Open main menu


Replace the word ShiiteEdit

No one but the Sunnis use this word, we Shias prefer "Shias" as plural of "Shia", rather than the alternative which sounds highly similar to feces. We never called our selves this & would prefer the word to be replaced by a less controversial yet accurate "Shias ".

Thank you.

PS Shias & Shiites are both modernly coined words along with Shiite as long as I know. But we've always recognized our selves as Shia , even in our scripture.

It's similar to how some people derogatorily call Muslims ,Moslems forgetting the insultory origins of the word "Moslem" which in meaning is opposite to Muslim in Arabic ( it means bad person , due to the root word of it's origin); similar to how the word Shiite is derogatory to the Shia sect due it's blatantly obvious English root word : poop.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.37.199 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 13 May 2014‎

spelling errorEdit

can a more experienced user please correct the error in the (same sex section) just after it mentions the US DOMA act. it should read as FROM but is spelled as FORM.

"(2013) which prevented the Federal Government form recognizing same-sex marriage" should be "(2013) which prevented the Federal Government from recognizing same-sex marriage"


thank you

Adding new section - Longest marriages on record (prospective merge/redirect)Edit

The 'List of people with the longest marriages' page is currently amidst an AfD and as an alternative to deletion, a proposal was made to incorporate at least some of the most notable records in a section within the Marriage page (with the means as yet undetermined).

While this may be more neutral than controversial, someone suggested raising the question here as a prelude to addressing this potential merge. Note that the list criteria is one of the discussion points in the AfD. Preliminary to doing so… any thoughts, concerns, insights, or issues to be addressed? ogenstein (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC) ogenstein (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion it would make sense to include a section with some of the longest marriages. Otherwise if there are only a few notable marriages, they could also be mentioned in other sections like Europe. --HRwatcher (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A whole lot of un-cited text in the "Classical Greece and Rome" Section QuestionEdit

Almost the whole section is "citation needed" and, while I don't have the citations to correct them, several of the statements are dubious at best:

Men usually married when they were in their 20s[citation needed] and women in their teens. It has been suggested that these ages made sense for the Greeks because men were generally done with military service or financially established by their late 20s, and marrying a teenage girl ensured ample time for her to bear children, as life expectancies were significantly lower.[citation needed]

There is a tendency to mis-use "average life expectancy" in historical writing. Most people take an average of 30 to mean "most people died at 30", not that--due to high infant mortality rates--your odds after a year or two were pretty good, with generally another spike in the late-teens/early-twenties (women largely dying in childbirth and men in war). If you made it past that, you were pretty solid. (After all, if a large number of people died as infants, you'd generally need a good number of people dying at 60+ to end up with that average.)

My long way of saying a "low *average* life expectancy" is not really the same as "life expectancies were significantly lower", especially in terms of individuals who had survived childhood.

And another strategy would say that marrying a younger woman gives you a better shot at more children--not because people don't live very long, but because many of her children will die young (so you want to make use of all of her fertile years). (Of course, many women died in childbirth, and ironically teens more often than older women. But there you go. *shrug*)

I don't have citations to hand for my assertions, but neither does what's already there.

I don't want to start throwing in *more* "It's also suggested"s without citations, but I think it's misleading to leave all the un-cited text (much of which I think is wrong) in place.

What is the SOP for a situation like this? Trim it back to basically the redirect? At least until someone can try to mine the redirect for citations? [And I've spent all my time asking, I don't have the time to find proper cites myself. :( ]

Lamerc (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of this article is way too long IMOEdit

IMO it should be a little shorter don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.9.60 (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Idea for new articleEdit

(This post is for a class on Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities) I would like to create a new article under the parent article “Marriage.” The other day I had a discussion with Professor Stephanie Santos about how it used to be customary in many Pacific Islands for a child to be raised by a community, rather than a family unit tied together by marriage. European colonizers believed that the indigenous people were heathens because they did not have the same institution of marriage that the colonizers were familiar with. This attitude of course further justified colonial violence against these communities. I would love to write an article highlighting the history of colonialism within the topic of marriage. Check out my user page to see some sources I may use. HappyGourd (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Marriage" page.