The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge somewhere. However, the difference between "merge" and "keep" at AfD is marginal; therefore, a more conclusive discussion should be conducted to decide whether or not merging is indeed appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child marriage in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism - another of a series of POV forks mainly designed to make Judaism look backward. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What exactly are you claiming its a POV fork of? There isn't any other article on this subject. And if it had been my intent to make Judaism look backward, I would have left out all the stuff about mi'un (annulment rights, during child marriage), and the effective suppression of it. Christian England in the 12th century had people legally having sex with 12 year olds - later even just 10 year olds; mentioning this would not be an attempt to make Christians in modern England look backward. That's just a ridiculous conclusion to reach. Newman Luke (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I question the need for 2 separate articles on Child marriage in Judaism and Marriageable age in Judaism. But that would be a merge, not a delete. Beyond that, I'd need to see a more detailed argument before I could support a delete. -Verdatum (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related comment - information. I created both of those articles, so, for the record, one is not a pov fork of the other. Newman Luke (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I suspect JFW believes that both are, effectively, POV child articles of the high level articles on Jewish marriage. It's not an exact subject mirror (a fork doesn't necessarily mean identical subjects like you think, it can include the parent-child relationship of a subarticle when the parent, by all rights, should include the information directly). If I understand JFW's argument correctly, he believes that rather than make your controversial edits on the main article, you are "hiding" them in these child articles, where you are less likely to have your edits contested. Clearly, if that was your aim, it failed. :-) More seriously, I understand JFW's reaction; anti-Semitism often hides itself in a guise of academic knowledge. But I think in this case the reasoning for splitting this article off is good; putting the information in a higher level article would distract and distort the article it was placed in. As long as the article makes it clear, up front, that this is a historical curiosity and not current practice, I think it's okay. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I'd have thought that if people wanted to hide controversial edits, they'd have made them in the middle of the main article, instead of somewhere as public as a distinct article. The article is derived from the Jewish Encyclopedia, so I suppose he must be claiming that the Jewish Encyclopedia - which was written by Jews, including certain rabbis, is somehow anti-Semitic? How amusingly absurd. Newman Luke (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hiding in a subarticle works, as long as no one notices it early on (I never would have noticed either of your articles if I wasn't engaging in recent change patrolling). After all, the main article has an existing base of editors watching it, subarticles don't. To get in vandalism on the main article you need to sneak it past every watcher for as long as it takes for someone else to make subsequent edits, then hope a reader doesn't notice. Creating a new page only briefly risks notice by RCP. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh I see. I thought it stayed in some 'recently created articles' pool thing that administrators kept watch over. Newman Luke (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is a process like that, though I'm not entirely sure if it's opt-in by the article creator (the article wizard will add a tag asking for review). In that case, the admin likely has little familiarity with the subject and is less likely to note non-obvious sources of controversy; once it is marked as reviewed no one is likely to recheck it. By contrast, adding information to the main article means you are risking notice by multiple, presumably interested and informed watchers. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Assuming Marriageable age in Judaism is deleted, this article serves a purpose. It may require more balance, possibly a disclaimer in the intro noting that it deals with biblical law long since discarded or interpreted out of existence by rabbis (like much of the rules laid down in Leviticus-Deuteronomy), but it's nevertheless interesting and historically relevant. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or keep I agree with the sentiment that the two articles (marriageable age and child marriage) should be merged into one article that would be kept. Both articles are very well sourced, and I'm surprised that the nominator is offended by references to historic texts. Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as others and I have discussed here and at the other AfD. Just because an ancient religion appears backward does not mean it is not notable. Much of this is of interest to our core audience. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. It's a valid topic but does not need an article on its own quite yet, otherwise this could lead to redundant forks like Widows marrying in Judaism, Converts marriage in Judaism; Marriage after divorce in Judaism; Remarriage in Judaism or even Bachelorhood in Judaism, all interesting but not really worthy of separate articles. So one needs to stay focused and not let the topic splatter all over the place. IZAK (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Child marriage in Judaism and Merge Marriageable age in Judaism into a section of Marriageable age on Judaic views. Redirect Marriageable age in Judaism to that section. Move the extensive list in Marriageable age to an article entitled list of marriageable ages by country. Expand Marriageable age to include sections on Hinduism, Islam, UN laws, Western, Eastern, etc. laws on record all of which controlled the age of marriage. Child marriage in Judaism could be a fork from the Judaic section on age of marriage. Make the definition of age of marriage clear between age of majority and age of consent and when these concepts are prerequisites. I can start this process tonight. I'd need support from deletionist to protect list of marriageable ages by country while I complete the process. Sound like an acceptable strategy? IMO, it maintains a NPOV for various religions and cultural laws on age of marriage will be compared/contrasted. Alatari (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment All religions I've looked at have scripture that would be unpleasant or unacceptable in these times. I can only speak for myself; an encyclopedia can't ignore politically incorrect views of anyones religions if it is sourced and fact. I'm assuming WP:FAITH so far in this. Alatari (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have sources on 'age of marriage' views from Muslim, Hindu, the UN and some British Law ready. Alatari (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge into Jewish views of marriage. Does not require its own subarticle. Avi (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Avi, into Jewish views of marriage. --Whoosit (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Avi. No need to split this out into its own article. Fences&Windows 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No need to merge--there's enough material available. If there;s a POV problem fix it. Merge the other related articles into here--this may be the best of the group to start out with. We could of course, limit the number of articles we have on Judaism--which is what some people seem to be advocating here. There is no rule against specialized material in Wikipedia, as long as sources are available--and there certainly are for this one. Proposing yet more specialized articles can be read as a strow man argument--except that they too might be eventually possible. The relevant Wikipedia policy is NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, do not merge. The (much more often accessed) Jewish views of marriage article, concentrating on how Jews get married today, is in much better shape without all this material. This material, in this level of detail, doesn't need to be in that article, nor does it sit well there. Better to pretty much keep it out, in an article of its own. Incorporating all of this into Jewish views of marriage would bend that article seriously out of shape; but leaving material out would deprive WP of accurate well-sourced information. Per DGG above, there is enough material here for a stand-alone article. Jheald (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. No need for a separate article. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Jewish views of marriage. The subject of marritable age is very notable. Just make sure the merge is executed by somebody who is knowledgable and serious about it. If none can be found, approach me. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge: I think it would be best merged into a topic dealing with age for Jewish marriage or more general criteria for Jewish marriage, but it can also stand on its own if desired. I don't see any need for deletion, the content is very interesting. —Dfass (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jewish views of marriage This is information that belongs on Wikipedia but needs greater context in regard to views of marriage as a whole. Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would reiterate that Jewish views of marriage would be a poor choice of merge location. The topic deserves only a couple of lines in that article - any more would be undue and unbalancing. Given that, as the present article shows, there is more to be said on the subject than just a couple of lines, that makes it a classic case for WP:SUMMARY style: a couple of lines in the top-level article, leading to a more detailed and extensive treatment elsewhere for those who would find the more complete detail useful. Jheald (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to second that re-iteration. Newman Luke (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect into Jewish views of marriage, per above. Any issues post-merge should be dealt in accordance with WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' WP:UNDUE is about undue weight given to viewpoints, not to subjects. The issue with merging to views of marriage is about the size of that article, and that the topic would be overpresent if placed there wholesale. The content is notable, and if anything it needs expanding - for example, with whatever the official position is these days (given that it was never officially abolished). Its not appropriate to do that in the Jewish views of marriage article. Somewhere else, perhaps, but not there. Newman Luke (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.