine? "The gender disparity between two partners is typically met with some disdain in industrialized nations, and various derogatory terms for participants have arisen in the vernacular..."

Or how about including a section in the page on interracial marriage on all the racist terms used to describe those relationships over the years? "The racial disparity between two partners is typically met with some disdain in industrialized nations, and various derogatory terms for participants have arisen in the vernacular..."

Giving voice to the history of such racist and homophobic bigotry is beneath wikipedia's standards, yet the editors so easily jumped on the pop culture bandwagon and gave voice to ageist terms like "cougar" and "cub" or "gold digger" and "trophy wife"! While it is true that some older women embrace the term "cougar," to be consistent, you would have to include in the gay relationships page that some gay men refer to themselves and each other as "bitches." Get it?

Finally, although popular opinion assumes that inter-generational partnerships have an economic disparity (such as sugar mamas and sugar daddies), there is no evidence to support that inter-generational relationships rely on economic dependency any more or less than relationships that do not have an age disparity. Relationships specifically organized around an "economic arrangement" should have their own page and not be automatically correlated with inter-generational relationships.

Unfortunately, it looks like the wiki editors unconsciously bought into the pop culture discrimination widely displayed regarding this subject.Amyluna13 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Slang terms

I added the POV template, because it's not written from neutral point of view. "The age disparity between two partners is typically met with some disdain in industrialized nations" - no source, that's true maybe in the Anglosphere. Also this part evokes the idea that all age-disparity relationships exist because of money and "money are central to the relationship", an obvious nonsense. --Prabanton (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A similar section was previously removed by Jimbo. Given the somewhat different nature of this section compared to the previous one, I didn't want to just remove it outright, but I'm inclined to agree with Jimbo's reasoning: it's not the most relevant section to this article. To me, the focus of this article is on the social impact and difficulties—except perhaps as passing references (e.g., "Those in such relationships are often referred to derogatorily by such terms as ..."), slang terms would be more relevant in a slang-related article. I'm also concerned that the section will turn into a miniature version of Urban Dictionary, as it was previously and which it borders on now, since this is prohibited by WP:NOT#DICT. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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)

When applied to consenting relationships, there are no legal or scientific findings to support this meme. Would it be necessary to add an interpretation? SPACKlick's explanation is mathematically correct: both parties are subject to the rule regardless of interpretation. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is it labeled a 'rule of thumb' anyway? It is not a principle and therefor it cannot be a rule of thumb. If it was a principle then a relationship between someone aged 34 and someone aged 23 would have a 100% failure rate. Statistics proof it is not a rule of thumb principle [EDIT]. It's a social concept, despite the fact that some people do put their faith in it. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it not a principle? A principle can include any rule, including rules of thumb, that apply in most situations. I don't get why you think that a principle needs to have perfect accuracy. That's not what the definition of a principle is, and it's the exact opposite of the definition of a rule of thumb. A rule of thumb, by its very nature, is prone to being wrong in some situations. From [1]: "A practical principle that comes from the wisdom of experience and is usually but not always valid: “When playing baseball, a good rule of thumb is to put your best hitter fourth in the batting order.”" – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 17:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Any rule, or just fixed rules like physical laws? Cause that's what it says in the dictonary I use. But I will look into it when I have some more time, hopefully tommorow. Anyway, I am still wondering why its not a meme. It's a social concept of unknown origin... Doesn't it fit the definition? PS Fixed sort of a typo (used wrong word, see revision). 143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's called a "Rule of Thumb" because that's what sources call it.[2][3][4] Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The other reason, at least in my mind, is that it's setting out a specific guideline for ages, as opposed to a meme which is more about an idea. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 23:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

143.176.62.228 -- As discussed abundantly in the talk page archives (see also the comment of "22:20, 4 December 2013" below), 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 various different forms for many decades.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, rule-of-thumb as a guideline and no serious advice sounds fair enough. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 10:53, 17 February 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

Choice between the young and the old

Ill-matched couple

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)

 Done 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  ^(talk) 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)

Summary of !votes

Here is an overview of all !votes:

Number

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11a

11b

12

13

Image

a.k.a.

Choice

Ill-m.

Happy

Somov

M.o.V.

AN&LH

Beatr.

BillG

A&D

24.224.198.212

⊕

143.176.62.228

✗

!rep

✓

✓

!rep

⊕

f&d

✓

✓

⊕ hist.

✗

✓

✓

⊕ know

AnonMoos

✗ =age

✗ f&d

Lozen8

✓

⊕ wo

⊕ wo

Robin Hood

⊕ know

Red Slash

⊕

✗ !rep.

✗ !rep.

NotUnusual

⊕ know

Legend:

Symbol	meaning
⊕	preferred
✓	OK with this
✗	objection
know	feels it is well known
!rep	not representative enough
f&d	father and daughter
=age	both appear to be in same age bracket
hist.	historically accurate
wo	woman is older than partner

Given that we have enough candidates, I would suggest to exclude all pictures to which there was an objection. In conclusion, it looks like #4 is the closest we have to consensus. — Sebastian 08:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted on the grounds of selective argument. The section below Unequal makes note of the fact that the image you chose is not acceptable, and at least one editor disapproves of it. And once again, I am against the image as the disparity is not significant enough. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I've just noticed that your table doesn't include the "Unequal Marriage" image, which it should do really, to see what opinions are of that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody ever suggested the Unequal painting. It was pov-pushed into the article without discussion or introduction on the talkpage. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Insert) Don't be so bloody minded. Just because you don't approve of an image doesn't make its inclusion "POV". The image has been included since at least 2011, and indeed is one of the most stable aspects of the article, having been there for nearly 5 years - funnily enough, it's only since your arrival that it's become a bone of contention, and that simmered down again not long back - coincidentally around the time you were blocked. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to vote, but I like # 4 pictures, I don't like the pics presenting older/younger relationships in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.36.252 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that because nobody noticed the announced picture before, there is nothing wrong with it? And when someone points at an unjust situation, you should mute them by locking them up? Why do you keep repeating that you succeeded in getting me locked for a few days? How does this support your argument? Or is this the way people gather support on Wikipedia? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Is an uninvolved editor needed to resolve this?

I came here because a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships#Possible illustration stated that an uninvolved editor is needed to resolve this. I now realize that the discussion has spread beyond this section, and at least some people have abandoned the approach of posting pictures for discussion, which so hopefully started here.

I feel it is high time to come to a conclusion, and I would suggest an approach like the following:

1. Every suggested picture gets listed at the subpage /picturelist in a table that contains 5 columns: number, short name, image, benefits, disadvantages.
2. Benefits and disadvantages will be keywords that refer to arguments already stated elsewhere, with a diff or an anchor pointing to that statement. (Such links are not necessary for the keywords already used in the table above; I just amended the legend to include all of them.)
3. If there is consensus that a picture has no chance, as I presume is the case for the Merchant of Venice, it is OK to remove it from the table with an edit summary that contains the words "removed picture because ...".
4. After an appropriate time, an uninvolved editor will use that information to assess consensus.

If this plan sounds promising, and if there are no objections to me as uninvolved editor, I could make time to help with this next Saturday or after. If you want this to get resolved quickly, I would suggest you to also add pictures, benefits and disadvantages put forward by other editors that may not be present now, even if you disagree with them. — Sebastian 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have to conduct advanced statistical modeling or solve any quadratic equations to summarize the situation so far: Only the anonymous IP (who has been previously blocked) considers the 1862 Unequal Marriage by Vasili Pukirev image to be toxic and completely unsuitable for use in this article. Others disagree, but are willing to include depictions of other aspects of the phenomenon of age disparity in the interests of comprehensiveness or quasi-balance. Not sure that there's any strong consensus yet on what the other image(s) should be... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not true, I am not the only editor contesting the image. As far as I can tell there are only two editors insiting that the image will not be replaced by a more suitable one. The fact that they tried to get me banned by gaming the system is not a valid argument to support the image. It should also be noted that the disputed image has been pushed into the article without discussing it on the TP. There where allready comments about a lead picture at that time, but those where ignored. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sweeping, dusting, and weeding may be in order

In the past week, it has become apparent (e.g. by the fact that another administrator saw the need to fully and indefinitely protect this page) that the collective behavior here is more disruptive than I had thought. The amount of OWNership, failure to assume good faith, immature cynicism and childish one-upmanship displayed here takes a big toll on the Wikipedia community in general and on the spirit of collaboration. I have not taken the time to delve into this situation to be prepared to do anything about it, but I might do so if others share my sentiment. I wish I were Anna Frodesiak to come up with the appropriate nurturing advice. — Sebastian 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I don't want to be school-marmish, which was the response to my comments there, if I remember right. In this thread, I do not see the word "agree" -- just the word "disagree", twice. Are there basic ideas (like how many lead images), or image elements and features you can all agree on? Maybe that is a good starting place to help narrow it down. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As I am uninvolved, I guess I can give an opinion. It is a small chance, but maybe it will put this to rest.

