This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Not sure that the gorilla section adds anything useful in its current form. I don't think that silver hair is a sign of advanced age in male gorillas... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
IT LOCKS LIKE GIRLS GO FOR DARKER HAIR; Bald men sexy too says survey.
"EXPERTS have discovered what most women find attractive in a man...his hair, or lack of it."
Psychologist Richard Davey reckons male locks are a major turn-on for the girls - and the darker the better.
More than 1,000 Welsh women were quizzed about the type of hair they prefer on men."
.....
The article goes on to state:
"Grey or greying hair, like newsman's Huw Edwards', is also appealing as is the bald-look of rugby star Craig Quinnell. "
...........
The psychologist, Dr Davey, expressing somewhat surprise that the grey haired man would rank high on the list of attractions stated this:
.........
Greying temples - like those of BBC news anchorman Huw Edwards - are a hit with 13 per cent of women.
The attraction can be explained by gorillas in the wild.
"The grey-haired Silverback gorilla is highly respected. Their grey colour provides clear visual evidence of survival ability, a highly desirable trait to all females."'
The problem with this photo is that we are saying they have a sexual relationship, which may misrepresent them, and violate their personality rights. They may represent father and daughter working on a living will, or a lawyer and client taking notes for a legal document. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Saying the actors/models in this setting depict a real couple is not a problem at all, because the photo is in the public domain. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You are confusing copyright with personality rights and also using original research. We are not supposed to guess at relationships using original research. By imputing a sexual relationship we may be misrepresenting them and violating their personality rights. This may be a father-daughter relationship where the daughter is working on a living will or a health care proxy form, or helping him sign up for Medicare. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not using original research. The image can be freely reused[1]. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yet the models do not give up their personality rights. And we are not supposed to do original research ... well, just reread what I wrote before. The image must comply with Wikipedia's interpretation of personality rights. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Neither did the models depicted on the Unequal Marriage. You are assuming that they had an actual marriage and that it led to sex. That is original research. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Again you are doing original research to say that there were models for the painting. I think now you are just arguing for the enjoyment of arguing.
We are not commercially using this image. Please link the WP file to proof your claims. I cannot find WP:personality or anything like it.143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What source is there indicating that the couple is in a sexual relationship? For all we know, they could be father and daughter, doctor and patient, just friends. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The same goes for the people depicted in the Unequal Marriage. What source is there that the man depicted is not the father giving away his daughter to an undepicted bridegroom? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You are making a non-argument. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I asked you what the source is for the implication that your picture represents a sexual relationship. I made an argument, and you stuck your head in the sand instead of responding to it, asking a question to which the answer is plainly obvious if you look at the name of the painting. If you continue this sort of asinine contrarianism, I will have no choice but to assume that you're either a troll or incapable of not acting like one. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And now your arguments are ad hominem. Since you are making it personal, just so you know: I don't care about this photograph AT ALL. But thanks for bringing this to our attention. There is no reason to assume the people portrayed in either this photograph or the Unequal painting are or where in a sexual relationship. So neither can be the lead image. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the whole discussion before making non-arguments or trying to take a disussion out of its context. The only thing plainly obvious when you look at the name of the painting is that it is about a wedding. It doesn't say that the person standing next to the bride is her future husband. It might as well be her father, 'giving her away' to someone.[persrights 1] If you continue this sort of false attributions, I will have no choice but to assume that you're either a troll or incapable of not acting like one. Eye for an eye.143.176.62.228 (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason that I said you're acting like a troll is that I made an argument and asked you for sources, and you keep ignoring those requests. You keep trying to change the subject. At best, that's an indication that no one should give you any consideration when deciding consensus. Consider that whatever you want, but your asinine contrarianism has no place here -- cite sources or GTFO. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
"A neutral admin was called in and made a decision. Do not revert again or you will be reported for edit warring against consensus." A single person with admin rights does not determine consensus. Consensus is determined by negotiation and, by definition, involves multiple parties. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody objected to Anna's decision during the discussion. That's consensus. Reverting against that consensus can be seen as an objection, certainly, but there was no mention made of it during the actual discussion. In the end, however, as Anna herself stated, "last stable version" is not sufficient reason to keep the image, whereas there have been numerous reasons cited to remove it. If you have some other reason to keep the image, then by all means, please introduce those arguments. – Robin Hood(talk) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has a good point. Admin rights do not mean anything here. I am here as previously uninvolved editor coming to give a view. I'm just another voice.
The thing is that RobinHood70, IP 143, and I all wish for no image now. Pretty solid reasons for removal have been given. I've asked for good reasons why that image should be in the article. No response about that since 11:42, 17 February 2015.
Richard, again, do you have any compelling reason why that image should be in the article other than "last stable version" and "need consensus for removal"? And if it is consensus you insist on, there is Wikipedia:Rough consensus, and 3 in favour with good reason trumps 1 against with no reason. So, please give us a reason why this disputed and controversial image should remain? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Just for clarification, I'm an admin on another wiki and I'm aware that admin rights mean nothing in terms of voting. I saw this as a case of a neutral admin arbitrating a dispute, however, and in that sense, I felt that we should bow to the arbitrator. In all honesty, I feel the article looks a little bare with no image at all, but I consider that an appropriate neutral ground rather than dragging out the debate over a suitable replacement image. – Robin Hood(talk) 23:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Your entire discussion is in the middle of a crowded talk page, not at the bottom. I have that page watched and never saw anything added to the talk page. People dispute things all the time, giving their arguments equal weight is a false equivalency. The reasons for the two photos are already given by multiple people at Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Replacement we even had the third image demanded by the IP as a compromise, but that was removed by someone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
So, as I read it, your reasons for supporting the image are that it shows an age difference and that you personally don't see any negativity to it. The fact that it shows an age difference is, of course, the entire point of putting an image there, and there are many more of those to choose from, even if we can't seem to agree on any particular one. Whether or not you see negativity is not the question. The question is whether others reasonably might, giving bias to the the article. That can easily be established with descriptions like this one, this one (which demonstrates both views in the same article) and this one. If it could reasonably be seen as biasing, which it clearly can, it should be removed. If you want to keep the Young and Old one in place, I have no objection to that one at all. The IP did, but I think he/she misunderstood the intent of the painting. – Robin Hood(talk) 00:05, 22 February 2015
Your first rationale comes from Wikipedia, you should know better than using Wikipedia is a reference, especially when a "citation needed" tag is attached. The second reference, from a blog, says: "It’s difficult to gauge her expression as many emotions play across her pale face." A wedding ceremony is solemn, it is not a Friar's club roast or a Roman orgy. People impute their own feelings into the image and see what they want to see. I just see a solemn expression, as have the other commenters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not an article about the history of art or about paintings. The images self-evidently do not belong here. WP:UNDUE surely applies, and maybe other policies. RobinHood70 was right to remove the images. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you quote something specific in the policy, instead of waving it at me? "Maybe other policies [apply]" Seriously? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Undue weight simply means that something should not be in any article unless it is important enough to be mentioned. Unless there is some absolutely compelling reason why those particular paintings belong in the article, they should not be there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Richard: I'm not using Wikipedia as a formal reference for anything. This isn't a reliable source issue. All I'm saying is that the image is commonly seen by others as negative and therefore is a bad choice if we're going to use an image at all. As for the second source, you didn't read far enough. As I said, it demonstrates that people see it both neutrally (the part you quoted) and negatively (the next paragraph, where it says "The ‘emotions’, that supposedly ‘play across her pale face’ are not hard to decipher. It’s despondency and resignation to her fate"). And we couldn't agree more that people impute their own feelings into the image, but by and large, people are imputing negative feelings onto this one, so why would we use it? I think we all agree on the Young and Old picture except for the 143.* IP, so if we're going to use an image at all then let's use that one or, as FKC points out, acknowledge that we don't actually need one on this article at all and simply remove it. – Robin Hood(talk) 02:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It's quite obvious that nobody is going to change their opinions, so I've decided to back off. I still disgree with the rationale for removal, and disupte the reasons for it being taken out of the article, but I'll no longer revert if it gets removed again - however that does not mean I agree to its replacement with any other images, as I still think that "Unequal" is the ideal image for the page, and that most of the suggested replacements are not only inferior in intent and context, but in some cases borderline ambiguous. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Wrapping things up and moving forward
Okay. Chaheel Riens's argument for keeping the image is "...The only thing that matters is does this image show an age disparity - and to that the answer is a resounding Yes..."
