This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to include a chapter on Legitimacy vs Legality because these words are often used as synonims in Wikipedia. Legitimacy means things are just. Of course debateble. Legality means to have a basis in law. Laws are by their very nature Legal. Their legitimacy is sometimes disputed. For example the Apartheids Laws.........
Aixroot ( talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While the British and American experiences with legitimacy are of great interest, it would be desirable for legal scholars from other countries to provide information on their countries' experience. logologist| Talk 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please move this section so that it will follow the general "History" section? It seems rather idiosyncratic to be opening a general article on legitimacy with a specialized discussion of the laws obtaining in just certain parts of one United Kingdom. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I find this part rather offensive, it almost implies people born to unmarried parents have some mental or physical disability which would inhibit them making contributions to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.70.113 ( talk) 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I used the template a bit incorrectly to attract some attention here. Many of us find the language and slant of this article absolutely shocking in an encyclopedia in the year 2009 intended for the use of thousands if not millions of "illegitimate" children around the world to do their research for schoolwork etc. My, my what excellent bullying opportunites we are providing here! And what evil=authoritative influence on millions of living "illegitimate" people all over! This reads like the 19th or early 20th century. The whole tone is like a propaganda piece: "Be the child of married parents or be illegitimate!" There are no illegitimate children no matter what British law calls them (still today?). Never have been, never will be any. There are and have been extramarital children, but how interesting is that really today, except perhaps in showing how some historical persons overcame the status of being severely discriminated outcasts? Please clean up this article and remove snootiness written assumably by the comfortable British or American descendants of married couples only (at least they think they are). The real world (ref: DNA) has run away from them decades ago - as the given statistics show (enough of). Constructive suggestion, besides the urgently needed rewrite: move almost all of this to the Extramarital sex article, clean that up too so it is fully objective and truthful. Use the word "illegitimate" regarding children only to describe the word itself as an obsolete and cruel label invented by church interests and zealous lawmakers centuries ago to clamp down on and control the populations through guilt and shame. 217.209.96.250 ( talk) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am here writing because I did find this link in an article, am the child of unwed parents, and have LONG found the term ILLOGICAL and nasty and distasteful, and I intend to rebuke its use whenever possible! How can I, or any living thing, be "illegitimate"? Even a relationship, per se, cannot be "illegitimate". It is, it exists.
I find the adjective illegitimate to be very POV, and I must say I have been surprised to find it in such widespread use in Wikipedia in preference to something more neutral like out-of-wedlock. Even if lots of other people use it in other contexts, an editor has no compulsion to use the same word when a neutral equivalent will do the same job. Perhaps in some very narrow legal contexts, like perhaps once or twice in this article to illustrate a bias, but mostly I see no reason to use the word. I think it is offensive when applied to people. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Historically, calling someone illegitimate was not necessarily cruel - in the household of Cosimo I de' Medici, "bastards" were treated as equals. There was a stigma attached, of course, but we're talking about a time when nearly all the population were peasants and had stigmas anyway, and the church frowned upon extramarital children. Now, however, society is more tolerant of them and we no longer brand people illegitimate. But since peoples' legitimacy in past centuries was very important to monarchical politics, I think it is important that we acknowledge the nature of their parentage and how it affected history. To do otherwise would just be lying. Also, there is no bias involved in illegitimacy of children, because we all know that some of the greatest people in history were considered "bastards". In a way, the term has an exciting, rebellious quality. I think Wikipedia is doing well in the whole legitimacy vs. illegitimacy department, and does not slander those whose parents were unmarried. The English language is full of prejudice anyway, particularly sexism, but we're able to look past this because, at the end of the day, does it really matter? :) Keep up the good work everyone. -- BRCScriptor ( talk) 11:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This isn't in the article, so I wanted to ask: Is a child still considered illegitimate if his or her parents marry after the child is born? -- 24.164.87.138 ( talk) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, in many cases children were declared legitimate when this happened, especially if they belonged to noble families and could get dispensations from high powers such as the church. -- BRCScriptor ( talk) 10:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
An illegitimate child can be declared legitimate by a legal authority, whether or not the parents eventually marry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.0.104 ( talk) 02:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is focused on situation of specific western countries. It could be relabelled legitimacy in US and UK. Or it could continue under the same title with situations previaling in all countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.230.149 ( talk) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
They make sense when introducing a definition, but most of them are "scare quotes", which aren't "appropriate" in an "encyclopedia article". DanBishop ( talk) 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Having children out of wedlock still carries a significant social stigma in the US, especially among the mainstream and middle class segments of society. This should be reflected in the article.
