Talk:Wife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 13/2/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] deletion

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

What exactly is wrong with redirecting this stub to marriage? spouse redirects to marriage. husband redirects to marriage. All the content on this page is duplicated at marriage. Martin

I agree. I don't see any reason to have separate article for wife. -- Taku

I made this article mirror the former husband, which once read:
In traditional western cultures, a husband is the male spouse in a married couple.
I thought that if there were a stub here, it might reflect traditional disabilities on a wife, as a suggestion for some kind of meaningful content here. Since then, somebody made husband redirect to marriage. While it does, it seems reasonable that wife should do the same. In the meantime, though, someone attempted to begin doing what I suggested. For this, I accept the whole blame. ---Ihcoyc

The content here does not constitute a proper article. I am redirecting it to Marriage as it was before. Joie de Vivre 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons? WP:WINAD, for one, and the fact that it was short and largely unsourced were also problems. Simply put, it wasn't enough info for an article, and the Marriage article already covers it. The (stub) tag is in order, and you'd have to remove the POV pontification on what the "role of women" is. Why not either write a complete article, or leave well enough alone? Joie de Vivre 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a dictionary. So propose a merge and let's vote, i think there are a number of reasons to have a seperate article.Rights of a wife within a marriage AND society, relation to the family members, history... Marriage, then, would cover the rights of the marriage in society... and so onFlammingoParliament 23:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you haven't done any of that. You've cobbled together a Charlie Brown Christmas Tree of an article using a dictionary and your own mind as your only sources. Here's some of the content you invented:
For the development of women in their position in society, see woman.
Role in a marriage: A marriage might take many forms, like polygamy, though the role of a woman as a female spouse is destined (or at least might be influenced) by her ability to bear children.
This really should be redirected to the Marriage article, there is so little content. Joie de Vivre 23:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting fact tags

User:Flammingo has at least twice deleted the fact tags I placed on unsourced content. This is inappropriate behavior. Joie de Vivre 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you gotta be kiddingFlammingoParliament 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Remain Calm

From an outsiders perspective...It seems that at this point you guys are argueing for the sake of argument. Lets remember that wikipedia is not here for the editors. Wikipedia is here for outside viewers to get information quickly and efficiently. Wikipedia is always growing, and if someone wants information on 'wife' 'husband' blah blah blah. There is nothing wrong with having articles that directly correlate to the terms 'wife' 'husband' 'mother' 'father' etc etc etc. If someone comes to wikipedia looking for information on specifically a husband or wife, then as editors we should oblige them. Now lets all go have a coke and a smile. :-) Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Christian Europe" and "Islam"

These two sections are entirely unsourced and seem to be the product of User:Flammingo's mind. I've added the Disputed template to these sections. Should we even have a section called "Christian Europe"? Joie de Vivre 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but maybe he should be given some time to properly source his statements, and the opportunity to create a new article before deleting, and if he can't fix this improperly cited, and poorly structured article. Then delete it, but maybe we should first see if he can make something of it.
If he can't then it looks like he wont be having a coke and a smile. :-) Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 19:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for lightening the mood. Joie de Vivre 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags and Novels

Jane Austen and Daniel Defoe wrote the novels not purely fictional; Most 18th century novelists added a preface to elaborate their position. The social criticism, in this context the rights of a wife, is well present in the nonfictional parts. Please elaborate why a novel must not be a source. thank you. FlammingoParliament 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Using Tags as part of a content dispute is silly - isn't it? Lets talk about the content here, and not resort to nasty sticky labels.... I'll take them off for now... Petesmiles 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is also that this article has far too many references. When references get in the way of reading the thing, it's a problem. Perhaps we could consolidate many of them - they are mainly citing material most would consider uncontroversial. Petesmiles 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think novels are appropriate factual references. Reinstated templates. Joie de Vivre 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That makes me smile, uncontroversial. You'd think. And OR would mean i talked to those Mediaeval Nuns and made that all up by myself. You wouldn't think that, considering the material. Novels CANNOT be "OR", they are the authors opinion of his world, not my opinion of his. FlammingoParliament 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But the novels do not stand as reliable sources, so they cannot be used for citation here. Without citation, the statements are uncited, and there may still be original research there. I'm bringing back the tags. — coelacan talk — 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC) edit: I see the tags are already back. — coelacan talk — 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont get why Defoe and Austen are unreliable authors.FlammingoParliament 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
And what is the guideline of OR that forbids novel authors as a reference? Could you elaborate a bit, a "x", which is shown in Defoe's "y"FlammingoParliament 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as the novels go. I have to agree that those are not great sources. Try to find outside studies of the authors work, which verify the authors accuracy. I mean, when you watch a movie and it says "Based on a true story" you cannot rely on the movies truthiness (is that a word?) until you put in work to separate fact from fiction. Reviews and critics are not hard to find (most of the time)

Take some time, do some research, and dont worry about what others do to the article for now...you can revert the entire article with your great new sources with the click of One button.

I have a confession...I only drink Dr Pepper and this is an endorsement. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Format

I have to give it to you Flammingo this looks great. Lets all work together and make this into something really good! If any other people have recommendations or objections please discuss them here first on the talk page, because I believe common ground can always be found and remember to drink Dr Pepper Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/f/Talk%7EWife_7d77.html"