My rationale for having no image has been stated by me a few times: All images (paintings) convey more than just age disparity in the view of several editors including me. They give a non-neutral opinion. As for photos, we must err on the side of being considerate. Photos are a lousy choice.
Now, let's hear Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s argument. Richard, I've asked many times. No response. We all need to hear your argument why any image at all is needed in this article. If you've stated it above, I cannot find it. Please state it again here, concisely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no argument as to why any image is needed in any article in Wikipedia. Either we have images in articles, or we do not. Saying the woman looks sad is not a good enough reason to remove an image that was painted to express the exact topic of the article. We aren't suppose to engage in original research, to me she looks solemn, as you should appear at a wedding. Showing a picture of two random people, and saying they have a sexual relationship, is not a good alternative. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
1. You say you have no argument why any image is needed. Wikipedia works on "reason for inclusion", not "reason for exclusion".
2. You object to others having an opinion on what they see in the image and to original research. In the same breath, you give your own opinion with "...she looks solemn, as you should appear at a wedding...".
If the article never had an image, consensus to introduce one would be impossible right now. The only reason an image is present is because it was there before.
You want consensus for removal of what is a disputed, controversial, and in the view of several editors, POV image. This is absurd. The image should go. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think WP:OR applies here, since we're not stating as fact on the page that she's sad or solemn or anything else. Even if it did, it's as much OR to say she looks solemn as it is to say she looks sad. However, I think that if most or even many people perceive the image to be non-neutral, which is demonstrably the case here, then it should be considered non-neutral. I think we all agree that showing two random people who have no established relationship is not a good idea. I think the article looks better with an image, honestly, but no image at all is better for the article than two months of solid debating and edit warring. – Robin Hood(talk) 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to change your mind, or you change my mind. If you want to eliminate/keep the images hold an RFC and count the !votes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Really? This is not a case of good arguments on both sides. This is 4 editors all saying no image and providing a good argument. This is you saying yes image and openly stating you have no argument.
Please, for the sake of not wasting community resources, let this one go. Okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh? You are only counting the editors that side with you ... If you feel you are wasting your time, why are you here? You also are not here as a disinterested third party arbitrator, you have already sided with one of the litigants. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), please count the editors that side with you. What arguments have they or you made for the article having an image?
I was referring to an RFC as a waste of resources because your camp has no argument.
As I have stated, "...I am here as previously uninvolved editor coming to give a view. I'm just another voice..."
Refutation 1) Your argument is that 'Wikipedia works on "reason for inclusion", not "reason for exclusion".' Can you you show me a link to that policy so I can understand your argument. After all it is the winning argument, according to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Refutation 2) My argument to keep was not that she looked "solemn", that was my personal observation. My argument is that thinking she looks "sad" is not a reason to delete. People see whatever they want to see in an image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1. Your "Refutation 1" really enters wikilawyering territory, and quite a threadbare one at that. Do you really think we need a policy that says "It is not permitted to add content for no reason."? That is obvious. You have presented no reason for that image to be there. We have presented a good reason why it should not.
2. Yes, "...People see whatever they want to see in an image..." and 4 people see the same thing -- that the image is POV. That is plenty.
Again, what is your reason that the image should be there? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). One more thing: I am not sure if I am reading things right, but Sarah (SV) wrote below that consensus ought to be gained about whether to have any images in the first place. I am not sure she meant that no images by default unless consenus to have an image is the appropriate way for Wikipedia. Maybe she can clarify. Best wishes and no hard feelings to all. This is just a debate and I hope nobody is getting upset over this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I love the term wikilawyering. I ask you to show me the policy you are quoting and you accuse me of wikilawyering. Yes, you have to show me the policy you are quoting. I have never heard of the "reason for inclusion, not reason for exclusion" policy and I want to study it to see how it applies. I don't understand what it is. I am hoping that reading it will clear it up for me. Anyway, I will wait for the RFC. I am not here to proselytize you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy that says: "There must be a reason for content to be in an article." It is not needed because it is just too obvious.
If you are claiming that the absence of that policy means the image is okay, then yes, that would be wikilawyering.
How about an image of fluffy clouds in the article? Would that be okay? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Several parts of WP:LEADIMAGE apply here, such as not using a lead image if there's no easy representation of the topic and using images with the least shock value. Either of those would argue in favour of not using an image that many perceive as portraying an upset bride. Either a better image should be found or none used at all.
Thinking she looks sad, which someone could easily infer as applying broadly to age-disparate relationships, creates bias and is plenty of reason to delete. – Robin Hood(talk) 03:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Math I do understand. "Images with the least shock value" implies using at least one image mathematically. I went from wikilawyering to wikimathematicianing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
"wikimathematicianing" That's actually pretty good :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anna, the dispute seems to have started on 4 January 2015 with this edit, in which 143.176.62.228 replaced the lead image, File:Pukirev ner brak.jpg. Therefore, the default is arguably a version with that image. Alternatively if people can't agree on which image, it could be argued that the default is no images until the dispute is resolved.
