Talk:Marriage/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Ugh

So what should we include in the introduction about how marriage is most commonly practiced? I think we should include something. Not in the first sentence but somewhere. This would be basic information about marriage as an institution in practice. We do not need to pass any judgement on less popular forms of marriage of course (whether we're talking about gay marriage, polygamy, etc.). Heterosexual monogamy is indeed the most common form of marriage in in practice, and in fact it has always been. Even at times when other forms of marital union has been permitted or even something to strive for (see polygamy in OT times) heterosexual monogamy has been the most common. Commonality does not equate to being better or worse, or more or less legitimate. I really wanted to discuss this seriously above before the thread was hijacked by trolls once again. Can we get back to this?Griswaldo (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but that argument seem rather POV laden, especially the part were you say 'it always has been'. Second of all, to say that it is 'the most popular' doesn't work either. It isn't about commonality, it's about the fact that there are more non-LGBT people out there. To say that it is 'the most popular' would mean you apply the vote to the preferences of those of LGBT as well, meaning if they themselves had chosen different-sex marriage versus same-sex marriage.

If the above isn't clear, I'll try again: You apparently think 'popular' in this case is defined by how many people practice different-sex marriage, when in reality that number is coming from the amount of people who do not fall into the category of LGBT. I really hate to use this as an example, but it's like saying 'marriages between race X and X are popular because there are more people who are of race X'. It isn't right, it isn't true, and it doesn't work for this article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My choice of language was a bit sloppy because of how annoyed I am by the trolling here. Let me try again. The current lead is a very abstract and seems completely detached from the reality of the practice of marriage cross-culturally and historically. It deals in such generalities that it's hard to really understand how marriage is commonly practiced. We don't have to say that monogamy or heterosexual marriage is most common per se but we should say something about the practice of marriage, something descriptive and empirical that goes above this really abstract introduction.Griswaldo (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the lede and I agree, why not say something that is concrete, empirical and descriptive of marriage that describes its practice cross-culturally and historically. DMSBel (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way to do this is to get a source that can speak with authority about what is common cross-cultural properties of marriage (the OED or Websters is not such a source). In my view the best such source would be a well regarded basic text book in cultural anthropology, or an encyclopedia of cultural anthropology.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially what the article's existing Definitions section does - look at how cross-cultural anthropologists describe marriage. However, because the cross-cultural practices are so widely varied, the descriptions of marriage at that level (and the level of this article) are necessarily very broad and general.--Trystan (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus regarding where to look. I think many people tend to believe that marriage practices historically and cross culturally have been more varied than they actually have, because there are many many examples from the historical and anthropological record of small cultural groups with divergent practices and regulations. Also, mating and various institutionalized sexual practices should not be confused with marriage practices. For instance, the general practice of sexual monogamy is not the same as the practice of marital monogamy, unless of course the institution of marriage, wherever it is found, does not proscribe sexual monogamy. Likewise marital practice and marital regulations are not always the same. Certain cultures may for instance idealize polygamy, while it is rarely found in practice -- see ancient Hebrew cultures.Griswaldo (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For instance, the general practice of sexual monogamy is not the same as the practice of marital monogamy, unless of course the institution of marriage, wherever it is found, proscribes sexual monogamy.

Could you explain your terms here: "sexual monogamy"?. I understand marital monogamy to mean with one partner, till either divorce or death. But I am not sure what you mean by "sexual monogamy" or why where the institution of marriage proscribes (ie. forbids) "sexual monogamy", it would be the same as the practice of marital monogamy - and that is what your statement seems to be saying, and it doesn't seem to make sense. Marital monogamy by definition means the married couple are sexually exclusive, though a couple who are not married could be in a monogamous relationship. Where does the institution of marriage proscribe "sexual monogamy"? I really cannot make any sense out of what you have written. And this term "sexual monogamy" seems to be an just an invention of some Wikipedians.

Also I don't agree that ancient hebrew cultures (was there more than one?) "idealized polygamy" - where are you getting that from? Genesis 2:24 from the hebrew scriptures says that "...a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." There is no mention of more than one wife, no idealization there at all. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The "proscribe" issues stems from an editing mistake where I started writing one thing and then edited it to write another and ended up with the opposite of what I was trying to write. I fixed it. Marriage is a social institution and it may or may not include rules governing sexual activity outside of the marital pair. The point is that having socially sanctioned sex with multiple partners may in fact occur in a society that practices marital monogamy, though in Western cultures this is not common, if almost unheard of (that such activity is socially sanctioned and not against the institution of marriage that is). You may wish to read about the varieties of monogamy. Perhaps I was a bit sloppy in my description of the biblical practice of polygamy, but it is clear that it was practiced not infrequently by those who had the wealth and standing to do so. It is also clear that it was criticized by others, and that in general it was rarely practiced. My point here was that just because certain marital arrangements are socially sanctioned does not mean they are prevalent. The reasons for that could be numerous and quite diverse, but in this case scholars suggest that polygamy required a great deal of resources that were unavailable to most.Griswaldo (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Griswaldo, but your comment above constitutes your own explanations and summarising in a manner which is tending to confuse issues. We have quotes from scholarly works on this talk page (for instance those Maunus has provided). When there is summarising, paraphrasing and explaning being done in sloppy language, it only serves to make the work on the article more difficult. I am sure you are trying to help improve the article, but I think it would be better if we stopped summarising and explaining so much. Editing an article does not make anyone an expert on it. Your language is quite vague and you tend toward generalising quite often, and not citing references: You say (even just above) "it is clear" repeatedly, the statements that then follow are not clear at all.

"It is clear that it was criticized by others..." - which others?

"But in this case scholars suggest..." - which scholars?

Really what you are saying is pretty much your own thoughts.82.18.164.15 (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The important points I've made were backed up by sources, but apparently you didn't follow the links I provided in my response. Please take the time and do so. The notion that polygyny is permitted in the Hebrew Bible can be sourced to the Bible itself as well as secondary and tertiary sources (see polygamy in the Bible). The notion that, while permitted it was most likely rarely practiced can be sourced to secondary and tertiary sources (again see polygamy in the bible. I linked to this entry for a reason. Here's a quote from one of the tertiary sources used in that entry to source the relevant text there, The Oxford Companion to the Bible:

• "Polygyny seems to have been practiced since the earliest periods of Israelite history, but was probably never statistically prevalent due to the relative affluence necessary to support more than one wife; note Jacob's fourteen-year indenture for his two wives and two concubines (Gen. 29.20–29). Both David and Solomon practiced polygyny on a grand scale (1 Sam. 25.39–43; 27.3; 2 Sam. 3.2–5), although the Deuteronomic theologians admonished even royalty to refrain from the practice because of its religiously adulterating possibilities (Deut. 17.17; cf. 1 Kings 11.1–7)."