1. I do not see what was terribly wrong with the long-standing The Unequal Marriage. Is this all so important that we change it? Life is short.

2. Why do we need a lead image in the first place? The article title says it all.

3. A painting is better than a photo. Imagine you were one of those celebrities? Would you want your (possibly temporary) relationship to represent this article subject? Err on the side of being considerate.

4. Any image should not be a long shot. We need to see faces. For this reason, The Unequal Marriage is not ideal.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The main objection to The Unequal Marriage is that the bride looks visibly unhappy. Apart from that, I have no particular issues with any of the other suggested images, though you make a good point about using a modern celebrity. Technically, that might even be considered a BLP issue, though that's probably stretching it a bit, but better safe than sorry. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 05:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Another objection is that the people in the background look visably disgusted. Also, from what is know about the painting, the painter intented all those faces to look this way. This painting is depicting an arranged marriage. Not unequal in age, but unequal in power.

We shouldn't ignore the fact that there is an intent behind the painting. It had a story when it was created, and this story is now colouring the lead text.

People put such a high emphasis on interpretation, yet they forget that there is no evidence of the involvement of sex, it depicts a political marriage. Assuming sex is original research. The picture is highly offtopic.

I do agree that the article is not required to have images. Not sure about the celebrities, they've agreed to be publicaly photographed as a couple. Most of them are or have been married, and some even have children. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Good points all around. Upon closer examination of the current image, I suggest that it be removed until or unless a suitable image can be agreed upon. For this type of article, an image is window dressing and that's all. There are good arguments against any given image, but are there arguments for having an image that outweigh no image? 223.199.66.121 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (Anna F)

---

143.176.62.228 -- The Unequal Marriage painting may or may not be an ideal illustration for this article, but so far you are the only one who sees it as toxic and so detrimental it must be removed at all costs. Your individual beliefs may be very sincerely held, but it's useless to reproach other people for not seeing things the same way you do. That has not gotten you any closer to your goal. AnonMoos (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm amenable to Anna F's suggestion of removal unless/until an image can be agreed upon. Anyone have any strenuous objections? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 07:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be removed if only a few people object. Their reasons are good. The keepers cannot claim "last stable version". It should be out by default and then weigh out the pros and cons. The cons are clear and valid. There are no pros. (Anna F) 140.240.109.192 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that I am the only one who thinks the Unequal Marriage should be removed? It is obviously not true. And why can't you see that there are only two or maybe three people who insent on keeping the Unequal Marriage? There are more people in favor of a replacement picture. There are even people who would agree with no picture at all (I would agree as well). And my individual believes? My individual belief is that any article should represent a neutral point of view. Zoom in on the painting, there are tears painted on her face. How is that neutral? There are universal facial expressions, and those have nothing to do with original research... Neither does the known history and story behind the painting. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Others have some reservations about it, but you're the one who thinks it's irredeemably toxic. AnonMoos (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So, here we go:

We are gathered here today to remove this image from this article. If there are any among us who object, speak now or forever hold your reverts. By the power vested in me, I hereby suggest we wait a few days and then remove it. You may now kiss someone you really love. Anna F remote (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

With no objections in the last few days, I've gone ahead and removed it. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 05:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard, can you please explain what part of the talk page you were referring to when you reverted my removal of the image? I see nothing here that supports keeping the image at this point, and Anna said just above, if nobody objects, we can remove it. Nobody objected, so I removed it based on what I thought was the consensus. I find it rather discouraging that you re-inserted yet again without a clear consensus to do so. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The more often this image gets reverted back onto the page, the stronger I feel that it should be removed and feel that it's being reinstated against apparent consensus. Can someone please explain why "If there are any among us who object, speak now or forever hold your reverts", which nobody spoke against, has seemingly become "revert at all costs". What is so important about this image staying on the page? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 15:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Nobody since the 17th has come here an posted objections. The image should go. There are at least 3 editors with good reasons why this image should not be in the article. There are no reasons why any available image is suitable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, been doing other stuff. I'm just repeating myself, but to defend the image, I seem to have to. Firstly - "The more often this image gets reverted back onto the page, the stronger I feel that it should be removed and feel that it's being reinstated against apparent consensus" is hardly a valid reason for removal. Ironically - I feel exactly the same about its removal. There is no evident consensus to take out a perfectly representative image of an age disparity - so why is it being done? Ok, so the bride looks unhappy, I accept that, but I also accept that her being unhappy is not the focus of the image, just as I accept that although "The Choice between the Young and Old" contains nudity it is also a good representation of age disparity. On the plus side, the image is of a marriage, therefore is more indicative of a sexual relationship than the Cancer image of a couple sitting at a table for example. That image contains no evidence of a relationship at all - they could viably be father and daughter.