Rather than thinking in those terms, you might consider holding a straw poll. It should be kept as simple as possible: (1) Should this article contain one or more images (a simple yes or no); and (2) if yes, should it contain File:Pukirev ner brak.jpg as the lead image (yes or no)? If you can't achieve consensus, then you could hold a formal RfC. Once you have those two questions settled, then you can ask more complex questions, such as whether it should contain other images. Just a suggestion. Sarah (SV)(talk) 03:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah (SV). Thanks for the good input. :) I like the efficiency of a straw poll. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I have stated that due to the obviousness of nobody changing their minds, I have backed off from the constant battle against the Unequal image. Note that I have not changed my opinion -just stated that I will not constantly re-insert it. However, that does not mean that I consider any of the other images suitable replacements - except for "Young and Old" which was also an image on the page during this discussion. I point out to the constantly blinkered IP @143.176.62.228: that the majority, as summed up by @Robin Hood:, in fact supports the inclusion of "Young and Old" - "I think we all agree on the Young and Old picture except for the 143.* IP" I also note that despite frenetic editing on the article itself to remove images[2][3][4][5] - they haven't actually joined in the discussion that they arguably started since 17th Feb[6] - over a week ago. Although I do see a dismissal of @Anna Frodesiak:'s advice over on his talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Chaheel Riens, my friend. I think we both see this entering the realm of the ludicrous. :) I have a secret for you. I really don't care that much about the image either way. :) I showed up to try to stop the huge waste of human resources at this talk page. That is what I care about. Richard seems to want the image but has no reason why that he can think of, but really, really insists. Our friend IP 143 just keeps reverting. It is very hard not to feel school-marmish sometimes. I'm biting my lip here. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens: You must be joking. I've opened an rfc and have literally spend hours debating and looking for other images. Have you even considered one of the images I suggested? Or did you come up with a neutral image? Since we cannot agree on a neutral image, the only solution is to have no image at all. There is a majority that supports an article that does not show any bias. This majority has decided not to have an image. You did not have any argument to add an image. Then what good would endless polls do? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There's only one person I think is joking on this page, and they ain't funny either. I wrote out a lengthy reply, but considered that it would be TLDR and/or a personal attack. Suffice it to say that given your lack of following instructions (straw poll, sock puppet claim), only pulling out info that you want to hear and insistence that anything you don't agree with is "pov-pushing" it's clear that you and I will simply not agree, nor get on. I think it fortunate that our paths will probably only ever cross on this page, and even then that's too much. I remove myself from this discussion with you, and think I will go and deal with some more easy going editors talking about images over on the Depictions of Muhammad article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Protection
I've protected this again, this time only for 24 hours, because the reverting had started again. Rather than going back and forth, please gain consensus first for whether to have any images, and if there is consensus to have images, whether to have one or two and which one(s). Many thanks, Sarah (SV)(talk) 23:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Sarah (SV). I saw the article edits but wanted to leave it to others. It is best that I do not touch the article itself. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Straw poll
Question 1
Should this article contain one or more images? (a simple yes or no)
No. There have been more votes that support other pictures, so there is no reason to start over. If you zoom in on this painting, you can see that the bride is crying. Facial expressions are universal, so no original research. If you read the history about this painting you will find that the painters intent was to condemn age disparity. Adding a painting of a forced marriage[Question2 1] does not improve the article, it only pushes a certain point-of-view.143.176.62.228 (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is what the 143 IP meant to link to: [7]
Awesome self published book from Lulu.com, best $100 the author spent.
Irrelevant. This is not a question of reliable sources, as there's no information being added to the article. We keep showing you people saying this is a negative image, to the point that it's now an overwhelming majority. You keep saying "I don't agree". Great, you don't. The rest of the world sees it as negative, and that impacts on the neutrality of the article. – Robin Hood(talk) 05:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Paintings I am not an expert on, math I know. You, the author of a self published book, and two anonymous Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts are not "the rest of the world". Here is the math: (7 billion people) - 4 = 7 billion people whom we do not know the opinion of. Please check my math for mistakes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
[8][9][10][11][12][13], the Pukirev article itself, and even Chaheel Riens ("Ok, so the bride looks unhappy, I accept that"). Those were just the ones I found in a couple of minutes and it even looks like the first one is not self-published and would qualify as a reliable source, since you seem so determined that we need one. Do you have a comparable reliable source or several unreliable sources saying she looks solemn? The closest I've seen in this entire discussion is that one of the links I just posted, which refers to the wife as "despondent", also quotes someone else who says it's "difficult to gauge her expression"; that same person, however, thinks the older man is her father, so I don't put a lot of stock in their assessment.
Please do not go bandying about accusations of SPA. That's bad faith and your edits to their contributions go against the guidelines of altering other people's contributions. As such, I've removed them. The 143.* IP has edits to many other articles (at least prior to becoming involved in this debate), and while I agree that 172.* IP has a limited number of articles, there's no strong evidence that they're anything other than some other IP editor. If you'd like to launch a sockpuppet investigation or something of that nature, then do so. Otherwise, they should be considered equal to any other editor. – Robin Hood(talk) 06:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed mine per the guideline at WP:SPA. I have to many none related edits, and also enought edits prior to this subject. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Facial expressions are not universal. A smile can denote joy, embarrassment, confusion, disagreement, and even anger. "Tears of joy" is not a rare expression, either (not saying that her tears are of joy, merely pointing out that yes, you are engaging in original research when you say what her tears mean). There is also the original research guessing why the bride is crying. Was it meant to shame a trend? Yes, as can be easily demonstrated by sources. But that also means that the painting is sourced as a particularly important historical representation of age disparities in sexual relationships. I don't care whether or not we include it, but the argument that we shouldn't include it because many sources discuss it in a particular way are contradictory. That might mean that we shouldn't place it in the lede, and should provide a caption that explains the historical context, but it's still an argument against removing it completely. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no objections to the image staying on the article as long as it's not in the lead and is appropriately balanced by other images (or otherwise used appropriately, like in a history section, etc.). – Robin Hood(talk) 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No. This article is not about marital, but sexual relationships. Before adding an image, answer the question: What relationship(s) does the image illustrate? And maybe also ask: What statement(s) in the article does the image support? —172.164.43.160 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC) — 172.164.43.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits to this topic.
Good point! Bloody good point! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the image is no more shocking than any of these non-fictional marriages List of relationships with age disparity. While the article is titled sexual relations, I think we can all agree not to show a picture of people engaged in a sexual tryst. Before adding an image please "read Marcus Aurelius -- of each thing, ask: what is it, in and of itself?" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Right. What is it, in and of itself? It is an image of an old man and a young woman getting married. Do you see a sexual relationship? Be mindful of original research before you reply. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Where's the citation that the blue thing is the sky?
In fairness, marriage assumes a degree of sexuality, otherwise Catholic priests wouldn't be barred from marrying, and the religious right wouldn't be trying to push homosexuals into "civil unions." While we do have citations for "the sky is blue" (and I'm not complaining), we do not require citations in Skywriting that the blue thing in the background is the sky, because that would go beyond WP:COMMONSENSE. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
True. But, marriage is the subject of the painting, not sex. The sex is implied. We need a picture of a young and old person smooching. Nothing else should do. Saaaaayyyy, could one of us just get two friends for a staged photo? I will post below asking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
I object to this straw poll, because there has already been an rfc prior to this strawpoll. Just because one or two people dislike the outcome of this rfc doesn't mean we should do it all over again. Please respect the results of the previous rfc. This could be considered gaming the system.143.176.62.228 (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me for not being very observant, but where is this prior RfC? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I had thought there were two, but looking more closely, it looks like there was just one that kept getting removed by LegoBot. The RfC that eventually stayed was added here. – Robin Hood(talk) 04:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I have trouble seeing the problem here. File:Pukirev ner brak.jpg seemed like a perfectly appropriate illustration. Using a photo of real people seems quite ill-advised. Making any couple "the face" of age disparity by placing them in the lead is never a good idea. Historically, there's been some very obvious problems involved with age disparity in relationships. I fail to see how that can be controversial.