We can mince words all day but the basic point remains unrefuted by you. I'm afraid these are not simply my own thoughts. If you read our entry on monogamy, which I also linked, you will likewise see that those were not my own thoughts either. The nature of your response makes it very hard to WP:AGF at this point, btw. I'm going to take my own initial advice and ignore you because you are indeed trolling.Griswaldo (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you made one link (sorry two) but only after I critiqued your earlier statement which seems to be unchanged. However but you generalised, from whatever those links contained, in a very vague manner so much in the rest of your comment, that it was not helping anyone who was trying to follow the discussion. You seem to keep going off on tangents when we are talking about a specific part of the article. The introduction needs to be fairly concise and by bringing in all sorts of things like "sexual monogamy" and whether it is proscribed by some institutions of marriage, "idealized polygamy" - such detail is superfluous to an intro. DMSBel (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And I most definitely am not trolling - I am disagreeing with you, and that is not trolling.DMSBel (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No you're not. You're purposefully picking on immaterial things and acting like I'm not providing you with the resources to understand what I'm writing when I clearly am. I never suggested to put those terms in the introduction I was responding to comments about marriage on the talk page. Like I said I'm not taking your bait anymore. Have fun.Griswaldo (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, you can ignore me if you want, but you are not being "baited". Now lets drop it.DMSBel (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should define human beings as commonly "dark skinned", since "white" people are less common. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about how we define marriage. I think the initial definition is just fine. In fact I've argued for it in the past on this very page. I think there is a misunderstanding here in that regard. Perhaps some of the IP users are after something like that but I'm most certainly not, and I think it should be clear what I think about the activities of those users. I'm talking more generally about the lead being abstract and with little appeal to exemplary or common marital arrangements ... something that I think would ground it more in reality. As I stated I think Maunus is on the right track.Griswaldo (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

His essay would be a tad lengthy for the lead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What essay are you refering to? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The one in the section just below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats not my essay or a suggestion for how to write the lead - those are quotes from secondary sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps could develop a well-sourced "demographics of marriage" section that looked at the most common forms of marriage arrangements cross-culturally and historically. We could then summarize that section for the lede. Depending on what is found in the sources, something like: "Marriage practices vary widely, but cross-culturally and throughout history the most common forms have been limited to opposite-sex couples, endogamous, patriarchial, and monogamous."--Trystan (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea.Griswaldo (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We just don't have sources that support that description: the sources say that the union most commonly include opposite sex partners and that the institution regulates the legitimacy of off spring - it doesnt say that monogamy is more common than polygamy and the term patriarchal is not mentioned at all (because theres no generally agreed upon practical definition of that), the sources also don't say that endogamy is more common than exogamy but rather that endogamy and exogamy occur in different contexts. Also using the word "limited" is not necessarily accurate or in accord with the sources - it says that marriage as an institution most commonly involves - not is limited to. It would require a different kind of study in a different kind of source to talk about what are the most common limitations of marriage.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the actual sentence added to the article would be dependent on the what is found after doing a thorough canvassing of reliable sources on the point. The characteristics listed were simply meant to be suggestive of some dimensions of marriage that we might include if we are looking for common forms. The 'limited to' was only meant to apply to 'opposite-sex couples'.--Trystan (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's what I was suggesting would be a good idea, not the exact wording but to do what Trystan suggested.Griswaldo (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be interesting, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Small note

Previously, the IP 82 tried to refactor my post on this talk page. Since this IP has previously been disruptive by attempting to claim editors editing this page have some kind of 'agenda', if further disruption occurs, do not hesitate to report.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, however you stated the reason for closing the discussion incorrectly - I have been discusing content primarily, though I did mention that there is what seems to be an agenda ongoing, call it POV if you like, but my comments have always been with reference to the content and wording of the article.82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And why not talk about a perceived POV? This is Wikipedia isn't it?82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Forcing the view that marriage is always one man and one woman would definitely be pushing a point of view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not forcing the view that marriage is always one man and one woman, just asking that we use the language: man and woman, in the lede somewhere. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

POV-pushing. Trying to apply obsolete information in order to push the "traditionalist" agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete information, Seriously? I can only hope you realise how ridiculous your comment is. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not use white people in the lead too? Cause, at least in America, most married people are white....can we {{hat}} this too? CTJF83 chat 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing types of marital arrangement with human characteristics used by moderns to differentiate people or groups of people from each other -- to self-identify with or identify others by. Regarding ethnicity or race, the meaningful conversation about marital arrangements would be about endogamy and exogamy and not "whites", "blacks", etc. As I suggested below just ignore the IP, however there is also a more serious conversation going on in the main thread above between editors who are not here to disrupt the encyclopedia with their POV.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss the lede in an effort to improve it, and have been attempting to do so, despite attempts to wind me up, by Bugs, and CTJF83, to whom I have tried to be civil. I apologise if I have inadvertantly caused any disruption, it has not been intentional and hope that we can move toward finding a way to fix the lede. The objections currently to the lede is that it is lacking in descriptive content and is too abstract in terminology, and I agree. This abstractness, it seems to me, is due in part to the overuse of the word "individuals" within it. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

marriage in crosscultural perspective

"The institution of marriage, which has been defined as ‘the union of man and woman such that the children born from the woman are recognised as legitimate by the parents’(Notes and Queries on Anthropology 1951:) has constituted a central area of anthropological research, usually in the context of studies of the *family (Morgan 1871, Westermarck 1921). *Claude Lévi-Strauss has made the most spectacular contribution to the development of this field; by placing marriage *alliance at the very heart of *kinship, he has shown how marriage is a structure of *exchange resulting from the *incest prohibition. The prohibition of incest, which is universal and requires the avoidance of union between close relations, has as its positive counterpart the institution of †exogamy, the obligation to choose a marriage partner outside the close family group. Alliances are, nevertheless, not made randomly: exogamy has its own counterpart in †endogamy, which demands or recommends marriage within a prescribed group or locale. Modern societies, Encyclopedia of social and cultural anthropology 528 for example, combine strict prohibitions on marriage between close or distant kin and affines, with what might be termed a less restrictive class and ethnic ‘homogamy’ marriage with the ‘same kind’). Most so-called primitive societies have both strict exogamy between certain close relations and an equally strict endogamy between other relations or prescribed groups." (Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, 2002 Routledge)