A related issue, to which the Catholic Church has begun to respond to, is the matter of illegimate children being born from illicit sexual relations involving members of the clergy. This should probably be included somehwere as an example of modern illegitimacy. [1] ADM ( talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to have such a large gallery of people in this article. It's unsightly and there is no reasonable justification for it. It goes against WP:GA criterea Vistium ( talk) 17:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
In both the Norwegian wikipedias, the sister articles of this article has been termed "Children born outside marriage". Personally, I think this is a far more neutral title. Actually, in some countries, like Island and Sweden, the proportion of children born outside of marriage is actually larger than the proportion born inside marriage [2] and this is considered totally normal by the majority of the population. The term "legitimacy" sholuld definitely be changed, as it is totally outdated and reactionary in 2011. -- Oddeivind ( talk) 08:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that sounds valid. :) But we still should include the fact that historically people were called "illegitimate" and "bastard", and these terms should still redirect -- BRCScriptor ( talk) 11:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
"Some persons of illegitimate birth have been driven to excel in their endeavors, for good or ill, by a desire to overcome the social stigma and disadvantage that attached to illegitimacy." There is no evidence that all these people were necessarily driven to become successful or famous because they were of extra-marital birth. Suggest removal of this sentence, and keep the section purely a list of names.
-- Jogjayr ( talk) 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Should the list of people of extramarital birth in this article really include modern people? It seems a little odd. Nowadays, and indeed the article even say so, "illegitimacy" is no longer rare, at least in Europe, and no longer regarded as an exception or a label enough for it to be relevant with a list. I am from Sweden, and almost everyone here, including myself, are "bastards", which is why this concept is simply no longer used in society what so ever. It is a concept from the past, the 19th century. To have a list of people of extramarital birth indicates that this is a label, something extraordinary and something which to value and sort people after, while in the modern western world, surely, this is no longer significant what so ever. I think the list should only include people from an age when this concept had a meaning. I do now, of course, that people might be more old-fashioned in USA than i Europe, but surely people are no longer labelled as bastards in USA either, in 2011? This is no longer the Victorian age, after all.-- 85.226.45.240 ( talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is the entire right column of the article a stack of illegitimate children? I mean is it really that big of a deal? there's already a list at the end of the article, isn't that enough? If there is no justification, I'll probably delete a lot of them. -- 75.73.176.26 ( talk) 04:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
41.96.19.26 (talk) believes that all references to the Catholic church or Christianity should be removed and replaced with the word, "Liberal." diff I'm not sure their exact reasoning, but I figured I would start a discussion, so the community could contribute to a WP:CONSENSUS, instead of edit warring. Anyone else feel such a change is appropriate? — Josh3580 talk/ hist 23:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not consider that the section on Extramarital births has a place in this Legitimacy article. The implication is that such children are in some sense illegitimate, which is wrong. Under the laws of most if not all western countries as they stand, there is no implication of stigma or anything other than equal status. Perhaps the material can be moved to extramarital sex, but then you have the issue of what is "marriage" in the contemporary world. Enthusiast ( talk) 00:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
15.01.15 conflict in section extramarital births "Most births to teenagers in the USA (86% in 2007) are nonmarital;" vs "In 2007, teenagers accounted for just 23% of nonmarital births, down steeply from 50% in 1970" both citing ref17 "Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States". CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm) May 13, 2009. Retrieved September 24, 2011. Bhug ( talk) 13:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose in legal studies, "Legitimacy (law)" is supposed to be refered to Legitimacy of law which is entirely vast and different subject. The present article has limited scope to family law matters and still it is unncessarilly blocking and using misleading title of a different subject. Since I am already in process of working on subject of legal legitimacy that is Legitimacy of law I will apreciate change of title for this article to "Legitimacy (family law)"
Comments from legal fraternity will be highly apreciated.