Some age-disparate relationships have had problems; some haven't. There's nothing in the article that discusses the frequency of successful vs. unsuccessful age-disparate relationships, either now or in the past, so we cannot make assumptions based on our cultural biases. To my mind, it's therefore equally inappropriate to have an image that suggests that these relationships are inherently negative or unwanted. My ideal would be an image that shows affection between an older and younger partner with no clear indication of whether it's good or bad, assuming we can find and agree on such an image. Some of the ones suggested at the Village Pump might be okay, though I'm concerned about the running theme in many of the pictures by Cranach that the younger partner is only in it to siphon money from the older one. It's a common perception, but I don't think it happens in reality as much as people tend to assume. – Robin Hood(talk) 02:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
SPA tags
The SPA tags are valid tags per WP:SPA, please do not remove them. If you think we should not have these tags, lobby to have the tag template deleted from all of Wikipedia at the SPA talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This is vandalism, I have reported it. Stop making false accusations! 143.176.62.228 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not vandalism, and it's not a false accusation. You have demonstratably made no edits outside of this topic, and most of them have been to make tendentious arguments to try and remove the picture. Honestly, if you'd just go away, the picture would probably be removed without you. But no, you want to win. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:SPA, the editor's entire timeline must be looked at. 143.* made edits to numerous other articles before this article became his/her focus. The fact that three-quarters (or more) of their edits have been to this page is a natural effect of the debate. Three-quarters of my recent edits have also been to this page, but I can hardly be considered a single-purpose editor. As such, I consider the SPA tags to be invalid. Now, having said that, the 143.* IP has committed many other violations of Wikipedia policy and by no means am I defending those. I'm hopeful that now that that person has been blocked, this discussion can be resolved with a lot less difficulty.
Similarly, 172.* made one edit to this article and edits to four unrelated articles as well. That's not a single-purpose account by any definition. While I can see the argument that they joined just to vote, given that they did make edits to other articles first, it could just as easily be a drive-by vote. The natural effect of a battleground is that it shows up on Recent Changes more frequently, thus drawing editors who monitor that list.
I do find it ironic, however, that after I was accused of trying to give admins "supervotes", which was not at all my intention, it seems that the same person who made that accusation is now trying to give others "subvotes". – Robin Hood(talk) 22:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
A brilliant solution, just brilliant
And I mean stupefyingly brilliant!
One of us needs to get an old and young friend together for a staged photo. Fake smooching is all that is needed, right? Easy! Okay, who is it going to be? I'm in China, so nobody here would do it. It's just too weird for them and they'd think I'm nuts.
Let's have some volunteers speak up. Ideal would be waist up, kissing, clothes on of course, hands (they show age well) visible with fingers interlocked, at shoulder level.
(Oh, and save the glowing praise and shower of barnstars for after the image is uploaded. )
I like this idea and would totally volunteer if I wasn't pretty sure that all of the women I'd be willing to take this picture with would describe it as 'an unneeded act of desperation' on my part, or wouldn't want to get the rest of the church talking. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I love the idea, if it could be a CGI then I can easily do it with poser and photoshop. But I have been blocked without a valid reason, so I can't help. Hopefully someone will, or can make a nice drawing perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.88.30.50 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC) 08:15, 27 February 2015
This only "brilliant, just brilliant" if somebody actually takes the photo. Please, look around your room for people and recruit them. Promise them lunch, anything. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The first "fake smooching" image that came to my mind was of an old man kissing someone half his age: William Shatner (age 83) kissed Wayne Brady (age 42) on The Late Late Show (CBS TV series) recently. Shatner-Brady Bromance Brady admitted he had his lips tucked in – it was just an act. 172.162.6.142 (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Biblical figures
According to the Bible, there was an age disparity between Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 17:17). There are plenty of biblical paintings. It is also believed that Joseph was significantly older than Mary. 31.20.100.191 (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that Mary had a virgin birth (I'm sure I read that somewhere) that pretty much counts out any images of them for an age disparity in a sexual relationship... Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There is only about 10 years difference between Abraham and Sarah, the only woman in the Old Testament whose age is given. Sarah's Egyptian handmaid Hagar was (probably) considerably younger than Sarah, but we would need a WP:RS to put something in the article. 172.162.6.142 (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Moving forward
Okay, so my read of the straw poll is that there's no clear consensus on anything. If we take it strictly by the numbers, there's weak support for having an image, and weak opposition to the existing one (or it's even, if you take the latest post by Peter Isotalo as a vote). Barring any block evasion, the IP is currently blocked until the 12th. I'd like to suggest that we try to come to some agreement now that the ongoing aggravator of the edit warring has been removed. Then, if the IP tries anything upon their return, there should be no further drama, since we'll all be able to state with certainty that a decision has been made. And believe me, I will be as happy to revert any attempts at changing things as anyone else.
So, to that end, unless Anna's suggestion gets some offers, I'd like to follow a different IP's suggestion and use an image of Abraham and Sarah. The current lead image at Sarah seems like a great choice (see right). The age difference is clear, there's nothing unexpected about it, they're known to be husband and wife, and there's nothing terribly controversial in their story that I can see at a glance. About the only potential drawback to it that I see is that it's religious in nature, but even there, based on Sarah's page, it seems that all three of the main Abrahamic religions mention them. Any thoughts on this? – Robin Hood(talk) 03:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, not sure about this one. The image doesn't actually show an age disparity in a sexual relationship. Visitors would just see two people standing there. They'd have to know the backstory. There is a disconnect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I do have to argue that the religious nature would not be a problem: Non-Abrahamic religions and irreligions would at least acknowledge that it's a story. This isn't like having the article God article start off with a picture of Jesus or Krishna, it's more like using Hercules and Antaeus (or Gustave Doré's Jacob Wrestling with the Angel) in the wrestling article.
But, IIRC, Sarah was well within the "half-age plus seven" rule. Hagar might be more appropriate, except I think most of the pictures of her are Abraham giving her the boot.
...The first thing that comes to my mind is Tenth Doctor and Rose Tyler, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work for a variety of reasons.
A screencap would be a copyvio, I think, and not fitting for a non-free license. I still think the word "sexual" in the article title means we need to see some smooching in any image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any of the other images on the Sarah article as working well to display a relationship, either. The image in this article, mentioned by someone on the Village Pump, would certainly show a sexual relationship, but I'd be concerned that that might go a fair bit outside the "least shock value" principle of LEADIMAGE and I don't see it on anywhere on Commons in any event. – Robin Hood(talk) 04:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Sarah presenting Hagar to Abraham, to have sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.224.233.23 (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Lucas Cranach Elder 3.jpg is not a bad choice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Last stable version
Well, it's been a long time and the main proponent of an image in the article has stopped discussing things. I contend that the current version can now be considered the last stable version. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Graph in The "half-your-age-plus-seven" rule section
The graph has an "Upper limit" line. Where on *EARTH* did that come from, since the text in the section is *ONLY* about lower limits?
It comes from applying the formula in reverse. So, if you're the younger partner, and you actually care about some silly rule like this :), you would subtract 7 from your age, then double it, and that should be the maximum age of your partner. – Robin Hood(talk) 08:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Age gap vs. divorce rate
Just to elaborate a bit on my recent reversion, if you follow the links in the article through, you will get to this page, where you can see the following quote: "The original authors of the study have pointed out that although there is a significant correlation between wider age gaps and increased divorce, it is not possible to determine the relative percent likelihood from their study." Since that leaves the specifics of the research rather vague, I don't think it makes a suitably high quality source for inclusion in the article. – Robin Hood(talk) 23:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is wrong
A man should marry a woman half his age, plus seven - is the contemporary understanding - Blue Moon, Malcom X, etc *is* contemporary culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C614:B800:907F:E7D8:E824:6920 (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The things you're referring to (with the asymmetrical interpretation) are 50-60 years old. The application to relationships in general (not just the beginning point of a man-woman marriage) and the symmetrical interpretation seem to be more prominent in recent years. AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Peer Reviews (Nov 2016_
Peer Review
Iz Williams (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi! This page looks like it has had lots of progress made to it. Here are some of my comments:
The brief overview in the introduction is understandable and allows readers who aren't knowledgeable on the topic to gain an understanding of the area.
I really like the statistics table, I think that it is very clear to readers and makes it easy to see the gender differences with age disparity in sexual relationships.