I also take issue with 143's constant whining that the image is POV-pushing, including the claim that "It was pov-pushed into the article without discussion or introduction on the talkpage" - the image was added by all accounts here[5] on 21 July 2010. Now although there wasn't an edit summary, that's hardly a POV-pushing edit. Note this image was added in 2010. That's nearly 5 years ago. As I stated earlier, that makes this image about the most stable aspect of the entire article, and has out-survived incarnations of the "half your age plus seven" rules, other images, text, and alterations. Insertion of an image does not need discussion on a talk-page. What happens, as 143 is perfectly aware of, is that the process of bold revert, discuss happens. It's a bit late to say that this image is being reverted as part of that process... Instead, the image was taken out - reverted, and now we discuss. The process takes place while the image is in place - as in the version at which the topic was broached. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I made that statement when there was an apparent consensus. Anna proposed the removal as a compromise position between changing to a different image that nobody could agree on or keeping an image that, at the time, four different people had objected to. There was absolutely no objection to its removal at the time, so I was understandably a little miffed when, after 1.5 months of watching a slow edit war between the IP on one side and you & RAN on the other, the image was finally removed according to consensus and in a way that didn't violate the BRD principle, only to be reverted almost instantly without any discussion at all. RAN has since explained that he didn't see that discussion, which is fair enough, but without knowing that, it appeared to me that he was just refusing to bow to the consensus.

As for consensus, by my count, we're now up to five people who have expressed a reason for the image to be removed, while only two are supporting inclusion and one seems to be in the middle. That seems like a reasonable consensus to me and when only the two editors opposed are repeatedly reverting the removal or replacement, I call that reversion against consensus. The fact that the image has been stable for five years is not sufficient reason to keep it. Chances are, it's been here for five years because nobody really stopped to analyse what message it was sending. Personally, I ignore fluff decoration like that, but not everyone does, and once it was brought up, I absolutely agreed that it was a highly inappropriate image to be using.

I agree with you that the image was in no way "POV-pushed" onto the article, and I think 143 is going way overboard in his/her attempts at removing it. I will grant that the current image shows a marriage, which is ideal, but as you've agreed yourself, the bride is unhappy, which is the exact opposite of ideal. As I said above, what message is that sending about age-disparate relationships? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 16:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the bride is unhappy, but also that it is not a major factor for what this image is meant to portray in the article. The image - and the article - are portraying an age disparity in relationships, and that is what an image should display. It matters not a jot whether the bride is happy or not, because that is not the focus of the article - indeed the article makes no mention of whether either party is likely to be happy, sad, crying, insane, or in any other state of mind either during a marriage ceremony or during the relationship. Such a detail is not important to the article, because it has nothing to do with the context of the article - age disparity. If the emotional state of either couple needs to be considered, then we should have neutral visages, which would discount the cancer image, as both people in the image are clearly happy. Now that's just blatantly POV, ergo the image is inappropriate.

The only thing that matters is does this image show an age disparity - and to that the answer is a resounding Yes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the only thing that matters to you; it's not the only thing that matters to the article. What the image is meant to convey in this context is one thing, but what it actually conveys to a reader is what matters, and what it conveys is that the default for an age-disparate relationship is that they're unhappy and possibly forced. As you point out, it's no more accurate to say that everyone will always be happy, either, and I don't propose using one that expresses that either. Since there's broad disagreement on what the current image conveys, the logical course is to select another image (which there's also broad disagreement about) or not have one at all. A biasing image should not remain. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree still. It only fails to matter to you because you disagree, and are considering a topic beyond the scope of the article. I am not. I am thinking "does this image portray an age disparity? - Yes."