"Marriage is almost always more than simply a legalized sexual union between a man and a woman, though it is almost always this, if we mean by ‘legalized’ socially acknowledged and approved. Notes and Queries on Anthropology gives a useful preliminary definition: marriage is ‘a union between a man and a woman such that the children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners’. This points to one important function of marriage in most societies; the fact that it confers acknowledged social status on the offspring. This is evidently a matter of great importance in regard to such matters as inheritance and succession. But there is no general definition of marriage which covers all of the kinds of institutionalized inter-personal relationships which it is convenient to include under the term. Here, as so often, we have to avoid the danger of uncritically assimilating other people’s social and cultural institutions to our own. We shall see that it is sometimes hard to decide whether a particular kind of union in a particular society can usefully be called marriage. ... To begin with, a few broad distinctions must be made. First, marriage may be monogamous (one husband and one wife), or it may be polygamous. If it is polygamous it may be either polygynous (one husband and two or more wives) or—and this is very rare—polyandrous (one wife and two or more husbands). It is not surprising that although polygyny is an accepted form of marriage in very many societies, polyandry is much less usual. ... If we regard marriage as a relationship not just between individuals, but also, at least potentially, between groups, then an important distinction is that between endogamy and exogamy. The terms were first used by the Victorian anthropologist McLennan, and they simply mean that one must ‘marry in’ or ‘marry out’; that is, inside or outside of a social group to which one belongs.1 Since the terms are relative, it is necessary when using them to define the group within which, or outside of which, one must marry. Examples of endogamous groups are castes and sub-castes in India; in many of those very numerous societies in which unilineal descent provides the main principle of social grouping, clans or lineages are exogamous." (John Beattie 2005 "Other Cultures")·Maunus·ƛ· 19:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In what sense is the term cross-cultural being used here? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to make that clear - it is of course about marriage in crosscultural perspective.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I knew that you meant that, just helps to avoid any confusion.82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The way to move forward here, it seems to me, is to ask, and answer: What descriptive features are there to marriage as it is practiced across all cultures?, or to say it another way can we highlight the universal aspects of marriage practice that are recognised in all cultures? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the "universal" properties of marriage are few and therefore the description of marriage becomes pretty vague - that is what many other editors seem to be reacting against. The above quotes show that anthropologists are more comfortable talking about aspects that are present in most or many cultures than about aspects that are universal.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. Ok so do I understand correctly, what is being sought is to balance the abstract with the descriptive? Would it help if we were to draw up two lists here on the talk page: Universal/Abstract and Descriptive/Empirical? Not to include in that form (of lists) in the article but for the purpose of helping to clarify what to include and what is missing in the lede?82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way these are helpful quotes. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that we at least take a look at the Brittanica online article on Marriage, not to copy it but just to look at how they have crafted their article. I realise Brittanica is only one of several widely respected encylopedia, and yet it has a long history of excellence. Clearly the editors of Brittanica are professional encyclopedists and their article at the very least merits a glance.

Here is the introductory paragraph from Brittanica:

a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any). The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions for which it provides structure, such as sexual gratification and regulation, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status, and companionship; perhaps its strongest function concerns procreation, the care of children and their education and socialization, and regulation of lines of descent. Through the ages marriages have taken a great number of forms.

Also how are we using the term lede here. It usually refers to a first paragraph in a news paper article, since the introduction is several paragraphs, we need to clarify what we each are talking about if we use the term lede (I have used it following others here, but now that I have checked how it is most commonly used in journalism I wonder if we are all using it in the same way). I am going to refer to the introduction instead (meaning all that precedes the TOC, whether one paragraph or more). My own view is that the current four paragraphs for the introduction is too many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My edits

NatGertler reverted my bold edits to the lead. His objections are not correct - except the question of whether it is "messy" which is a matter of taste. The addition of "and groups" is very much supported by sources as I have demonstrated earlier at length[1][2]. I had written:

"Marriage is a social union or legal contract that exists in most human societies in one form or the other and has the social function of creating kinship between individuals and groups, and usually also the function of establishing a kind of legal recognition of the union's off-spring. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are recognized in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding. The most common cultural pattern throughout history has been to allow marriage only for opposite sex couples, but many societies and cultures also allows marriage of same sex couples. Likewise historically the most common cross-cultural pattern has been for societies to sanction marriage between between one man and one or more females (Monogamy or Polygyny), but also several cultures have practiced marriage between one woman and several men (polyandry). "

I suggest that it be inserted in this way, or slightly altered for better style, but I find it important to mention the social functions of marriage that are most common - establishing kinship between individuals and groups and legitimizing offspring. Also the different kinds of marriage - poly and mono andry and gyny need to be mentioned early on in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Another crack at it

How about this?

• Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. In most societies marriage also establishes the legitimacy of offspring. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are recognized in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding. Heterosexual marriage, usually monogamous or polygynous and less commonly polyandrous, has been the most common historic and cross-cultural pattern, but the practice of same-sex marriage has also existed historically and is currently sanctioned by several modern nation-states.

In no way do I think this is perfect but I believe it is a more condensed version of what Maunus wrote. Better or worse? Any other suggestions on how to improve this?Griswaldo (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just tell me what the difficulty is in saying "usually between a man and a woman", in place of "people"?DMSBel (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That its not correct?·Maunus·ƛ· 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The secondary sources you quoted earlier state that it is correct: Look - "The institution of marriage, which has been defined as ‘the union of man and woman such that the children born from the woman are recognised as legitimate by the parents’(Notes and Queries on Anthropology 1951:) has constituted a central area of anthropological research..."

And again. - "Marriage is almost always more than simply a legalized sexual union between a man and a woman, though it is almost always this, if we mean by ‘legalized’ socially acknowledged and approved. Notes and Queries on Anthropology gives a useful preliminary definition: marriage is ‘a union between a man and a woman such that the children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners’.

These are the sources you have cited.DMSBel (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we have sources to support that same sex marriage is necessarrily more common in "recen years" than at other points in history. I would change the last sentence to "some historical cultures and several modern nationstates also sanction marriage between same sex partners".·Maunus·ƛ· 21:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about the new version? Look above.Griswaldo (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If it has existed historically, why all the fuss about legalising "same-sex marriage" in the last couple of decades. Civil-unions are very recent also. Historically is far too broad a word - implies much a much wider time-frame (really all of history) to something that in the west has been very recent. In fact homosexual acts were only decriminalised in much of the west in the latter half of the 20th century. 1967 in the UK, 1970s or later for most of the US, some parts of Europe, and Iceland slightly earlier (first half of the 20th century) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law DMSBel (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Many modern nation-states is also too broad DMSBel (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

See History of same-sex unions. What makes "many modern nation states" too broad? How about "several"?Griswaldo (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Several is ok, but some only have sanctioned same-sex civil-unions.DMSBel (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the article you linked to it states that: Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. So unions - not marriages.DMSBel (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhm no. There is little agreement on the definition of marriage ... that is what is a union of a different type and what is a marriage.Griswaldo (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats my POV that there are different types of union and that some are properly termed marriages and some are not. DMSBel (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, while we're digging into the first paragraph, can we fix the pre-existing part with "the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding." Such a ceremony is a wedding. It is actually not usually called a wedding, in that it usually involves people not speaking English, but where such a ceremony exists, the proper English term to describe it is "wedding". So perhaps we can change that sentence to "Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony."

I would be happy with the sentence you propose.DMSBel (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, I still hold that the first paragraph should be basically "what is marriage", and the topic of how it varies in practice should be dropped to another paragraph for clarity, and still hold that the "monogamy + polygamy > polyandry" construct here is not helpful. We could similar say "It is common for boys to be named John, Wolverine, or James; it is less common for them to be named Quinn", and that would be technically accurate, but it doesn't convey whether the number of boys named Quinn is more or less than any one of the other three names.

Here's a pass at such a paragraph: "Almost every known society has had some form of marriage between a man and a woman. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygamy) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups."

--Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The incest prohibition is believed to be one of the few cultural universals, so "frequently" is an understatement. Otherwise I am not adverse to your wording.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nat the comparison with children's names is off because the difference in commonality and available types is huge. A much better comparison would be to an Automobile usually having four wheels. I maintain that this information is meaningful in a similar way as well.Griswaldo (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nat about the first paragraph. I also think we are trying to fit too much into the introductory section. I don't think it needs to summarise everything in the article (look at the TOC - it would be impossible), it only needs to set out some basic facts about marriage.DMSBel (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD it does need to summarise the rest of the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, well good luck to you.DMSBel (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just checked, it says :summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. Why make it more difficult than it is , I said it doesn't need to summarise everything and [[WP:LEAD] bears that out.DMSBel (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about usually between two persons or usually between two people - just "people" doesn't sound right. OED usage says that "The words people and persons are not used in exactly the same way. People is by far the most common and is used in ordinary writing (a group of people). However, persons is now found chiefly in official or formal writing: this vehicle is authorised to carry twenty persons. DMSBel (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to opening paragraph

I just undid an edit that made the first paragraph:

Marriage is a social union or legal contract that exists in most human societies in one form or the other and has the social function of creating [[kinship]] between individuals and groups, and usually also the function of establishing a kind of legal recognition of the union's off-spring. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are recognized in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding. The most common cultural pattern throughout history has been to allow marriage only for opposite sex couples, but many societies and cultures also allows marriage of same sex couples. Likewise historically the most common cross-cultural pattern has been for societies to sanction marriage between between one man and one or more females ([[Monogamy]] or [[Polygyny]]), but also several cultures have practiced marriage between one woman and several men ([[polyandry]]).

(Italicization of the key changes mine.)

My concerns were

• the "creating kinship between individuals and groups" is messy and unclear; it makes it sound like each marriage is between an individual and a group, or it's just random, or somesuch.
• the groups claim isn't supported by the sources pointed to on the talk page, which talks about marrying into or out of the group but not how the marriage enters one into the group or unites the group.
• The "most common" attributes are uncited
• The grouping of monogamy and polygamy together doesn't seem designed to depict relative commonness, but to marginalize polyandry.
• The addition of some varieties of restrictions overburdens the opening paragraph, which was until now basically a big-tent statement of what marriage is. Let's give that paragraph room to breathe, particularly since once you start entering the varying forms of restrictions, it quickly becomes "well, we're noting the varying restrictions on exclusivity and gender, so we should also note the varying cultural restrictions on age, on pre-existing kinship, on..."

Changes particulary to the opening sentence have a long history of contentiousness on this article; let's work out as much as we can in talk before getting into a mess in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

the lead doesn't need citations. The lead must include a summary of everything that is in the article. The sources do support mentioning that marriage establishes kinship ties between individuals AND between groups. This is forexample the point when it is written that: "*Claude Lévi-Strauss has made the most spectacular contribution to the development of this field; by placing marriage *alliance at the very heart of *kinship, he has shown how marriage is a structure of *exchange resulting from the *incest prohibition. The prohibition of incest, which is universal and requires the avoidance of union between close relations, has as its positive counterpart the institution of †exogamy, the obligation to choose a marriage partner outside the close family group" at a previoous occasion (now archived) I provided further sources for this:

• "Structuralist theory of kinship regards marriage in traditional societies as a form of group-based reciprocity, where the exchange concerns the ‘super-gift’, that is women. Later studies, not least those carried out by female anthropologists, have shown that this is a dubious generalisation. It is not necessarily the case that men exchange women; often, the power relations between the genders may be more equitable. A central point in Lévi-Strauss’s theory of kinship is never the less that marriage in traditional societies is group-based, and that it can be understood as a form of long-term reciprocity. Affi nality creates stable alliances. When distinct kin groups (clans, moieties or other units that compose society) systematically exchange women, all of society becomes integrated through deep and long-lived commitments. In certain cases, one waits an entire generation before ‘the gift’ is reciprocated in the shape of another woman. In societies which practise transmission of bridewealth, it may occur that men work for their parents-in-law to fulfi l their obligations virtually for the rest of their lives. Put differently, by marrying a particular woman, the man and his lineage commit themselves to working for the affi nal family for years to come. This was the case among the Kachin, the Burmese highlanders studied by Edmund Leach. Their marriage system meant that the lineages who became wife-givers (mayu) were higher-ranking than the lineages who received wives (dama), and this relationship was confirmed in that the bridewealth had to be ‘paid’ over many years. Men thus had a lower rank than their parents-in-law, expressed through their enduring debt relationship." (Hylland Eriksen: What is Anthropology pp 108-109 )
• "The concept of marriage, too, has been subjected to criticism along the same lines as Schneider’s critique of the concept of kinship. Edmund Leach, like Rodney Needham after him, claimed that it was impossible to make a list of criteria defi ning marriage which would be acceptable everywhere. As a conclusion, they claimed that marriage does not exist as a cross-culturally valid category; the bond between a man and woman who have children together varies so much in content that it cannot be designated with the same term everywhere." (Hylland Eriksen p 113)
• "The argument against arranged marriage is that marriage is supposed to be based on free choice and true love. But how freely chosen are the marriages of the majority in western societies? All research indicates that people marry within their social class and their cultural milieu, and that powerful informal norms regulate the relationship between the spouses. A difference is that arranged marriages involve entire kin groups woven together through ties of reciprocity, while ‘love’ or freely chosen marriages only involve two individuals." (Hylland Eriksen p. 162)
• Polyandry is by far the least common construction cross-culturally and sources (the Beattie source) support this explicitly. Anyway how is Polynandry more marginalized now that it is at least mentioned then when it wasn't mentioned at all?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My reaction to this is that "groups" probably ought to stay in some form. Even in the modern West when partners are chosen only by the individuals involved, it is hardly disputable that marriages create kinship between two families and give rise to the full extended family. Of course, in the modern West, nuclear families are sometimes separated from each other and extended families lose much significance. But they are never fully irrelevant.

I wonder if the term "families" might be better than "groups." By definition the groups involved are families since they are already related by kinship, correct? Is there a source to support this usage? We do not want to cause readers to think of group marriage, a completely different topic.

On the other hand, the later comments on same-sex marriage and polygamy desperately need to be kept out of the opening paragraph, which does not need that level of detail. To stick them in there would completely disrupt the flow of the lede. Also, that bit of text mentioned in the talk section below this was superfluous and should be removed. —Othniel Kenaz 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead must summarise all of the main content of the article - that means that it must mention the different alternatives to monogamous opposite sex marriage that are also crossculturally common. If not in the opening paragraph then somewhere else in the first couple of paragraphs before the TOC.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree about the lead. However, I do not think we need to explain that kinship may be between individuals or between groups. The current opening sentence does not say that the kinship which is creation is between the individuals who are getting married only.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true but I think group relations are an extremely important part of marriage, as demonstrated in part by the sources above. Whether we use the specific term "group" and where exactly in the lead it should go does need to be weighed. —Othniel Kenaz 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, what do you think of my thought of using "families" instead of "groups? As for the lead, it is true that it must summarize the main points. But whole sentences about individual marriage restrictions certainly do not belong in the opening paragraph. I doubt they even belong in the third or fouth paragraphs because there are many different kinds of restrictions that you can talk about, as Nat said above. The most that probably would work is a general statement that various restrictions and differences of definition exist, such as age, monogamy, incest, gender and so forth. I have no objection in principle to including that. —Othniel Kenaz 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Families" is less correct than groups because often the groups that are involved in a marriage alliance are not exactly "families" (which doesn't have a good scientific definition anyway) but can be anything from lineages to clans houses and moieties.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of how to define a term in such a way that the term means everything and nothing.