I also think that the inclusion of statistics for other countries to the USA in the article has been a good addition.
Within the 'reasons' section, where it says The demographic trends are concerned with the gender ratio in the society, the marriage squeeze, and migration patterns.', perhaps these three things could be explained a bit more? For instance, there could be some more discussion on how migration patterns have affected age disparity.
This section could potentially be split up with different subheadings, although this may depend on how much information you could gather for each subsection.
Are there any more topics that could be included in the modern culture section? Maybe on how age disparity has changed across time, although of course I don't know what literature there is out there for this.
Overall the page is clear, organised and interesting to read. Its a great contribution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iz Williams (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review - November 2016
Hi, overall I really enjoyed reading this article and found it very informative! There are only a few modifications that I would recommend for this peer review:
Introduction
The introduction is a great start to the article and explains the concept well, such that anyone can understand what it means. There is adherence to wiki guidelines regarding formatting, citations and also writing style. Overall, a great introduction that is not too wordy.
Layout
The layout of the article as a whole is easy to understand and flows well from one section to the other.
Statistics
I really like the use of the graph in this section; you have utilised a broad age range and displayed this in a way that is simple but effective. The information regarding different cultures is extremely useful and interesting.
You have mentioned that the gap is largest in Africa - I was just wondering whether including a figure for this may be useful, in that it is the statistics section? Also, is there anymore information about other cultures, this could also be a merit to the article?
The use of evidence both for and against a relationship is great as it shows that you understand the literature, and can demonstrate clearly that one study is not always representative of the larger picture.
Putting the studies in chronological order is also extremely helpful with the flow of the text and understanding.
The section on lifespans: You have said that there are individuals with longer lifespans, is there a statistic for this?
Reasons For
Altogether a clear and detailed explanation. Although, where you have mentioned the 'social structure of a country' - could maybe link this to a page about social structure, just to ensure that the reader understands exactly what characteristics of society you are referring to.
Modern Culture
The use of the graph helps in understanding the rule. Furthermore, I really like the flow of this section, as it explains the definition, history and how it is interpreted now.
However, are there any other rules used today that may be interesting to discuss?
Overall
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article and have learnt myself about the age disparity in sexual relationships. You have followed wiki guidelines and have created an excellent contribution!
CADudley (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review
Hi,
your work is a great progress in this article. I found a lot of information and perspectives about age disparity in sexual relationship. Graphs are very useful and illustrate data you write about. Language is clear. Here are some suggestions from me:
In introduction you would add maybe some examples of famous couples with such age disparity and add photos of these couples on the right side to engage readers attention.
As the first heading you could prepare history of such relationships, how these differences have been changing. A lot of facts to this part I could find in current article, so you could use them and expand a bit.
In my opinion, it would look nice if you added sub-headings in Statistic section for men and women separately.
The graph of Age difference in heterosexual married couples could be smaller, because it produces an empty, unnecessary space around.
I would also share Reasons for age disparity which means, each explanation may have own sub-heading.
Maybe you would be able also to expand age disparity concerning societies, legal, and ethical systems.
Overall the article is very interesting and useful source of knowledge.
Izabela.K (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Note on Peer Reviews
Hi,
For those that are part of the human sexuality module and wishing to complete a peer review of our contribution you can find this either in the module issues forum or by looking at the edit history of the page with our version being uploaded on the 24 November 2016 at 23:54. The sections we contributed were Evolutionary Perspective, Cultural Differences, Social Perspective and Age-Hypogamy in Relationships (and all relevant sub-headings).
Hi guys, great article, shame someone was petty and deleted it! Whilst I can see some value in the half your age plus 7, given its occasional cultural relevance, due to the lack of literature, you had no choice but to remove it. People on this page could do with being less petty about such matters. As far as what you've contributed, great work! The age-hypogamy section is really interesting, I liked how you covered older female-younger male relationships, despite there not being much literature on it. It still deserved a mention because it is something that happens. Maybe you could combine some of the separate lines to form paragraphs, so reading it flows better. At the moment its a little choppy with one sentence paragraphs. The first line of the evolutionary perspective section could be made more concise. Currently it's "One approach that provides an explanation for age disparity in sexual relationships is from evolutionary psychology which is based on the theories of Charles Darwin (1858, 1871)", maybe change it to something like "The evolutionary approach, based on the theories of Darwin (1858), attempts to explain age disparity in sexual relationships".Overall I think the text in several places could be condensed down, just by rearranging sentences and using an active tense. This would help make the whole thing shorter and easier to read, without losing any information. Maybe add text links for words like "adaptive" and "intrasexual selection" (if there is a page). It's good that you looked at multiple perspectives, and you covered both really well! This is a really interesting page now, much better than before. A picture or two would make it look even better! You've clearly put a lot of time and effort in to this, and it shows in the quality of it. It'd be a shame if this didn't get put back up, so maybe include the half your age plus 7 section as a compromise? Hopefully the person who took this revision down is mature enough to compromise, because this is very informative, scientific article
Tmase1 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the great feedback. I have personally taken it on board and condensed the evolutionary perspective section, and making the first sentence more concise. We have also made the page generally more user friendly adding in some pictures, more text links and condensing paragraphs where needed. CallamConstant (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review on 3rd year Human Sexuality assignment
It would be a good idea to start the article with an introduction on how age disparity relates to sexual relationships. It could summarise the contents of the article; The evolutionary perspective and the social perspective as alternative explanations could be explained in a couple of sentences and then you could talk about variations between cultures and the presence of hypogamy. Starting with the evolutionary perspective suggests that this is what age disparity mainly is about, which is a bit confusing, so an introduction would clear it up.
The content box could go under the introduction.
I like the inclusion of the table and how it can be sorted in an ascending/descending order. Eastern Asia however, still appears on the top, when selecting descending, yet it has a smaller value than the following ones. I'd also suggest including a caption under the table, explaining what SMAM difference is because it isn't clear.
I've noticed a minor error under Social Structure Origin Theory. "Women and Men" - men shouldn't be capitalised. I like the inclusion of an alternative explanation for age disparity though, good work on that.
I've noticed some problems with your references too, some were invalid, and some were duplicated.
Overall you contribution was very significant, and I see that you have put a lot of work into it. I believe that you should have started by improving what already exists on the page and not changing completely the structure. I've noticed a chart on the November 1st version, that gave a good graphical representation of the age difference that I think you should have kept.
I hope you manage to include your work on this article, as it is very thorough and carefully researched.
Hi, thank you for your peer review. You made some great comments. We have since posted on our talk page as to what we are planning on changing, we have included some of the already present content in amongst our own.
We are adding in a new introduction for the page to make it relevant to the new edit.
The errors that were noticed in the graph and social structure origin theory have now been changed. We are also working on repairing our references.
Thank you again for reading our article and for taking the time to help us improve our work.
Hi,
I hope, now I’m completing a review of an appropriate version of your article[14] which is very detailed, full of information and very interesting. A Table with data of cross-cultural differences is very clear and useful tool in your article. You did a great job!
Here are some suggestions from me:
Maybe at the beginning you would be able to prepare a short introduction to article also based on your new information.
Photos would engage readers attention as well as examples of famous couples with such age disparity would do.
It’s sure that you prepared great piece of knowledge, however, sizes of paragraphs could be smaller.
I would also start new paragraph in the point you explain parental investment [in: Evolutionary perspective]
You can also add text link to ‘cougar’ in text, not in “see also”.
