Talk:Child marriage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion before request move

I noticed that this article is using a title that is not commonly used in reliable sources. Early marriage has almost double the google books results hits of child marriage. [1][2]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Same thing with Google scholar

child marriage 36,600 results

early marriage 67,300 results

--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a deeply flawed and simplistic WP:Google test that compares apples to oranges. The title is not commonly used in reliable sources? Did you even look at the sources in the article? Almost all of them use "child marriage", or the equivalents "child bride" or "child spouse", many doing so right in the title. Are we going to argue against the United Nations' terminology? In your Google Books results, the first one is "Early Marriage: Child Spouses", and another is titled "American Child Bride"; one is about "Early Marriage Records of the Hopkins Family". The results for "early marriage are also older on average in both the Books and Scholar results. In the Google Scholar results for "early marriage", the 1st, 4th, and 10th are about the early part of marriage; the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 9th include adults above 18 in their analysis, so are only partially overlapping with this topic; the 7th and 8th also use the term "child marriage". We are not going to use what would ultimately be a POV euphemism that is rarely used by sources, just as we title it female genital mutilation and not "female genital cutting". Crossroads ^-talk- 16:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. "Child marriage" is obviously the WP:Common name. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Both names are widely used. "Child marriage" is the most common in works about contemporary society, while both have similar frequency in works about historical society. Overall I don't see a good case for changing. Zero^talk 05:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence description of the topic

Per this edit, there seems to be an opinion that the MOS:LEADSENTENCE should not include marriage between children within the definition of the topic. Marriage between children is something that occurs frequently in some cultures – for example, in some parts of India. For me, it is difficult to understand why such marriages should not be discussed in this article. The article already includes some discussion of this, with a relevant photo near the top of the article and another photo further down showing marriages between children, so why should it not be included in the opening topic description? If the marriages between children are out of scope, should we remove some of that content from the article? Should there be a hatnote with a link to some other article about marriages between children? I notice that the cited UNICEF source defines child marriage as "any formal marriage or informal union between a child under the age of 18 and an adult or another child." I think that should suffice to justify including marriage between children in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

BarrelProof, if you haven't already, see what was discussed in the #"Rights" section above. The vast majority of child marriages are not between children. So regarding this, this and this? "Between children" should not be placed before "between a child and an adult." Furthermore, there is currently nothing in the article about marriages between children. You mentioned the images. See what is stated above about the images as well. And regarding your "where the age of eighteen is typically used as the threshold for adulthood" wording? It made it seem that it's only child marriage when the age of eighteen is used as the threshold for adulthood. It was just odd wording.

Zero0000, given what was stated about age 18 in the "Rights" section above and that age 18 is given as the age in sources on child marriage, I question you removing age 18 from the lead sentence. Yes, age 18 is covered in the second paragraph, but I have yet to see any sources give some other age for the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care whether marriages between children are mentioned before or after mentioning marriages that include one adult and one child. What I disliked is that the entire possibility of both parties being children was missing completely and was rapidly removed when I added it. To some degree, I think the possibility of both parties being children is implicit in various places in the article, even if it is not discussed explicitly. For example, there is a paragraph about child grooms. While it may be theoretically possible that all those child grooms have been marrying adult women, I think it's highly unlikely. There are also places that refer to "male" or "groom" rather than "man" or "boy", such that the language would apply regardless. The article shouldn't consider only what is most common and neglect all other possibilities. It is still fairly common for children to be married off to each other by pre-set family arrangements in some places (for example, the current Prime Minister of India became engaged at around age 4 and had a shaadi ceremony of marriage at around age 13, and his wife is a year-and-a-half younger than he is, see this article about that – click "View as Single Page" and search for "shaadi"). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't state or imply that "The article shouldn't consider only what is most common and neglect all other possibilities.", but we must keep WP:Due weight in mind. And we should at least not include a significant detail in the lead if it's not also coveted lower; this is per WP:Lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way here is a third picture used in the article that depicts a marriage between children, and here is a fourth one, and here is a fifth one. I think it should be generally well understood that some of the marriages of underage boys that are discussed in the article have involved underage girls. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I just read that #"Rights" discussion. Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed it. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: The age 18 comes from the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). That's why it dominates recent studies. Studies of the historical phenomenon of child marriage nearly always focus on younger children. I could easily give a dozen sources that don't use 18 as a criterion, for the simple reason that in many historical societies (including European) the number 18 would define a large fraction of all marriages as child marriages thereby making the concept useless. I propose adding to the lead paragraph a sentence like "The age at which a child becomes an adult was defined to be 18 by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child." (I believe this can be sourced to at least one of the sources in ref 1.) Zero^talk 02:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, we should be using up-to-date sources on this matter. In no way does historical usage trump what is current. That is the reason why we have "History" sections. 18 is WP:Due and no other ages are given in the literature. I don't see that we should add "The age at which a child becomes an adult was defined to be 18 by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child." It certainly shouldn't be in the lead sentence. That would just make people think that age 18 is the only adult threshold with regard to child marriage. In the aforementioned discussion, we were clear about using "typically" since the age of majority and marriageable age is age 18 in the vast majority of countries...but not all.

Crossroads, thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is not only or even primarily about history, so we are not bound by historians' use of those words when studying the past to distinguish from the then-common practice of marriage right after puberty. The primary topic is the practice itself, and by far the bulk of the article is about its nature in the present. If those sources typically use age 18 as the basis for their definition, then we can say "typically" regarding age 18 in the lead sentence or paragraph. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have enough interest in this article to argue, but you are both wrong. "We should be using up-to-date sources on this matter" — up-to-date sources study things that happened in the past as well as in the present; defining the subject from the beginning as something that often makes no sense when considering the past is bad article writing, especially when it is so easy to avoid. "No other ages are given in the literature" – you are ignorant of the literature. "Marriageable age is age 18 in the vast majority of countries" — not even true, see that article (female with parental consent: 84 less than 18, 95 equal to 18, 8 greater than 18). "This article is not only or even primarily about history" — I never said it was. Zero^talk 06:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not at all wrong to state that we should be using up-to-date sources to define/relay what child marriage means today. Historical usage is historical usage. We wouldn't define a topic by a historical usage for any topic on Wikipedia if that historical usage is no longer how the matter is defined/what the concept is today. The same goes for articles on words, where we relay what that word means today before talking about what it used to mean. We report on historical usage, but that's not defining the topic by it.

You stated that I am "ignorant of the literature" for stating that "No other ages are given in the literature." I'm not. If it's true that I am, you should be able to point to academic sources giving an age other than age 18 when defining child marriage.

You stated that it's not true that marriageable age is age 18 in the vast majority of countries. You pointed me to the Marriageable age article, as if I hadn't looked at that article before. The lead of that article currently states, "That age is most commonly 18, but there are variations, some higher and some lower." Scrolling through the article the "By country" section of the article, I see age 18 given significantly more than other ages. I concede that "most commonly" is not automatically the same thing as "vast majority." But whether or not "vast majority" applies to marriageable age, it most certainly applies to age of majority...and I did state "age of majority and marriageable age." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• A child age wedding tradition in Bihar uneducated society.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)