A basic problem with the introduction

If I might draw attention to a concern regarding the opening paragraph of the introduction. To speak of Marriage within societies/cultures as existing"in one form or the other" before the reader has been given any understanding of what the forms are, is extremely vague and likely to turn readers away. It makes the introduction sound as though we are deliberately withholding something. We should not expect readers to accept vagueness, or to scan down the article till they can glean enough information to understand the introduction. We should be clear at the beginning. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Children's book used as a refrence

For over three years the sentence in the lead about "weddings" was cited to a children's book about a Navajo wedding. I removed it but it makes me wonder what other gems are in this article and if anyone has done any serious copy editing of it in a while.Griswaldo (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and well spotted - closer attention needs to be paid to when changes are made, that old citations are removed if necessaryDMSBel (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Location of Judaism in the article

Currently within the section Bible-based faiths, the order is Hebrew (Old Testament), followed by Christianity, then Judaism. If no one objects I am going to change the order of the sections here so that Judaism follows Hebrew Bible(Old Testament), with Christianity after that, as that would make more sense historically.DMSBel (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Obstructing changes

No consensus for change Dædαlus Contribs 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently if one opens up the page to edit it, in the first paragraph after the word "people" it says <--! DO NOT change it will be reverted! -->. Is it right to obstruct changes in this manner, and who is doing it? For one thing, it is not clear whether it refers making changes to one word, one phrase or more (I don't agree with this even if it states specifically what one user is threatening to revert). However much disagreement there is about article content and wording, I think it should be discussed on the talk page. No one IMO should be allowed to threaten revertions within the actual article text in this way. Unless someone can cite where wikipedia policy allows this, I think it should be removed immediately.DMSBel (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC) It is allowed if there is a long standing consensus about a particular wording. This doesn't seem to be the case here exactly. I say it should be removed.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Ok, but it doesn't indicate whether it is refering to the word "people" or more than that, it was in when the word "individuals" was used too.DMSBel (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Go back to where it was first added and perhaps the context will be clearer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC) If the instruction is allowed on grounds of a long standing consensus existing about a sentence, phrase or word, then the context is obviously important. What I am saying is that it has remained in after a change, I presume it refers to changing the word "people" currently. If it is clear to you, could you just say what the sentence was when it was first added, as I have no idea when or where it was first added. DMSBel (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Nor do I. I'll see what I can find. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC) This sort of thing is wide open to abuse, and I am very uncomfortable with it.DMSBel (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I've boldly removed it - I don't think there seems to be a strong consensus about this wording at this point. And once there is a better way to show it to new users who might indavertently change it would be to put it in a FAQ on the talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, yes I hadn't thought of it but now you mention it an FAQ would be a better way of handling it.DMSBel (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I think it needs to be readded, perhaps clarified. Removing it just leads to more problems with the article. CTJF83 chat 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) It was added by Ctjf83 on March 13,[3] during a time when the article was being besieged by Brucejenner socks. It should stay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC) For the record, I didn't remember adding it...but I still support it being there. CTJF83 chat 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Removing it would be the first step towards resuming the Brucejenner edit war. Deja vu, as BJ was saying the same stuff that the recent arguers are saying. What a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) If there were "brucejenner" sockpuppets beseiging the article now the text would have been changed by now regardless (going by your description of this individual). What CTJF83 is afraid of is the consensus shifting to something he/she disagrees with IMO. So far, even though I am free to edit the actual text of the article I have not made a single change to the introduction. The only changing I have made is a minor non-controversial alteration as noted above. There are no "brucejenner socks" here now. I say it should still go, for the reasons I have already explained, and because a FAQ is far less open to abuse. Edit wars happen when there is no consensus as well as when there is.DMSBel (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Have you looked at the history to see what was going on in mid-March when this thing was posted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Whats 5 months ago got to do with now? Once we get people inserting < DO NOT Change > all over the place (Oh, I thought there was a consensus) you'll know what a headache is, but by then those who advocated it will just bail-out and leave others to clean up the mess. This is trying to sort out one problem, by opening the door to a potentially bigger problem.DMSBel (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Leave that note alone or I'll seek your block for edit-warring. It's been there for months. Your attempts to remove it unilaterally without consensus are disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Maunus agreed and proposed a much better solution to the problem by having an FAQ on the talk page. We had both agreed, there was no unilateral removal. Putting it back started the edit-war as is clear. The FAQ is a much better way of dealing with this. DMSBel (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC) That one edit by 71-something betrays a likely BJ sock, citing the same (uncited) claim as BJ did in March, that "99 percent" of the world considers marriage to be strictly male-female. So don't tell me there are no BJ socks here. They are always here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Sigh! You have a brucejenner obsession - go see a wiki-therapistDMSBel (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Did he say that too the last time he was here?DMSBel (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC) No, I wasn't even involved in it at that time. I think it turned up on ANI as being an article constantly under siege by the right-wing POV-pushers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Seriously, the < DO NOT change > stops absolutely nothing. If some dishonest editor want to change something (against consensus) he will change it and leave the <DO NOT CHANGE> still in to protect his own change DMSBel (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Seriously, it's a reasonable warning. There's another note above it advising talk page discussion before making any changes to the lead. It's basically a message to BJ that his POV-pushing will not be permitted to stand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Still think you're dealing with an honest bunch of editors, 82? There has never been a consensus, let alone a long-standing consensus. There has always been objections raised to the content and tone of the article that essentially equates the prevalence of meaning of "marriage" between heterosexual and same-sex marriage. But they get an admin and beat back these objections, sometimes getting the objecting author kicked out, then they call it "consensus". They are not an honest bunch of editors nor is their POV inserted into the article neutral. The < DO NOT CHANGE > tags are equivalent to leaving a piss scent telling others who it is that owns the article. 71.169.190.131 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC) See, what'd I tell ya? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC) What, specifically, did you tell? 71.169.190.131 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC) That the POV-pushers never go away. They are always looking for a wedge to push their narrow "Christian" viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC) It seems fair to say that editors who jump to accusations of sock-puppetry, POV-pushing also don't go away. What is interesting now is that the boot is on the other foot, so to speak, but nothing is being done about accusations of POV-pushing. New comers to the talk page are encourage to check the reasons earlier discussions were closed. DMSBel (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Whether you are actually BJ or not, the problem remains the same: You're trying to push a specific agenda into the article to make it look like wikipedia endorses "traditional" marriage, i.e. a woman subserviant to a man. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ I am doing no such thing: "Traditional" marriage is between a man and a woman but within that there are varying views on headship - some traditionalist take a more egalitarian view on headship.DMSBel (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC) So lets have another go at this. How do we include with the introduction the notion of traditional marriage, between a man and a woman without appearing to endorse it? DMSBel (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) The intro is fine the way it is. Leave your wedge out of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) You cited a quote by some character named Barth or Garth or something, who was talking about "selfishness", which is right-wing code for women who stand up for themselves and won't be subserviant to their man. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Who gives a shit what is "traditional", around 1855, slavery was traditional, does that make it right, I think not. CTJF83 chat 06:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I agree that we should ignore this troll but can we slow down with the foolish comments here. Karl Barth's views on marriage do not belong in the entry, but to deride one of the most influential theologians of the last couple of hundred years as a nobody is simply ignorant ("Barth or Garth or something"). Likewise equating "tradition" with what is "right" is ridiculous. Stating that something is traditional is not the same as stating that it is right. Where does that equation come from? I've seen this equation made more than once by some of the people opposed to DMSBel's (non-constructive) suggestions. Let's think a little about what we're saying here instead of just reacting to a troll. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC) "Traditional" is right-wing code for a very specific situation. And I must ask again, what is so special about this Barth guy? The average reader has heard of Billy Graham, Dr. Phil and the Pope. Not this guy. If he's so freakin' influential, how come he's not generally well-known? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC) People who are influential are not always "generally well known". Read the entry on Barth if you want to know why he was influential. Some things that right wingers seek to inflict upon the rest of us may well be traditional in reality. That a conservative would want us to abide by what is or is thought to be traditional should not be a shock. But there is no value there good or bad. Just because something has been done in a particular way for most of western history does not make it better or worse. I agree that often the label "traditional" gets put onto anything conservatives champion exactly because they do wish to champion only things that are traditional. But that is of no consequence to the encyclopedia. Either way, there are many other traditions, outside of Western history, and the word is therefore not useful here. Issue closed.Griswaldo (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Well Griswaldo, I must be a wacko to think it is "right" to treat everyone equal, and give everyone the same rights. I've never heard of Barth, so, and as Baseball Bugs points out I've heard of the 3 names he mentioned, Barth must not be that influential. CTJF83 chat 05:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Well Ctjf83 I'm completely confused about why you are asking me that question. I do not believe you are crazy to think that because I share your belief. But once again that has nothing to do with this. My problem here is that you and others seem incapable of rationally evaluating the notion of something being traditional or not because of how your cultural opponents (conservative Christians) have co-opted various words like "traditional". We do not write an encyclopedia based on the POV pushing of cultural warriors or the knee jerk reactions against that POV pushing. That's why I'm dismayed. Regarding Karl Barth I was unaware of the fact that we judge the influence someone has in their area of expertise based on who you, Ctjf83 have heard of before. How many theologians have you heard of in the first place? Billy Graham and Dr. Phil are not theologians and when the current Pope was Joseph Alois Ratzinger, a Cardinal and yes a Catholic theologian, neither you nor I had any idea of who he was. You should not msitake fame or notoriety for influence. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC) He is not mistaking fame for notability. If this person is notable, I would like to see some proof on the matter. Again, what makes him so special?— Dædαlus Contribs 22:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC) What makes him so special? asked Daedalus : I would not class him as "special". That is not the grounds on which it is being suggested he be referenced within the Christian Marriage section. He certainly doesn't have the kind of widespread recognition as the current or past popes would have, or Billy Graham . He was a theologian and writer mainly and he was influencial amongst theologians of the 20th century, though whether any more so than Luther, or Calvin I don't know.82.18.164.15 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Why don't you stop evading and just answer the question.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I did answer. If I had said he was special I would answer by backing up that claim, I never claimed he was special, just missing from the article. I answered why I think he should be included on the ground of his being influencial. His influencialness is however not a matter of individual editor opinion based on "I never heard of him", or "I have heard of him". Though Wikipedia is not certainly always a reliable or authoritative source for its own articles, I venture to quote from Karl Barth was a Swiss Reformed theologian whom critics hold to be among the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century; Pope Pius XII described him as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas.[1] this could have been seen if you had taken a few seconds to click on the link Griswaldo provided. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Wrong. I asked you to provide sources to prove his notability, and what makes him special, in this field, that only he should be noted as a reference. So far you have given none; you have only repeated what Gris has said, giving a link to his own article here at WP, but never really explaining. I want to hear an argument from you that isn't just a repeat of what is already on this page.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC) He is not notable as an expert on marriage. He is however clearly notable as an expert on christianity, and could be cited to give an statement of the catholic view on marriage if it is agreed that that is required.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC) While avoiding the whole silly here's-a-quote-that-I-don't-know-what-it-is, don't-know-what-it-means, and-isn't-about-marriage, but-it's-important-to-include discussion, I should note that it is an error to describe Barth as an expert on Christianity. He's a noted theologian, which means he has interesting (and to some people convincing) discussion of what Christianity should be. That is quite different from discussion of what the practiced religion is. He is not primarily notable as a historian. (He was also not Catholic.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I will try and ignore your parody of how I introduced Barth to the discussion. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Karl Barth's view on marriage is not suitable for this entry. Maybe at Christian views on marriage. He is an important Protestant theologian, but not an expert on marriage, nor is his particular view on marriage notable enough for this entry. I don't think this needs to be discussed anymore. The IP is trolling.Griswaldo (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Mind if I hat this then? There's no consensus for such a change, no doubt.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Yes that is probably a better place to include him.82.18.164.15 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Answering a question I was asked - sorry didn't realise that was trolling. I had left the discussion about Barth - it was started again by another editor (Baseball Bugs) who couldn't get his name right 82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I won't waste anymore time on this article, too much bad-faith here towards me. To have any changes I suggest taken seriously would need a heck of a lot more good-faith than most editors here seem capable of. Good-faith here seemingly is assumed only between editors who think the same way. I leave you guys (those of you who actually are interested in improving it) to sort it out. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for including a reference to traditional marriage without endorsing it

