Talk:Wife

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 onFlammingo^Parliament 23:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

you gotta be kiddingFlammingo^Parliament 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• taking a gulp of coke* ;-)Flammingo^Parliament 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for lightening the mood. Joie de Vivre 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could we have an actual citation for the case of a Muslim beating his wife in Germany? The case sounds implausible, suggesting there are details missing in the article. Paladinwannabe2 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the paragraph a bit and hope it sounds better now.--Flammingo^Hey 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it looks like the divorce was not rejected, an accelerated divorce was rejected. There was quite the fuss over it too, and I imagine the lady's appeal was successful. It seems like a single crackpot judge, going against German legal tradition, much to the annoyance of her fellow citizens. I'm going to remove it. You can put it back if you find citiations and a reason that it helps the article.Paladinwannabe2 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will double-check, but it might have been an accelerated one; still, the support of domestic violence based on Islamic Law was what critics meant, since she was forced to have keep in touch with her husband, knowing he was threatening her. For the role of a wife, most essential. --Flammingo^Hey 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

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. Flammingo^Parliament 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I don't think novels are appropriate factual references. Reinstated templates. Joie de Vivre 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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. Flammingo^Parliament 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I dont get why Defoe and Austen are unreliable authors.Flammingo^Parliament 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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"Flammingo^Parliament 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The ip 122.164.62.48 did a wonderful job writing the hinduism section. Unfortunatly, it may be claimed that the section "missed the point": down to the word choice, it says "marriages are..." "boy and girl..." so this should go to marriage#hinduism. Since those guys over there have a vendetta about most things, that seems unlikely, because it would need to be restructured like this one is. Apart from the lack of sources and the English used, I ask (are you there, offforbythepeople?) whether and how we could take the bits out that give information ONLY about the wife, not about marriage. --Flammingo^Hey 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the Hindusim section it says, "A wife loses even her identity for sake of his man." Shouldn't it be "her man?" I just wanted to make sure it was a mistake before changing it. Isis4563 22:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, this sounds like "wedding", and might need some polishing before it is reinserted: If discussions were fruitfull, majority will look into astrological charts of both the boy and girl. Those astrological charts were based on statistical data collection done by Indian ancestors. It covers 10 major check for match between a boy and girl, which includes Sexual match also) will be 90% accurate (atleast in my marriage, it is 99% accurate). If the astrological charts were matching, the photos of both boy and girl will be shown to each other. If the photos are ok, they ask the parent of girl to bring the girl to a common place like temples, park or beach. The parent of the boy will look the girl with out the her notice. If they are satisfied with her, they keep flowers on Girl's hair and they fix the engagement dates. The boy may or may not get a chance to meet her girl till Engagement (a ceremony before marriage). The idea behind the parents seeing the girl, with out her notice is to avoid hurting the girl's feeling, if the results were negative. If every thing is positive, both parents call all their relatives and neighbours, they fix a community Hall and celebrate marriage ceremony.

This part I don't get, where is that from: The wife basic character changes a lot after marriage in order to adjust with the man. Those who dont adjust are tend to fail or dominate. this is on husband:Husbands are responsible for maintaining the finacial status of a family and they protect his wife, child and age old parents against external dangers. I still would prefer a source, this is likely to be tagged (ie removed). --Flammingo^Hey 22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have very little idea of what the following is trying to say or how to revise it. Does anyone else? "One other option was to buy access into a cloister as a nun, also called a "bride to Jesus", consequently being a "bride of Jesus" to support her chastity, and being economically protected. Until late in the 20th century, women could in some cultures or times sue a man for wreath money when he took her virginity without taking her as his wife.LCP 00:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure, do you like it better now? --Flammingo^Hey 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

We have Islam and Hinduism but not Christianity in this article. For that matter, we don't have Buddhism either. Can someone with appropriate knowledge expand upon these? And no, Europe is not the same as Christian! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.48.87.105 (talk) 11:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

That would be me ;-) Changed.--Flammingo^Hey 21:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe the connection between religions and form of marriage is as close as the article currently suggests. These things hardly split exactly along religion lines, and there are many many more cultures and customs related to marriage than there are major religions. I suggest having one section in which marriage is discussed in relation to (main) religion, and another (potentially much more detailed) where different existing forms of marriage and their consequences wrt property, family relationships, name and other similar things are explained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.127.202.147 (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bringing in all customs about "wives" (remember: not "marriage"!!) in the world to one page would certainly be a problem, don't you think?--Flammingo^Hey 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Might I suggest using the OED or, better yet, the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (ODEE) as a source for the etymology of wife? Using this page is a poor choice for two reasons: it's not in English (and this is the English Wikipedia) and, more importantly, it's non-authoritative, or at least not as authoritative as Oxford. Thoughts? If no one has a problem with this, I'll update the etymology to match the ODEE (and/or OED where applicable). Dr. C.S. Lewis-Barrie, Ph.D. (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're absolutely right. Do it. Wrad (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I shall begin work on this etymology. Please check this entry to keep tabs on progress. I'll update this article when the work is complete. Dr. C.S. Lewis-Barrie, Ph.D. (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Remember Bartleby's already in it!--Flammingo^Hey 18:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can someone PLEASE get rid of that blatant vandalism called "USES" ?

I propose to combine the first two sentences from “A wife is a female lifetime partner in a continuing marital relationship. A wife may also be referred to as a spouse” into: “A wife is a female spouse.” The main reason is that “spouse” is gender-neutral, whereas the second sentence in the above (current version) implies that “wife” and “spouse” are synonyms. What do you think? 71.178.188.47 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article starts with the phrase "A wife is a female lifetime partner in a continuing marital relationship.". In my opinion, it would be better if the article was referring to the gender, stating "A wife is a woman lifetime partner in a continuing marital relationship.", and no to the sex. Taliandr (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

What we ll do with wife Tasibul (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140824032832/http://wbl.worldbank.org/~/media/FPDKM/WBL/Documents/Reports/2014/Women-Business-and-the-Law-2014-Key-Findings.pdf to http://wbl.worldbank.org/~/media/FPDKM/WBL/Documents/Reports/2014/Women-Business-and-the-Law-2014-Key-Findings.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092212/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/cmcf-vsi-women-in-france.pdf to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/cmcf-vsi-women-in-france.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_3_33/ai_61372238

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712030304/http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=290368 to http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=290368
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712030304/http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=290368 to http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=290368
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220202903/http://www.seniorlaw.com/fishman.htm to http://www.seniorlaw.com/fishman.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924085957/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/novq12y1.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/novq12y1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply