Talk:Child Bride

message: Is it really necessary to have an actual still from the scene included in this article?! 
Not everything is shown, but its practically child porn for crying out loud. There is no reason
for it to be there, so I am deleting it. 208.97.37.79 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The scene illustrates (and provides evidence for) the controversy discussed in the article.  You may not find it to you liking, but see WP:CODI before deleting it unilaterally.  If you still believe it should be deleted, check WP:GID and seek consensus.  71.62.123.39 (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just delete it would you?--38.101.184.210 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

text:  Oh please. It's porn only if it's a sexual image and the viewer is sexually excited by it. Regarding the first, it's an image of someone taking off her clothes to go swimming, so no. Regarding the second, only the person complaining can explain. I don't find it sexual, any more than I would find a picture of a naked baby being bathed by its mother sexual. In some countries a bare ankle is considered sexual explicit. So do we start banning photos of people in bathing suits, too? Do we want Wikipedia to be subject to every self-styled puritan or mullah?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.42.139 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate 

message: Brad Jones also gives the date as 1938, but his video clearly shows the title screen with a copyright date of "MCMXLII" -- what's up? Konjakupoet (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To confuse matters, TCM gives the release date as 1943, but I'm looking at the title card right now, from the recent TCM showing, and it clearly shows MCMXLII, just as Konjakupet says.  I'm afraid the film itself is a more reliable source for its copyright date than even a university-published book, so I'm going to alter the infobox and article accrdingly, leaving in both dates. BMK (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted IMDB and other sources firmly place this as 1938. I don't know if movie title is reliable for dating. The 1942 could be from a re-print.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.42.139 (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A "re-print" would not change the copyright date. Also, note that IMDB is not considered to be a reliable sources except for the most obvious information, such as casts - it also has a tendency to date things by English release dates (although that wouldn't be the case here.) BMK (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why wouldn't it change the copyright date? A company that changes the title of a film to get unjust repeat business might well change the copyright date to hide the fact that they're just rereleasing old material. --Prosfilaes (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date? 

message: She was born in 1926. How she could be 12 y. o. in 1941 or 1942? 158.255.160.179 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably related to the confusion about the film's date.  The copyright notice on the film says 1942, but other sources list 1941 - although it could easily have been shot in '41 and released in '42.  The confusion comes in because many sources list it as 1938, but that seems not to be the case, unless the release was held up a number of years after shooting, but I've come across nothing that says that.  The "Notes" section of the TCM entry for the film points out that two other studios submitted requests for clearance from the censors for very similarly-themed films in 1938 and 1939, so that might be the cause of the confusion.In any case, since none of the sources specifically say that Mills was 12, I've changed it to "15", based on the release. BMK (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Shirley Mills 

message: It seems to me that the information provided in the cast notes subsection is better moved to the various actors' pages. Rossitto, furthermore, has no page on WP, fail to see the notability of the trivia about him. 79.42.135.208 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You say tomato, I say "tomahto".  This is not trivia, it's interesting information about people in the film. You can't get rid of it simply by calling it "trivia". BMK (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:BRD.  When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring.  During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.Thanks, now please provide specific objections to the material, without recourse to the word "trivia". BMK (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of cast notes subsection

message: Based on the research I been able to do so far, there seems to be quit some confusion as to when the film was originally released/first shown to the public, though less so as to when the film was produced/completed. Here what I gathered:
* The AFI says the film was most likely originally filmed in 1937 (not 1943), and may have been publicly shown at least somewhere in the U.S. in 1938. Other sources such as IMDB, AllMovie, and Rotten Tomatoes back up 1938 as the original release date. It's seems likely that the film was completed in 1937 but less clear as to whether it was shown publicly anywhere in 1938. It may have been shown in very limited public showings in 1938 in some informal/underground tent showings, common with exploitation films of the era. It's also possible the film was shelved until 1942 or '43 due to censorship issues and only then was it first shown publicly. The 1937 completion date jives with the year Shirley Mills was 12 in real life and 12 is the age the actress is said to be in the film.
* There are many version of the film that where released at different times. The 1943 Version, titled "Child Bride of the Ozark's, was likely a recut rerelease not, the debut. There was also a 1953 heavily cut 43 min. version released in N.Y. in 1952. 
* The title card copyright date is not an accurate source in this case for the true date the film was competed and/or first shown to the public. Independent films made in this era (i.e. non major studio releases) tend to play fast and loose with names, copyright dates, etc. A recut re-releases might have a different copyright date placed on them that only reflects the date that version was released not the year the original was made or first shown publicly. It may very well have been that this film was never formally registered with the copyright office (as required by the copyright law at the time; nowadays Post U.S. adoption of the Berne Convention in '88, films receive copyright upon there completion without needed to register then) and thus these title card copyright dates are legally meaningless. It's possible that the versions shown on TV, Youtube, etc. are simply surviving prints from a 1943 recut/reissued version not the original print/version, which were either all lost/destroyed. There could be a original print from 1938 sitting in some archive somewhere that says 1938 on the title card but because nobody bothered to dig it out and compare it currently available versions they never saw the 1938 copyright date on the title card. 
* All other Wikipedia article that mention this film state the original release date as 1938 though they mention the date is disputed.
* What all this tells me is that the article's claim that the original cut of the film was first shown and/or completed in 1943 is suspect and disputed. The article should state what the AFI link in the article states, that the original cut of the film was completed in 1937, it may or may not have been publicly shown somewhere in the U.S. in 1938, a release version, possible recut, was shown in 1943 and possible 1942 too, and a heavily censored 43 min. version was shown in 1952. The AFI link is confusing because it list 1943 in the film info section at top but in the description says that MPAA/PCA Collection materials on this film suggest it was made in 1937 and possibly first shown in 1938. So maybe what needs to be done here is we list the original release date as "1938 or 1943*", with the asterisk pointing to an explainer/note at the bottom of the page that explains the confusion over the true original release date of the film. If no one objects, then I will go ahead an follow through with my suggestion for fixing this issue.
--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original release date confusion 

message: It’s inappropriate and I’m confused why or how it’s even allowed there? 172.97.49.89 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the law on this but, even if the uploaded film on this page is legal in every country, I think that having the still frame before you press play as centred on two nude teenagers is childish at best and perverted at worst. This seems like the equivalent of having an extract on the page for It (novel) that focuses on the scenes of teenage sex in the novel. No one disputes that the latter is legal, but it doesn't have to be prioritised over everything else that could be selected from the book. Same applies here. It's like how we don't censor profanity on Wikipedia, but that's still not a reason to insert profanity randomly into articles. Epa101 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting rid of it. It's just an embarrassment. Epa101 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of swimming should be removed