There are some problems with your references such as doubled link to resource or lack of tittle of article, which is just written as a name of journal.
I think whole text would be easier to read if you worked on some very long sentences and shared existing parts with more sub-headings. For instance:
Evolutionary perspective
Darwin’s theory
Life history theory
Buss’s research
Why do males prefer a younger female mate? /
Why do females prefer an older male mate?
Cross-cultural differences in age gap
(leave first paragraph without sub-headings)
Larger than an average age gaps
Smaller than an average age gaps
Social Perspectives
Social Structural Origin Theory
Women /
Men
The rational choice model
Age-Hypogamy in Relationships
Statistics
Cause
Overall it is a well prepared, informative and valuable article!
Izabela.K (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your excellent feedback. Your suggested structure was very helpful. We've also added an introduction, pictures and more links. I've also tried to condense the evolutionary approach section.CallamConstant (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review
If I am correct, the version of the page you guys submitted can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships&oldid=751332980 and that is what I am reviewing. Although I only point out flaws, I did find your page very informative and well written, so good job! I will try not to reiterate too much of what previous peer reviewers have stated, but some of those fixes are the reason your page was removed.
1. You need an introduction to the page. This doesn't have to introduce everything you are going to talk about, it isn't even necessary to have any sources, but you can't just drop the reader into the content. The current edition of the page already has an introduction, so I would suggest working with that. I would recommend putting this information in the introduction (some of which you can just take from the current version):
- a short description of what the topic means (even if the name is self-explanatory)
- a statement about the relevance of the topic in history
- a statement about the relevance of the topic today
- in this case, I think varying cultural attitudes towards the topic is a short discussion that can be alluded to in the intro
- a mention to the topics counterpart, or a popular opposing theory. The current intro's link to homogamy (which should specifically be age homogamy) was good.
- hyperlinks to near synonymous wiki pages, or parent pages (like sexual relationships)
2. You need to add introduction sentences to the paragraphs under each header. The first one is pretty good, but every header sentence after it dumps the reader right into content and sources. The first sentence to Social Structural Origin Theory was especially confusing. Similarly, the first sentence to "Cross Cultural Differences" acts as a transition by reference "these trends". These trends should be referenced by name since they are in a different header. Otherwise, someone may change the page layout, or the previous paragraph's information, and then the sentence in question will have a different meaning. Wikipedia headers should demonstrate encapsulation since it is a community edited resource.
3. You should add pictures. This is a very large topic with lots of information. Pictures don't always have to offer information on the topic, as wikipedia guidelines say, pictures can just contribute to the organisation or aesthetic of the page. This being said, regarding the topic of age difference, an old painting showing age disparity in sexual relationships could offer historical context, or pictures that present cultural perspectives/acceptance would definitely contribute to the pages reliability.
4. Rewording some of your more dense sentences. Most of the sentences I had to reread where header introduction sentences, however, a number of other sentences also seemed too long, dragged out, or just generally confusing. An example is, "For males, the older they get the younger (relative to male age) females are accepted as but for females as they get older they begin to resemble the male pattern: more willing to accept younger men (relative to female age) and acceptance for older males lessens." By the way, this previous sentence is also possessive punctuation.
5. Use general references with superscript links instead of giving the author's name and year of publication everywhere (in Evolutionary Perspective). This isn't an essay, you don't need to say Buss (1989) argued this, or attributed that, and then do the same thing the next sentence with another paper. You can also group them together and generalize instead of explaining the methods of each experiment (I am looking at the 3rd paragraph of Evolutionary Perspective).
6. The table in "Cross-Cultural Differences" can be anchored to the right hand side of the screen, as to avoid having unused page space and generally making the page look more organized and easier to read. I would also suggest not capitalizing all of the data in the table.
7. Since it is not the current version, I don't think I can make any punctuation or grammar changes, however, there is some that you need. The sentence used in 4. needs an apostrophe (that one isn't very big). You need to add commas after certain statements like "for example". The following sentence comes after a semi-colon on your page, however this is generally not the time to use a semi-colon, and the statement is in general, vague and out of place: "it increases sociosexuality[22] and notably increases the use of polygyny[21]."
Good luck fixing it up and hopefully you can get a stable published page.
Thank you for your feedback, we have taken on board all of your suggestions. We have added pictures, an introduction, moved tables to the right hand side of the page and removed unnecessary or vague words/citations like"sociosexuality".
We have also added superlinks and removed any authors names from the text apart from Buss (but he is linked). I hope we have cleared up all the sentences and made it easier to understand. Thanks again! Sbamwarwick (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review
Hi guys, just finished reading through your contributions. Personally, I can't understand why it was deleted, as I thought they were all valid and useful additions to the topic. Here are a few of my comments:
In the first paragraph in 'Evolutionary Perspectives', I think 'species' should be followed by an apostrophe... only a small grammatical error though. Similarly, it might flow slightly better if, in the following sentence, you add a comma after 'Within sexual selection'.
In the second paragraph, maybe discuss who came up with Parental Investment Theory? Another grammar one (sorry), in the last line of this paragraph, comma after 'For example'?
The parental investment section, while definitely NOT 'filler', could maybe be condensed a bit?
Overall, this section, especially the third paragraph, is really informative.
Cultural differences section is also very informative. The only criticism I might have is that the second paragraph contains quite a lot of biological jargon that may benefit from hyperlinking?
I can't really fault the social perspectives section. Interesting point about the wage gap, also.
In the age hypogamy section, I personally feel that the 'cougar' bit is a little out of place. Totally understand if you feel it's relevant, but to me it sticks out a little.
You discuss the sexual double standards women face with regard to ageing, but leave the societal sexual double standards statement up in the air a bit. May be more clear to elaborate on this?
The final paragraph of this section offers a counter perspective to the rest of the material, so maybe add a sentence or two explaining that the research isn't conclusive.
Overall, very informative additions. Again, I can't get my head around why they were deleted, but yeah, well done guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillGray (talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review
Reviewing the contributions made by Warwick University group - shame someone took it upon themselves to delete your contribution, some really good stuff here (and not really in the spirit of wikipedia to delete instead of collaborate).
Overall there was some really useful information here, added a lot of evidence from the literature and the 'evolutionary perspective' section provided some really useful context to the article topic. I also really appreciated the section dedicated to the reasons older women may engage in relationships with younger men - really balances the information provided out and it's always nice to see information illustrating trends that don't fit in with the accepted 'norm'.
(edited to add this in!) - also wanted to say that the cross-cultural differences were really useful - I noticed that on the article as it is currently (without your contributions) there is a notice saying that is is very US-centric, so this section was really useful in giving more of a well rounded global perspective.
A lot of your work also added more scientific content, as I think that the previous (or current, I suppose) version focused largely on social and cultural reasons for age disparity, which, although valid and useful, is not the whole story.
Just some little points for improvement that came to mind while reading:
I think there's a need for a brief intro, since the article kind of dives right in
There are a lot of in-text citations, and I don't think that's necessary - I think it'd be better to just state the fact and cite the source afterwards
I wasn't too sure about the use of questions as section titles? ie 'why do males prefer a younger female mate?' This might just be a personal preference though, so might not actually be an issue
In the explanation for why females may choose older male mates, there is the statement 'Cues of good genes tend to be typically associated with older males' - just thought that could use some quick examples of why that is.