You are thinking "does this image show that marriage can be unhappy? - Yes." But as this article is not about marriage, I am not concerned with that. I consider the average wikipedian to be intelligent enough to understand that in an article called "Age disparity in sexual relationships" an image will be chosen on the grounds of an obvious age disparity, not whether marriage makes people happy or not. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of seven people who have expressed a clear opinion about The Unequal Marriage, five have stated that they have a problem with it. I think it's fair to say that it's not just me, but that "the average wikipedian" has a problem with it. Also, WP:LEADIMAGE has some relevant advice. Point 2 is very pertinent in that seeing The Unequal Marriage with a woman who is unhappy (possibly crying, though that's questionable) is more shocking than seeing The Choice Between Young and Old, for instance. They also confirm the two suggestions made elsewhere in this debate that if no single image can convey the topic neutrally and appropriately, either several images should be used or none should. I would therefore suggest that if we're going to use more than one image, that we use three, to allow for a good representation, and that The Unequal Marriage not be the lead image. Alternatively, as Anna originally proposed, we don't use any at all. Either way, there is no overwhelming reason why The Unequal Marriage must stay as the lead when so many people have now objected to it. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 19:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that, besides showing a slight bias, the 'choice between young and old' does not show a relationship between a younger woman and an older man. It would be original research to claim that they are involved in any kind of relationship. Is there any evidence that this painting does not depict prostitution? The most reliable and detailed resource does not claim anything about their relationship status. . While biasing, this image would not contribute anything to the article. Saying that it shows a relationship with an age dispartity is original research. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Gay couple

To put an end to the pov-pushing, I would like to suggest adding a picture of a gay couple to the article. I have found an excellent photograph:

It clearly shows a man with a healthy young skin, together with a man who has severly aged skin (including age pigmentation). Both are naked. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you know they're naked - and indeed what is the point of mentioning such a "fact"? Given that much of both parties are non-visible, there is no way to establish any kind of age disparity, apart from your own opinion. In short - this is a useless picture for the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles don't need to have quite that level of balance. If we include one straight and one gay, then we should also include multiple races/interracial, older male, older female, and so on and so forth. Honestly, I think one picture is sufficient, just not the one that's there currently. If we can't decide on just one, then a couple of additional images are also appropriate, each showing different aspects in some way. Gay could certainly be one of them, but I think if you look at the skin tone again, you'll see that the age difference in this one isn't all that clear. The hands of the guy standing are quite wrinkled. My hands don't look that wrinkled and I'm 44, so I'd guess he'd be in his late-fifties at the youngest. (Oh, and I "thumb"ed your image so it's not unduly dominating the page. Feel free to revert if that's not desired.) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 07:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Skincolour or ethnicic preferences have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Why should we assume that both are wearing a penis sheath? And if they are wearing socks does it mean they don't have sex? The sitting guy has age spots, those start in ones late sixties or early seventies.143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I do agree that one image (or even no image at all) could be sufficiant. But it shouldn't colour the article. Adding a picture of a gaycouple and a picture where the female is the older person, might brake the bias. But it would be much easier (since there is enough support) to replace the biased picture with either image number 10 or number 13. Maybe I am counting wrong, but there seem to be more people in favor of replacing the lead picture... Only two or three seem to insist that the biased picture stays. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Questioning the nature of relationships

Are we questioning every couple now? Who says Ashton and Demi ever had sex right? Or the people on the other pictures? If one would insult my King (whos parents are in one of the pictures) by publicly claiming that he is an illegitimate bastard, that person might end up in prison for up to five years. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If they're photographs of living identifiable people, then there might be BLP issues in some context. I'm not sure that this is a big issue here, but it's a potential difficulty to be aware of... AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of terminology

One recent edit removed the quotations around various terms, which I believe to be incorrect. In searching Wikipedia, 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies at Wikipedia: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. [6] 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[7]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [8]. 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 Wikipedia 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 [9]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [10]. Could you please move your commens about picture 4, up to the right section in the 2013[11] 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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  ^(talk) 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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[12], shows that you were blocked @ 2051h on Jan 6th. An equally quick glance at your own talk page history here[13] 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  ^(talk) 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  ^(talk) 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  ^(talk) 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)

It shows more then just an obvious age disparity. That's the whole problem with this picture. There are plenty of neutral replacement pictures that show an obvious age disparity. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:43, 8 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)

Can I also suggest flagging this for auto-archiving? I find it very helpful to avoid the multi-posting to older discussions that we've seen recently. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 05:51, 20 February 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)