Mahitgar ( talk) 14:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Are these sections more incidental than integral to the article..? Sardanaphalus ( talk) 11:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your edit below:
First of all, the source that you cite is for Europe (Eurostat statistics). Where are you getting your information that the average for the whole (ie. all countries) Latin America is 66%? Similar with 40% in North America? You do realize that North America has several countries some of which are actually also part of Latin America, such as Mexico? The Eurostat gives a figure of average about 40% for the countries in the European Union not in the whole Europe. The assertion that "about 1-2% of children born to couples in Western societies were covertly conceived by a different biological father" is unsourced. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1BA5 ( talk) 12:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
So I am reverting your deletion, but removing the duplicate Eurostat reference. Note: signed for ip 81.154.23.170 - you must sign: Wikipedia:Signatures
References
"While births outside marriage are considered acceptable in many world regions, in some parts of the world they remain highly stigmatized."
Isn't it relevant to mention which parts of the world are which? Especially when a specific punishment, stoning, is mentioned in the same section with no reference to what general region, let alone country, we're referring to. There's no real reason this information shouldn't be in the article, seeing as specific national examples are given in multiple other cases. Is there something I'm not seeing here besides a strangely concerted effort not to mention what continents, nations, or general regions still stone or otherwise harm people over extramarital pregnancy and childbirth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.78.110 ( talk) 14:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Legitimacy (family law). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
A Request for comment to build consensus is raised at Talk:Legitimacy (criminal law)#RfC requesting concensus to move article to Legitimacy (law) talk page.
Please do participate and share your valuable openions at talk page Talk:Legitimacy (criminal law)#RfC requesting concensus to move article to Legitimacy (law)
Mahitgar ( talk) 17:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legitimacy (criminal law) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This list wasn't particularly well cited, mostly OR, and there were vastly different people listed here. Some were children of single mothers, some slaves, some where the parents married later, some where the mother was married but the biological parents weren't married to each other, and others were born illegitimate but later legitimised (or vice versa). From a BLP perspective, I do not think it is acceptable to point out specific living examples. Unless we find lists elsewhere that combine illegitimate royalty with Miley Cyrus, we should not have such a list. — Kusma ( t· c) 10:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legitimacy (family law). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.regeringen.se/404/%7Ctitle%3DSidanWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to include a chapter on Legitimacy vs Legality because these words are often used as synonims in Wikipedia. Legitimacy means things are just. Of course debateble. Legality means to have a basis in law. Laws are by their very nature Legal. Their legitimacy is sometimes disputed. For example the Apartheids Laws.........
Aixroot ( talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While the British and American experiences with legitimacy are of great interest, it would be desirable for legal scholars from other countries to provide information on their countries' experience. logologist| Talk 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please move this section so that it will follow the general "History" section? It seems rather idiosyncratic to be opening a general article on legitimacy with a specialized discussion of the laws obtaining in just certain parts of one United Kingdom. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I find this part rather offensive, it almost implies people born to unmarried parents have some mental or physical disability which would inhibit them making contributions to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.70.113 ( talk) 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I used the template a bit incorrectly to attract some attention here. Many of us find the language and slant of this article absolutely shocking in an encyclopedia in the year 2009 intended for the use of thousands if not millions of "illegitimate" children around the world to do their research for schoolwork etc. My, my what excellent bullying opportunites we are providing here! And what evil=authoritative influence on millions of living "illegitimate" people all over! This reads like the 19th or early 20th century. The whole tone is like a propaganda piece: "Be the child of married parents or be illegitimate!" There are no illegitimate children no matter what British law calls them (still today?). Never have been, never will be any. There are and have been extramarital children, but how interesting is that really today, except perhaps in showing how some historical persons overcame the status of being severely discriminated outcasts? Please clean up this article and remove snootiness written assumably by the comfortable British or American descendants of married couples only (at least they think they are). The real world (ref: DNA) has run away from them decades ago - as the given statistics show (enough of). Constructive suggestion, besides the urgently needed rewrite: move almost all of this to the Extramarital sex article, clean that up too so it is fully objective and truthful. Use the word "illegitimate" regarding children only to describe the word itself as an obsolete and cruel label invented by church interests and zealous lawmakers centuries ago to clamp down on and control the populations through guilt and shame. 217.209.96.250 ( talk) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am here writing because I did find this link in an article, am the child of unwed parents, and have LONG found the term ILLOGICAL and nasty and distasteful, and I intend to rebuke its use whenever possible! How can I, or any living thing, be "illegitimate"? Even a relationship, per se, cannot be "illegitimate". It is, it exists.