There were some grammatical and some quantity-consistency errors (eg 'there is' instead of 'there are') but I thought those would require a while copy-edit and I didn't want to step on your toes! Besides that stuff, there was just one sentence in the section about why females prefer older mates which didn't really make sense (just structurally) - 'Hassebrauck (2012)[9] found that females tend to be the more demanding sex (which predicted by parental investment theory as they are higher investing sex[7]) and consistent with Buss’s findings that females place an importance on status and resources.'
I saw a few words that could've been linked to other articles - mate choice, mate value, sociosexuality, fertility
All in all really good work though, I think there was a lot of useful information here and it added a lot to the original article. Again, it's a shame everything got deleted, hopefully people can work out a way to collaborate instead of going down that route again.
Great contribution guys :) Loewencait (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thank you so much for your feedback.
We had added in a new introduction to reflect the content of the edited article.
We have also addressed the grammatical issues and altered the titles, as suggested. We have tried to link throughout the article as much as possible and remove the in-text citations.
Thank you again for taking the time to peer review our work and help us make a significant contribution to this wikipedia page.
Thank you for all of the Peer reviews from the edit on the 24th November 2016. We have taken on board all of your comments and will be responding to you within the next week.
We are posting on the talk page to highlight some areas we will be editing as part of a wikipedia assignment for a Human Sexuality module at the University of Warwick.
We will add:
An evolutionary perspective
A more diverse and scientific account of the cultural differences surrounding age disparity and the reasons for this. This will include a statistics table gathered from world-wide samples.
An alternative, social perspective for age-disparity
Finally we aim to illustrate 'non-traditional' age-difference relationships with a scientific perspective, that removes the use of slang terms so that the style of relationships studied without value-judgements.
We will include:
As much of the body arguments already in place. However, these may be imbedded in the new edit.
We aim to include a lot of the western cultural data to add to the new cultural differences section.
We will remove:
The 'half your age plus seven' rule - we are aiming to enhance the article using a scientific perspective. We have not been able to find a scientific basis for this rule and so therefore we would like to remove it.
We will edit:
The introduction, to fit to the newly edited article.
Happy to discuss any changes that are planned. Thank you. --16:14, 5 December 2016 JosephineRN28
Half-your-age-plus-seven rule
As has been discussed abundantly above on this page, and in the article talk page archives, 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, and it has quite enough cultural prominence to be included on this article. Your group would appear to have a unfortunately narrow view of Wikipedia if you think this article is only about "science", and causing an edit war to occur would not accomplish anything particularly useful. AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Male preference for younger females photo
The example given is Kanye West and Kim Kardashian but that age difference is only 3 years which is not even a disparity (by definition), I mean if they were teens, for example, they could both be in high school together with that age difference. I can think of plenty of other examples that should have a photo example instead such as Harvey Weinstein and his wife Georgina Chapman who are 24 years apart. Larry King and his wife Shawn Southwick are 26 years apart. The infamous Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn scenario.... You get where I am going with this.Trillfendi (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Restored section on statistics
I've restored section on statistics, I cannot find any valid rationale in edit summary or this talk page for its removal. The rationale presented by User:Sbamwarwick at [15] is unclear. Feel free to explain it more, but removal of statistics should be clearly justified, presumably with information on why there are erroneous.
Significant rewrite for an undisclosed educational project
I think that editor mentioned above, and some others editing it in 2016 might have been doing so as part of an undisclosed educational assignment (which usually produce hit-and-run editors who never come back to edit/discuss issues after the course has ended...). This is the article before their class project. In addition to the statistics section, the section on the "half-your-age-plus-seven" was also removed. That section has been discussed here before, and I don't feel strongly about it to restore it - just noting its removal for subsequent editors interested in this topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Male preference for older females
AND
Female preference for younger males — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.189.132 (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"In modern times, this rule has been criticised as being more accurate for men than women, and for allowing a greater maximum age for a woman's partner later in her life than is actually socially acceptable."
What does this mean? "A greater maximum age"? It doesn't even make sense. I could see if it was saying that a women can't actually marry a man as YOUNG as half her age plus seven, but "greater maximum age" says that somehow the rule allows her to marry men who are OLDER than is actually allowable. So the rule says it's okay for a 40 yo woman to marry a 27yo man, but in actuality 27 is too great an age to be socially acceptable, and she will be ostracized for not marrying a 25 yo instead? Come on. At first I thought it was just assuming that a woman would be seeking an older partner, but that doesn't make any sense. To her it would be "never marry a man whose age divided in half plus seven is more than your own", but more importantly, if it's okay for an 80yo man to marry a 47yo female, how could it NOT be okay for a 47yo female to marry an 80yo man? Fundamentally, if the rule is acceptable at all, it must be the same for both sexes. Unless you're talking individuals, where a man might be praised for marrying a woman much younger than him while the woman is ridiculed for marrying the older man. OR a woman is ridiculed for marrying a younger man. Unfortunately the above statement says none of these things and as-phrased makes no sense. I'm tempted to remove it to avoid confusing readers more than need be. AnnaGoFast (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the world of ambiguity in arbitrary rules made by nameless, faceless men centuries ago (and still today) about who you can and can't have sex with! --Craig (t|c) 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
AnnaGoFast -- It originated as a rule of thumb that a woman should be half the man's age + 7 at the beginning of a marriage or relationship. A symmetrical interpretation now generally prevails, but this is not logically necessary. Maybe "greater maximum" should be "lesser minimum"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Cradle-robber or Cradle-snatcher?
Quote: "If the woman is extremely young (just over, or possibly under, the legal age of consent), the man may be labelled a cradle-robber." Is cradle-robber American English? I've never heard this combination of words. The term (from a Commonwealth English point of view) is usually cradle-snatcher. 2407:7000:844D:4F00:B1B2:6C9C:8D97:7679 (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd never heard of it either, but apparently it's an Americanism. I've added a couple of bits to clarify. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
As a Canadian, I've heard of "cradle robber", but not "cradle-snatcher". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are only male-female relationships discussed?
Why are only male-female relationships discussed? Are there no age discrepancies or gold digging in homosexual relationships? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:99CB:1C57:67CF:E6BC (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Eh? AnonMoos, as you know, today's research is not based on what was done in ancient times. I suppose one could include a "History" section in this article, but meh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a whole different article 100% devoted to what the original questioner was asking about. Obviously it should not be simply incorporated into this article, but at an absolute minimum there should be a "see also" link (adding now...) AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I very much doubt that the anon was thinking of adult men with pubescent/adolescent boys. People often associate male homosexuality with such (and it matters not to them that pedophilia and pederasty are two different things). The IP was no doubt asking about adult male-male and possibly adult female-female sexual relationships. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The junior partner in an ancient Greek pederastic relationship could sometimes be into his 20s, and was not usually younger than the lower age limit for females in heterosexual marriages in medieval Europe. It's another facet of age disparity in human sexual relationships... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Pederastic relationships are not usually discussed in terms of the younger partner being in his 20s. You have a good source for "20s"? And either way, I repeat that I doubt that the IP was thinking of pederasty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion here is really not supposed to be about your personal emotional reactions. I provided a pointer to information about the topic that the original questioner was asking about. If you have problems dealing with this, please talk it out in another venue. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with a "personal emotional reaction," as if anyone is supposed to find your initial response to the IP sensible. It wasn't/isn't sensible. That is what this is about. The "original questioner" was not asking about pederasty or any other kind of ancient relationships. If they were, they would have stated so. You are the one who just took offensive and now came back at me with an attitude, simply because I decided to speak accurately. As seen in this old discussion, I am aware of the "20s" claim, but "pederastic relationships are not usually discussed in terms of the younger partner being in his 20s." When I mentioned "adult men with pubescent/adolescent boys," you seemed to want to up the age past the teenage years so that your pederasty commentary sounded better. Whatever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Came here while trying to find data on this topic. A few sources that may be of interest to anyone editing this article:
> Again, the distributions look different. This time, for same-sex couples, the tail is heavier. This means that large age gaps between partners are more common than in opposite-sex relationships. The median age difference is four years for same-sex couples and three years for opposite-sex couples. Nearly 30 percent of the same-sex couples have an age gap of more than seven years. For the opposite-sex couples, this number is only 15 percent.