Unproductive discussion. No consensus for change.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As the previous section was being dragged back to other subjects I have opened this. How do we mention traditional marriage between a man and a woman within the introduction without endorsing it? It's not an impossible challenge. Suggestions please. DMSBel (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC) The first step is not to call it "traditional" marriage, which is grossly insulting to those who practice other types of marriage. Quigley (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC) There is nothing grossly insulting about it at all. A distinction needs to be made, and there is nothing wrong with using the word "traditional".DMSBel (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Yes there is. By declaring this idealized 1950s America-type marriage "traditional", you are telling the Tibetans who have practiced polyandry since ancient times, among others, that their marriages are nontraditional. Quigley (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC) So are you saying we don't use the word "traditional" at all, because to refer to "traditional tibetan marriage" would be offensive to most westerners who have practiced marriage between a man and a woman from ancient times (not the 1950s), and suggest that those marriages are non-traditional. I have another point to make but I will make it separately.DMSBel (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC) What you want is a Christian-centric article. That will not be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Whose talking about a christian-centric article? DMSBel (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC) "Traditional" under your definition means only one thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Yeah it means "traditional" (long established) whether you add western, chinese, tibetan etc, or not. And whether or not the 1950's idealised one form of marriage (I hesitate to agree), marriage between a man and a woman is a long established practice going back long before that. By the way - the west is wider than America.DMSBel (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC) An article discussing the history of the changes in marriage in Christianity would be pretty interesting, but this editor clearly doesn't want that. S/he wants an anachronistic and proscriptive definition of marriage; i.e. taking how marriage is practiced by conservative Christians in certain countries, and retroactively applying it to every single culture ever to stick it to the gays, anthropology be damned. Quigley (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Wrong again DMSBel (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Separate point: A Marriage is between two people. Polygamy, polyandry etc are not forms of marriage, they are descriptive of a cultural practice of having more than one marriage. DMSBel (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC) That's your particular point of view. Our article on Polygamy says otherwise. As does EO[4] which points out that the word polygamy means "many marriages". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I don't know whats going on here but it is either to do with confusion, misunderstanding or just denseness on the part of some editors. I said just above polygamy is descriptive of the cultural practice of having more than one marriage - Bugs then disagrees with that by citing a reference to quote "which points out that the word polygamy means many marriages" - which is exactly what I said: more than one marriage = many marriages.DMSBel (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC) You apparently missed my comments farther down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Did you check that article - in the first sentence its say from late-greek meaning "often married", ie more than one marriage. Couldn't be any clearer.DMSBel (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC) And oh I see its "Our" article now. Well your article contradicts itself in its first sentence. DMSBel (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC) "Our" meaning "wikipedia's". But I see what you're getting at now. Multiple wives but theoretically individual marriages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC) The article List of Brigham Young's wives indicates several occasions where he married more than one woman on the same day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC) No not "theoretically", individual in practice, lol, the lengths some editors go to avoid admitting the obvious. Two wifes (or husbands), two separate ceremonies = two marriages. DMSBel (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC) No it doesn't. I looked down the list they are all individual marriages. I'll check it again to make sure. Or you can state here which ones as they are all listed. Are you refering to where it says "sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity, and to Young for time" ? DMSBel (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry I see now, yes two marriage ceremonies on one day most likely. DMSBel (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Yes edit conflict - I did miss your post - ok so polygamy same as multiple marriages?DMSBel (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC) There are many forms of marriage tradition. To ascribe this one aspect of marriage - the genders - as being "traditional" as opposed to arranged marriage being "traditional" or dowry marriage being "traditional" is unnecessary POV. The introduction already makes clear that marriage between a man and a woman is a common form found across cultures. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Ok, the use of traditional was misapplied slightly, However it still stands that (and I don't like using wikipedia as a source for its own articles, as it is not authoritative enough, and too often other articles are in dispute) polygamy and polyandry are multiple traditional marriages DMSBel (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC) No, they are multiple marriages. To again say that it is 'traditional', is POV.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC) It's Quigley you are disagreeing with then, not me (see above)DMSBel (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Don't act like you know what I'm thinking, or who my post is directed to. It's directed to you, because of your wording, of your reply. To act like your religion's version of marriage is the only kind that is based upon tradition, is POV.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC) (ec) Polygamy is a form of marriage, and it involves having more than one spouse at a time. This could be through multiple separate marriages or one marriage which which includes multiple individuals. I looked it up in the OED and Britannica. Britannica says "marriage to more than one spouse at a time." That's marriage not marriages. Stop trolling.Griswaldo (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Excuse me, I am not trolling, but simply trying to arrive at some clarity, and understanding of terms. DMSBel (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Daedalus was saying "marriages" too.DMSBel (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC) DMSBel give it up. "Traditional" is not going to fly because there are many "traditions" and they are not all the same. If you want to write an article about Christian marriage tradition, or European marriage tradition, or any other then do so, but this is the entry on "marriage" generally. The rest of you should also give it up. It isn't worth arguing with DMSBel over this.Griswaldo (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not quite sure I understand the relevance of it to this topic, but polygamous marriages can be viewed both as a series of seperate, non-exclusive marriages (legally I have seen them addressed this way) or as a single marriage with multiple partners (see many of the definitions proposed by anthroplogists in the article). Regardless, the lede was just edited, and now contains a rather good summary of various forms of marriage and their relative prevelance in the third paragraph, making it clear that man-woman marriage is culturally universal, while other forms are not. What additional edits are being suggested?--Trystan (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I agree with Trystan this is a urely theoretical discussion depending on whether one already defines "marriage" as a contact between individuals in which case polygamy is several marriages or as a contract between groups in which case polygamy could easily be defined as a single contract and a single marriage. The number of weddings hasn't really got any thing todo with this either. The definition now shows adequately that man/woman is the most common construction and that as is as close to that topic as we need to get.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I hadn't noticed the change, but have no objections, and the conversation has been confusing, but it is an improvement. DMSBel (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I think we all need to ignore brucejenner and his socks and wait for them to be blocked again, as usual, no need to carry out these long, drawn out conversations with the same person, over and over again! CTJF83 chat 06:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC) How is it that you believe that such person is involved in this conversation? I know I'm not Brucejenner nor am I IP 82 nor DMSBel. But I've been here before, long ago, and even though the usernames are different (looks like some specific individuals have moved on), it's still the same thing. The LGBT lobby must use Wikipedia as their platform in the Culture war to place same-sex marriage on equal footing with heterosexual marriage, even though such equal footing has not been recognized by society at large. A few countries and about as many states recognize same-sex marriage, but the great majority of societies in the world do not. This article is hijacked by partisans who act like they won the battle yet, and they haven't. Except maybe here at Wikipedia. Even though the fact is that 99% of the occasions where the word or concept of "marriage" comes up in conversation between anyone picked at random, they are talking about two persons of different gender in a social and sexual relationship. The LGBT lobby would like to change that. That desire is understandable. But it continues to be a misuse of Wikipedia and, indeed, conflicts with its 2nd pillar. 72.95.93.187 (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC) There's only one faction in this imagined "war" that has demonstrated a consistent obsession with changing Wikipedia to effect social change, and it isn't the "LGBT lobby". Quigley (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Indeed, more like the BJ sock farm.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Floating quote from Confucius