I find the adjective illegitimate to be very POV, and I must say I have been surprised to find it in such widespread use in Wikipedia in preference to something more neutral like out-of-wedlock. Even if lots of other people use it in other contexts, an editor has no compulsion to use the same word when a neutral equivalent will do the same job. Perhaps in some very narrow legal contexts, like perhaps once or twice in this article to illustrate a bias, but mostly I see no reason to use the word. I think it is offensive when applied to people. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Historically, calling someone illegitimate was not necessarily cruel - in the household of Cosimo I de' Medici, "bastards" were treated as equals. There was a stigma attached, of course, but we're talking about a time when nearly all the population were peasants and had stigmas anyway, and the church frowned upon extramarital children. Now, however, society is more tolerant of them and we no longer brand people illegitimate. But since peoples' legitimacy in past centuries was very important to monarchical politics, I think it is important that we acknowledge the nature of their parentage and how it affected history. To do otherwise would just be lying. Also, there is no bias involved in illegitimacy of children, because we all know that some of the greatest people in history were considered "bastards". In a way, the term has an exciting, rebellious quality. I think Wikipedia is doing well in the whole legitimacy vs. illegitimacy department, and does not slander those whose parents were unmarried. The English language is full of prejudice anyway, particularly sexism, but we're able to look past this because, at the end of the day, does it really matter? :) Keep up the good work everyone. -- BRCScriptor ( talk) 11:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This isn't in the article, so I wanted to ask: Is a child still considered illegitimate if his or her parents marry after the child is born? -- 24.164.87.138 ( talk) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, in many cases children were declared legitimate when this happened, especially if they belonged to noble families and could get dispensations from high powers such as the church. -- BRCScriptor ( talk) 10:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
An illegitimate child can be declared legitimate by a legal authority, whether or not the parents eventually marry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.0.104 ( talk) 02:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is focused on situation of specific western countries. It could be relabelled legitimacy in US and UK. Or it could continue under the same title with situations previaling in all countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.230.149 ( talk) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
They make sense when introducing a definition, but most of them are "scare quotes", which aren't "appropriate" in an "encyclopedia article". DanBishop ( talk) 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Having children out of wedlock still carries a significant social stigma in the US, especially among the mainstream and middle class segments of society. This should be reflected in the article.
A related issue, to which the Catholic Church has begun to respond to, is the matter of illegimate children being born from illicit sexual relations involving members of the clergy. This should probably be included somehwere as an example of modern illegitimacy. [1] ADM ( talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to have such a large gallery of people in this article. It's unsightly and there is no reasonable justification for it. It goes against WP:GA criterea Vistium ( talk) 17:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
In both the Norwegian wikipedias, the sister articles of this article has been termed "Children born outside marriage". Personally, I think this is a far more neutral title. Actually, in some countries, like Island and Sweden, the proportion of children born outside of marriage is actually larger than the proportion born inside marriage [2] and this is considered totally normal by the majority of the population. The term "legitimacy" sholuld definitely be changed, as it is totally outdated and reactionary in 2011. -- Oddeivind ( talk) 08:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that sounds valid. :) But we still should include the fact that historically people were called "illegitimate" and "bastard", and these terms should still redirect -- BRCScriptor ( talk) 11:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
"Some persons of illegitimate birth have been driven to excel in their endeavors, for good or ill, by a desire to overcome the social stigma and disadvantage that attached to illegitimacy." There is no evidence that all these people were necessarily driven to become successful or famous because they were of extra-marital birth. Suggest removal of this sentence, and keep the section purely a list of names.