> city-data [.] com/blog/5643-age-distribution-sex-couples/#ixzz62USLipq6 (apparently this domain is blacklisted from Wikipedia)
Although this data is for the set of all same-sex couples and does not segment by male-male or female-female specifically. These two segment by MM/FF/MF gender pairings:
The article cited says mid 20s and that it is much more complex. This needs to elaborated. I think we can at least change 20s to mid 20s.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:E15D:2FDF:8E13:CD0B (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Larger than average age-gaps
The statement ....
In regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa the use of polygyny is commonly practiced as a consequence of high sex-ratios (more males per 100 females)
is counter-intuitive. Why is it so? Or is it incorrect? More males would drive several men to wed one woman, not the converse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This stuff needs serious rework
Now, I'm an advocate of men's rights, and consider such things as PUA and evolutionary psychology (sociobiology) to be valid. But this article seriously does not hold upto the encyclopedic ideal even in my eye. While well sourced, it's prolix, argumentative, and even in its argumentation often fails to actually go to the point. It doesn't make obvious what it's trying to explain or what precisely supports its central point.
Unlike some, apparently, I'd like to see article retained. But in my mind it needs some serious paring down, reorganization, and a change in tone. I mean, the topic is real and well documented, but if you discuss it like you just surfaced from some forum of incels/schoolshooters, it's not as though there's any lasting value to the presentation.
As I can't rewrite/re-edit a whale like this myself, I'd appreciate some help. Do contact me. Decoy (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
hetero-normative
this page is really hetero-normative (and cis-normative too). what about age differences in same-sex or non-binary relationships? Caffelatteo (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Caffalateo -- A lot of this article is consumed with past conventional different attitudes (or double standards) with respect to what was considered appropriate for males vs. what was considered appropriate for females, speculations about "evolutionary mating strategies" etc. This is mostly irrelevant for homosexual relationships. Anyway, I tried to partially answer this question at Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships/Archive 3#Why are only male-female relationships discussed?, and another user had his personal traumas triggered or something, and freaked out on the Wikipedia article talk page, which did not exactly encourage constructive article editing... AnonMoos (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The only mention of same-sex or other non-hetero marriage is in the section about slang. If there's no objection on this talk page, I'm going to add a section. The article is not prejudicial, but it certainly isn't comprehensive without addressing that element. Middleground1 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it deserves its own page. ~~~ Middleground1 (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Middleground1 the article needs substantial editing to specify it is referring to heterosexual relationships throughout. as it currently stands, the language essentially assumes heterosexual relationships as the only kind of relationship, which is both incorrect and prejudiced. 100.11.74.47 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I would argue for at least clearing up what you mentioned, and also add a section about same-sex age disparity in sexual relationships. The data are different for each, and I don't see it as being combined. This isn't to segregrate or isolate, but there are a lot of publications/articles that speak directly to same-sex -- and the factors, history and implications differ to some extent. Middleground1 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Age disparity in sexual relationships → Age disparity in heterosexual relationships – I had started going through the article, trying to indicate which sections were applicable to heterosexuals only, all sexualities, LGBTQ+, etc. but, except for one instance of gay terminology, everything I was considering changing turned out to be heterosexual-only. Rather than saying that over and over, I support changing the article title. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment - Shouldn't the article title stay broad unless it becomes too big and needs to be split? Otherwise it's likely people will make new articles for non-heterosexual use cases. Elfguy (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. If you have more L/G sources, then add them here. The rename is irrelevant: big population surveys, of, say, married couples will naturally include gay couples (if legal in the country) even if not explictly stated. If there are so many non-het sources that the article becomes too long, then reconsider moving it at that point. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing prevents material on non-heterosexual relationships being added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From the viewpoint of the age difference
@User:AnonMoos and everyone else: regarding this edit, which was undone by AnonMoos, two issues are raised.
Is the math correct?: Yes, it is. It is high school algebra to verify; see my reply below. For those who are not algebraically inclined, please try some examples. Pick an age for the older person--even numbers are easiest--and calculate half plus 7 to get the younger person's age. Then calculate the difference in ages. Notice that if you plug the difference and younger person's age into the new formulas you get the expected results.
doesnt seem to add much: If two people, who are D years apart, want to marry but they fail this age-based test, how long should they wait? The answer by the "half, plus 7" formula is that they should wait until the younger person is at least 14+D years old. If it turns out that we have consensus that this is relevant then let's add it.
Adding the math: Let A and B be the ages of the two people and let D = A − B be the difference in ages. The rule, "at least half plus 7" in symbols is:
B ≥ A/2 + 7.
We replace A with B + D to get
B ≥ (B+D)/2 + 7.
Doubling both sides gives
2B ≥ B + D + 14.
Subtracting B from both sides gives
B ≥ D + 14.
(That last expression could be written as B ≥ (A−B) + 14 if you want to.) I hope that helps resolve #1 above. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure you're well-intentioned, but if this provides a perspective that no-one has really cared about or discussed before, then it's "original research" in that sense, even if arithmetically correct. AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, when there are editors, such as yourself, who do not find this to be merely WP:CALC then we have to classify it as WP:OR (or find references). I continued the discussion to this point only because the original feedback didn't discuss whether this was WP:CALC, instead discussing whether it was mathematically accurate and whether it "added much". Now that we have a statement that you would not participate in a consensus around a WP:CALC classification, I can give up knowing that, at least, it was considered. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I request feedback for the one liner immediately above. By being so short, my hope is that it now passes both the WP:UNDUE and WP:CALC standards. Thanks! —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Reasons for age disparity
There is a statistics across countries on the lack of fertile women in certain groups of male ages. This should be accounted as a major reason I think. AXONOV(talk)⚑ 09:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Heterosexuality
Several of the passages make sense and are true only if they are applied to heterosexual individuals. I have attempted to fix them so that they make sense and are true. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@151.46.67.156: instead of your comment "Nice try", please assume WP:GOODFAITH. I happen to have sympathy with the edit made by @80.103.132.160:, who did provide comments to explain their reasonable edit — "Removed previous edit. As commentary/opinion. references do not seem to match what was written.". Clearly there is some disagreement as to whether the recently added and removed text should remain. Let's try to achieve consensus through discussions here. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Why should I start a conversation that could take a lot of time just to wait for an answer and for an edit that respects the rules by using valid reliable sources to validate the content.
I'll venture an answer. If you believe that I am not acting in WP:GOODFAITH then the proper thing to do is to report me. If you are (at least tentatively) willing to assume that I am acting in WP:GOODFAITH then discussion is the most likely way to reach a consensus. These discussions are a key ingredient in keeping Wikipedia strong. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article for a week and reverted the IP's edit. Please discuss the proposed change here. If consensus emerges I can unprotect the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The redirect Mommy kink has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Mommy kink until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)