This seems to me far too strange to have so prominent a place in the article, certainly include it somewhere, but not as a floating quote in the definitions section - it sounds so alien, and incomprehensible, with it's reference to "former sages", and "sacrifices to heaven" Is it really going to help most people wanting to understand marriage? DMSBel (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to one username instead of switching so often.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the only username I have - what are you talking about, I have been signed in for hours.DMSBel (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And if I am not using my username - most people here know my IP by now. Comment on the point I made, but don't nit-pick.DMSBel (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So DMSBel (or "82"), do you still think you're dealing with an honest bunch of editors, here? Surely, to avoid substantive discussion of the non-neutral POV issues the article has, they will accuse you of being me, and they will accuse either of us with being Brucejenner or some other bogeyman.

They do not want to change the article from their parochial POV to that of what 99% of the people in the world understand what marriage is. If some alien landed on earth and wanted to investigate what the concept we call "marriage" is, that alien would have no idea that it would normally involve a male human and female human that are attracted to each other, make some kind of exclusive commitment to each other, make a home together, have sex and perhaps later babies, and build a family. You would have no idea that marriage has something to do with that from reading this article.

It's been carefully sculpted to appease a particularly active and assertive parochial interest here at Wikipedia, much in violation of the 2nd pillar of the project. 71.169.190.131 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's basically a good quote. However it could perhaps be shortened to end with "in friendship and in love." Thoughts? —Othniel Kenaz 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fine as a quote of the views of Confucius, but it is not a definition as such that has very much meaning to most people using wikipedia. To be honest I am not sure whether it should be classed as a definition, and as confucian views are pretty uncommon today I don't see why it is given the prominence of a floating quote. I would rather keep the full quote in the article in a section relevant to views from antiquity.82.18.164.15 (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote is about 2,500 years old, so in terms of illuminating an attitude and definition of marriage at such an early time it is quite valuable. I gather that some objections people have to it is that it does not specify the genders, and that it is more poetic than any other definitions on the page. I doubt those reasons are really adequate to alter or dismiss such an interesting historical source. Ninahexan (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Psychology Today

This timeline from Psychology Today does not seem to me to be a suitable authority; it seems to be more of a collection of factoids than a serious history. I would suggest that the claim cited from it is likewise suspicious. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Psychology Today is not a top quality source for history. However, what parts of the claim do you find suspicious? Romance certainly was not the basis of marriages in most of European history. That they were "more or less business agreements" is perhaps a dubious way to put it, but people certainly did not marry because of "love".Griswaldo (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, do you have a good cite for that? It's a shibboleth that people in the middle ages married young, but I have come upon reliable(tm) authorities who say that, no, early marriage was characteristic of the upper, political, classes because of the need to cement alliances through marriage, but that lower classes tended to marry relatively late. One can see that our article on courtly love cites dispute over the degree to which it was realized in reality, which the PT "history" breezes right over. Given the tendency of this article to be written to endorse various prejudices I think it makes more sense to find the authorities first and then write from what they say. My suspicion is that the emphasis on love matches being modern is rather overstated.Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources currently used in parts of the history section are horrible. I'm going to start by removing these sources and putting in citation needed tags. I have a few books by academics that provide general histories of marriage as an institution. I'll have a look and see what can and cannot be sourced in these books. Almost any such book will tell you that marrying for romantic love is a modern invention. I'll see what I can find in the sources I have.Griswaldo (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets do some work

I have an idea. This page needs a lot of work. I'm finding statements cited to children's websites and children's books, and other non-reliable sources. Can we call a moratorium on discussing the lead and do some basic editing and cleanup work here? Who's with me?Griswaldo (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Good ledes usually flow naturally from well-organized, well-written articles. Perhaps if we started with a review of the overall structure, then moved through it secion by section?--Trystan (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)>

Forbidden marriage

Propose "forbidden marriage" as a subcategory of marriage - marriage types which are forbidden by religious, ethnic, or social reasons. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 05:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

I have regrouped the front grouping of religion headers, replacing "Bible-based faiths" with "Abrahamic religions" and sliding Islam into that grouping. This was due to several concerns:

• Describing Judaism as "Bible-based" is problematic, as the religion predates the bible; the bible was based on the Jews, rather than the other way 'round.
• "Abrahamic religions" is the more common technical delineation
• Islam does treat the bible as a source of religious history. It may not be their final or most important book, but then the same might be said for Christianty in regards to the Hebrew Bible, and to Mormonism in regards to what most Christians refer to as the bible.

Having said that, I'm not certain that this division is needed at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Galagher/ Blankenhorn references

When a person with no background Galagher can post from her own website its hardly creadible! Also Blankenhorn on the witness stand admited that he was paid to write the book quoted by the Family Research Council (religious in nature not peer review science)Kirkclinn (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hamidbasha, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "polygyny" to "polygamy" in ... In Islam, polygyny is allowed for men while Polyandry for women is not, with the specific limitation that they can only have up to four ....

Hamidbasha (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Sorry but I don't understand this request. "Polygyny" means having multiple wives, a more precise term than "polygamy" which means having multiple spouses of either sex. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone change from the boring "individuals" to a man and a woman? This definition is very vague, and opens the door to gay marriages being on level playing ground with real marriages, from a historical point of view. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thethirstyscholar (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done take your views of marriage elsewhere. CTJF83 chat 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Marriage In A Foreign Country

There are more and more people getting married in a foreign country that may have some legal hoops to jump through. They are usually called "destination weddings" I think we should add a small section here about this.

Msweet11 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 129.98.193.55, 9 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section on the Hebrew Bible, it says, "bigamous men were expected to ensure that they give their first wife food, clothing, and sexual activity." This is unclear as it implies that only the first wife was required to get these things. The context in the Bible makes clear that the husband is required to continue giving these things to his first wife if he marries a second wife, ie the obligation is to provide for all wives, EVEN the first. This should be made clear in the text. Thanks 129.98.193.55 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You say that the context in the Bible makes this clear. Could you provide references for this, or more explanation? In fact, as far as I can tell, that passage doesn't even refer to first wives, it applies only to situations when "a man(E) sells his daughter as a slave".Ex 21:7 To be honest, I'm inclined to say we should remove the whole sentence, as it's not a good idea to rely on primary texts, especially one so open to interpretation like the Bible. If we could get a secondary source commenting on the meaning of this passage, that would be better. Looking for feedback here from both the IP and other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the Power in Marriage section?

Why has the Power in Marriage section been included in this article? It makes a great many unsourced or poorly-sourced and sweeping assertions ("The institution of marriage has continued to favor male superiority and power over women", "Research identifies that men are viewed as having more power in relationships", etc.) It ought to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.41.137 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased?

I am wondering how to contact wikipedia in order to call the neutrality of this article into question. Many generalizations and biases are used all throughout and therefore muddy the article as a whole. For example, the "Power in Marraige" section assumes many American women internalize gender roles, and it also asserts an egalitarian marraige is a better one, but does not back up such claims with research. I'm not disagreeing that egalitarian relationships have advantages, but that is an *opinion* and as such does not belong in a supposedly neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.58.54 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is fix the neutrality yourself by edits. :) CTJF83 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Power in Marriage" section was added fairly recently. It was almost immediately reverted, then readded. I agree that it comes across as prescriptive rather than descriptive, and I think it makes several generalizations. I think it could use some work and discussion on the talk page before being included in the article.--Trystan (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem, myself. What specific statements seem to you to be too prescriptive, or too general? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Power in marriage has developed from patriarchy." - A very broad claim that needs be specifically sourced.
• "Historically marriage legally placed women under the ownership of men. Women were viewed as their husband’s property." In which cultures? Cross-culturally?
• "The institution of marriage has continued to favor male superiority and power over women." Overbroad and arguable - the sources talk about egalitarian marriages as well, which this seems to exclude.
• "Western society values male responsibilities and devalues female responsibilities. This is most clear in the working environment where there is a gender gap in pay." Using the pay gap to demonstrate the point is WP:SYNTH.
• "Egalitarianism is a start to ending sexist oppression." A worthy sentiment, but it's arguing a point rather than neutrally describing something.

--Trystan (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Trystan, the section is rather well sourced. What do the actual sources say? For instance you say, "[u]sing the pay gap to demonstrate the point is WP:SYNTH." Not if the source is making this claim it isn't. Now, I don't have these sources and don't know what they say, but I think tracking them down is necessary here.Griswaldo (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are, in my opinion, more restrained than the original version of the section, avoiding overly broad statements and clearly distinguishing between arguments being advanced and facts being relied upon. I've just taken a pass at revising the section on that basis.

With respect to the article on pay inequality, it does talk about employer practices showing that American society values military service over domestic service, but extrapolating that point into a discussion about gender roles in marriage is going to far to argue a point, in my opinion. There are sufficient well-sourced statements in the other sources to demonstrate inequality.--Trystan (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)