I have removed the second image because nobody agreed on it, only you did. There was only one person who said he was open to suggestions. Isn't it strange that you removed an earlier picture, that had a majority vote? Why didn't you add that one as a second image then? You did not suggest any image, you just added one. And its just another biased picture to push your point of view. The picture of someone buying a young girl is not acceptable, as it is highly offtopic. There is clearly no consent to the picture you added. There are no votes on the picture in the above converstation. You are the only one wanting to add it, so please stop it. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And if you would read this talkpage you will come to the conclussion that there is support for Demi and Ashton, and the painting of Admiral Nelson. But there is no support for having two images (except for someone being open to the idea). 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not have the consent you seem to think for the Demi & Ashton image. Consensus is as divided over that image as it is for the "Unequal" image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Replacement

The Admiral Nelson and Lady Hamilton picture has a majority vote, for being the lead picture. Only one person wants to have multiple pictures and another person is open to the suggestion of multiple pictures. Either way, their is now an obvious majority who have chosen a replacement picture. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Two top photos

• insert support here
• The first two art photos show a clear age difference, the image of Admiral Nelson and Lady Hamilton don't, to my eyes, show a large age difference, they were just 7 years apart. The two top images were painted to show a clear age difference. The person deleting them argues that they carry societal baggage in that they have negative connotations. I agree that no one is smiling in the first image, but it is a wedding, not a Friar's Roast. The second image shows the tradeoff between having a relationship with an older person, more mature in their career, who has money. It appears that the woman is choosing the person her own age. I have no objection to Admiral Nelson and Lady Hamilton as the third image even though it doesn't automatically convey a sexual relationship with age disparity until you read the caption. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Whilst Wiki is not a democracy, and in general voting has no real impact, I am against the Nelson & Hamilton image for the same reason I'm against the Demi & Ashton image - the age difference is not obvious & significant enough to create a blindingly obvious age disparity. As I've stated before & above, the original reason for the image creation is irrelevant to the use it's currently being put. Again - as I stated above - the Demi & Ashton iamge was not created to show an age disparity in relationships, yet the IP in question has no qualms in using it for that purpose. Why then do they feel that they can use such an argument with impunity for the "Unequal" image? What's the difference? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• I definitely support two or more photos, all the more so if we're keeping the topmost one that the IP and I object to. Wherever that image is discussed that I've seen, the situation portrayed is seen as negative. As I've said before, though, negative relationships are a reality in any age group, so I don't object to the image if it's not the only one. I don't understand the IP's objection to the second image, though. I think perhaps he/she has misinterpreted. It's not the older man buying someone, it's the young woman choosing between a man her age who is perhaps more attractive to her vs. the older man who obviously has wealth and presumably stability. I'm ambivalent about the Lord Nelson picture. While the actual difference in age may not be that much, the apparent difference in age in that picture, at least to me, is much greater. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• See comment of "15:41, 15 January 2015" above... AnonMoos (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• If there is more than one lead image, then one of them should depict a gay couple. And one should depict a couple where the female is older.143.176.62.228 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Edit: and if the Unequal stays, some historic facts should be added as well:

  

The problem of using living people is the personality rights issue. We are implying that the people depicted are in a sexual relationship, which they may not be. We are also guessing at the age difference. Using celebrities with known ages would avoid the age guessing, but the consensus was to stick to art to avoid the personality rights conflicts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@143.176.62.228: - your reasoning is not sound. You run the risk of being pointy in your edits again with comments such as that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus about sticking to art, and there has never been consensus on this. There are many editors in favor of one of the photographs. Also, there is no reason to only include male-female pictures. Or pictures where the female is the younger person. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's very true, but the term is "could depict a couple where the female is older", and "could depict a gay couple". Your use of "should" is insistent, and unlike your latter comment - not true at all. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I used the word 'should' to descripe my support. I'm pretty sure I wrote it my self, so these terms cannot be untrue at all. I could support more than one image, but then these should show sex differences and/or historical facts (pederasty for example). I do not insist that you have my support, and it's not necessary either. Besides, my support for multiple images won't take away objections to biased paintings. PS What images to use as a replacement (or addition) has allready been discussed on this talkpage. All Those people have choosen a replacement picture and are not aware of the fact, that two or three people are now wanting to add multiple images in order to justify a single biased picture. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Admiral Nelson and Lady Hamilton only

• insert support here
• I don't mean to be rude, but I find this a little deceptive. Many people have allready expressed their feelings on what replacement picture they want. What makes you think they will come back to this TP, now that my 'request for comments' has expired? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevant and neutral pictures only

• insert support here
• I support any amount of images that do not show a certain point-of-view. The database is full of neutral pictures, there is no need to depict a 'dirty old man', a gold-digger or an arranged marriage as they already have their own seperate articles. Such pictures are not just offtopic, some may be highly biased (as is the current lead). 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)