-- Jogjayr ( talk) 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Should the list of people of extramarital birth in this article really include modern people? It seems a little odd. Nowadays, and indeed the article even say so, "illegitimacy" is no longer rare, at least in Europe, and no longer regarded as an exception or a label enough for it to be relevant with a list. I am from Sweden, and almost everyone here, including myself, are "bastards", which is why this concept is simply no longer used in society what so ever. It is a concept from the past, the 19th century. To have a list of people of extramarital birth indicates that this is a label, something extraordinary and something which to value and sort people after, while in the modern western world, surely, this is no longer significant what so ever. I think the list should only include people from an age when this concept had a meaning. I do now, of course, that people might be more old-fashioned in USA than i Europe, but surely people are no longer labelled as bastards in USA either, in 2011? This is no longer the Victorian age, after all.-- 85.226.45.240 ( talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is the entire right column of the article a stack of illegitimate children? I mean is it really that big of a deal? there's already a list at the end of the article, isn't that enough? If there is no justification, I'll probably delete a lot of them. -- 75.73.176.26 ( talk) 04:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
41.96.19.26 (talk) believes that all references to the Catholic church or Christianity should be removed and replaced with the word, "Liberal." diff I'm not sure their exact reasoning, but I figured I would start a discussion, so the community could contribute to a WP:CONSENSUS, instead of edit warring. Anyone else feel such a change is appropriate? — Josh3580 talk/ hist 23:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not consider that the section on Extramarital births has a place in this Legitimacy article. The implication is that such children are in some sense illegitimate, which is wrong. Under the laws of most if not all western countries as they stand, there is no implication of stigma or anything other than equal status. Perhaps the material can be moved to extramarital sex, but then you have the issue of what is "marriage" in the contemporary world. Enthusiast ( talk) 00:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
15.01.15 conflict in section extramarital births "Most births to teenagers in the USA (86% in 2007) are nonmarital;" vs "In 2007, teenagers accounted for just 23% of nonmarital births, down steeply from 50% in 1970" both citing ref17 "Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States". CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm) May 13, 2009. Retrieved September 24, 2011. Bhug ( talk) 13:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose in legal studies, "Legitimacy (law)" is supposed to be refered to Legitimacy of law which is entirely vast and different subject. The present article has limited scope to family law matters and still it is unncessarilly blocking and using misleading title of a different subject. Since I am already in process of working on subject of legal legitimacy that is Legitimacy of law I will apreciate change of title for this article to "Legitimacy (family law)"
Comments from legal fraternity will be highly apreciated.
Mahitgar ( talk) 14:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Are these sections more incidental than integral to the article..? Sardanaphalus ( talk) 11:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your edit below:
First of all, the source that you cite is for Europe (Eurostat statistics). Where are you getting your information that the average for the whole (ie. all countries) Latin America is 66%? Similar with 40% in North America? You do realize that North America has several countries some of which are actually also part of Latin America, such as Mexico? The Eurostat gives a figure of average about 40% for the countries in the European Union not in the whole Europe. The assertion that "about 1-2% of children born to couples in Western societies were covertly conceived by a different biological father" is unsourced. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1BA5 ( talk) 12:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
So I am reverting your deletion, but removing the duplicate Eurostat reference. Note: signed for ip 81.154.23.170 - you must sign: Wikipedia:Signatures
References
"While births outside marriage are considered acceptable in many world regions, in some parts of the world they remain highly stigmatized."
Isn't it relevant to mention which parts of the world are which? Especially when a specific punishment, stoning, is mentioned in the same section with no reference to what general region, let alone country, we're referring to. There's no real reason this information shouldn't be in the article, seeing as specific national examples are given in multiple other cases. Is there something I'm not seeing here besides a strangely concerted effort not to mention what continents, nations, or general regions still stone or otherwise harm people over extramarital pregnancy and childbirth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.78.110 ( talk) 14:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Legitimacy (family law). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
A Request for comment to build consensus is raised at Talk:Legitimacy (criminal law)#RfC requesting concensus to move article to Legitimacy (law) talk page.
Please do participate and share your valuable openions at talk page Talk:Legitimacy (criminal law)#RfC requesting concensus to move article to Legitimacy (law)
Mahitgar ( talk) 17:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legitimacy (criminal law) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This list wasn't particularly well cited, mostly OR, and there were vastly different people listed here. Some were children of single mothers, some slaves, some where the parents married later, some where the mother was married but the biological parents weren't married to each other, and others were born illegitimate but later legitimised (or vice versa). From a BLP perspective, I do not think it is acceptable to point out specific living examples. Unless we find lists elsewhere that combine illegitimate royalty with Miley Cyrus, we should not have such a list. — Kusma ( t· c) 10:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legitimacy (family law). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.regeringen.se/404/%7Ctitle%3DSidanWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)