Talk:Wedding/Archive 2

International wedding traditions

I think this article needs to have more information about weddings around the world. I can provide some information about Indian Hindu weddings. Can anyone guide where that should be added? Aneesha 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to put the information there, put it under the "customs" section, the same where French customs are discussed. --Joshuagross 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• The section on Chinese weddings is so far too simplified and too generic. The traditions should eventually span many different traditions from within China (eg Cantonese, Hakka, etc) with descriptions of elements like tea ceremony, dress, etc.Ep9206 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Too focused on Christian weddings?

The article seems incredibly oriented to Christian western weddings, which are only a small number of weddings. comments like "weddings generally contain some form of vows" is incredibly inaccurate outside of the Christian wedding framework.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.186.165 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is Wiki, so you know what to do: be bold and add information about other traditions!

Atlant 21:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Someone please, please add sections on Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, and Chinese weddings! --M@rēino 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Western wedding should not be synonymous with Christian wedding. I suggest having Christian wedding be made a separate section with emphasis in the Western wedding section on influences from Christian weddings.Ep9206 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Separate Pages

Should different types of weddings be in separate pages? For example a page about chinese weddings, a page about Jewish weddings, and so on... I think there is too much variation to try make some generalised single page covering everything. What do you think?

• That makes plenty of sense. However, this generalized page is a good start until enough material gathers within a subcategory to break it off as its own article.Ep9206 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad phrasing

"Wedding ceremonies may contain any number of different elements" is a poor excuse for something. Anything can contain any number of different elements. Can someone put the excused phrasing instead?

• It's not a bad start. However, the article needs more citations though to avoid being its current hodgepodge of POV.Ep9206 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Wedding anniversary into this page?

• Against, because it would be better merged with the page for Anniversary instead. DFH 19:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• nomerge, because I think it stands on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Oppose different topics --Henrygb 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Against These aren't the same subject and a merge would have a detrimental impact on this article. I think DFH's suggestion of a merge with anniversary is more appropriate, thought he article can probably stand on its own. --Siobhan Hansa 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Given four votes against, zero in support, and a month of silence, I am removing the merge tag from the wedding anniversary page. --Masamage 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Role of Clergy?

I notice that there seems to little or no mention of the role that may be performed by a member of the clergy in a wedding. For example, the list of participants omits a member of the clergy who might (depending on the religion/culture in which the wedding is taking place) be actually performing the wedding. This page shouldn't be made more Christian/western centric, but failure to even mention that a member of the clergy might play an active role in the ceremony seems a serious omission. Comments? Rickterp 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

References of Christian ritualism and Background

I have been searching for a a little while about what does it actually say in the bible about the act of a wedding and where does a Christian wedding come from. What is necessary to for us to be considered we are married. I have always heard and seen on movies and wedding that i have been to, the priest speak "Do you ________ Take ________ to be your lawfully wedded husband/wife to have and to hold in sickness and in health till death do you part. Where is this coming from? I havent seen this in the Bible. I would like to know what exactly makes a marriage a marriage. In my eyes a Christian Marriage can simply be two people taking a vow to share their life together and for a purpose of serving the lord, a life to grow with Christ. Is a single Vow to do this not constitute as marriage. or must we have a reception and speak the words that i quoted above. Must we say " I DO " in front of at least a few witnesses and a priest pastor, or preacher before we are married. Thank you (Brian) 2:54, November 5 2006

Batik and Kebaya

In the clothing section Batik and Kebaya is noted as traditional for Javanese. With the way it's written and linked it seems ambiguous to me. Is it a batik dyed kebaya, or is there a garment known as a batik and kebaya? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil Union

We had a wedding to enter our civil union. I have changed the opening of the article to reflect that weddings are not the sole domain of marriage. Enzedbrit 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

That's messed up. We have pictures of every wedding around the world EXCEPT IN THE UNITED STATES? Colonel Marksman 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the people of Connecticut would be surprised to find they aren't part of the United States. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuptial addition at top of page

Nuptial currently redirects here so this edit] makes sense for those who have come to the page through that route. But the sentence adds an entirely different meaning to the page in a way that might be confusing for some one who has just typed in "Wedding". I was thinking a disambiguation page for nuptial might be more appropriate but it seems like a lot of overhead if we only have two meanings to disambiguate. Other opinions, comments or suggestions? -- Siobhan Hansa 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I made the edit because I go through a lot of bird articles these days. I am also not 100% satisfied with it, but as Nuptial redirs and then does not appear on the entire page except once, unmarked, as a synonym with "wedding" proper, I wanted to have at least some dab for those who come there from "nuptial plumage" or sth. Do as you please; as long as there's some indication of the scientific use of "nuptial", I'll be pleased.

Maybe instead of a dab, it could be un-italicized, moved to the end of the intro section, with a half-sentence about the etymology of "nuptial" or so... the term's from Latin nuptiae, "wedding", and a see-also link to Ancient Roman marriage might even be added. Dysmorodrepanis 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Expenses section

We've had some off things going in here and I'm not sure about the usefulness of the section from an encyclopedic persective as we current;y have it. I just reverted someone trying to compare "typical" Indian wedding costs (what was considered typical was unspecified) with average American wedding costs - (an average which is itself suspect coming from the wedding industry and providing few details on methodology). While it would be great to compare wedding costs across cultures and countries, I don't think we do our audience any favors when we fail to be rigorous and thoughtful about the information or the how to present it well. I haven't seen any sources provided that would really let us talk about costs in an encyclopedic fashion rather than a magazine-ish we-don't-really-care-if-it's-not-that-accurate, but-don't-these-figures-make-your-eyes-open-wide sort of way. Does anyone know of less suspect research into wedding costs? Academic, economic research maybe? Perhaps we could stick to things we can be more certain of - government published figures on the sector for instance. -- SiobhanHansa 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Weddings are sexist :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.240.79 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Picture

I removed the picture of the gay wedding, since I believe that there probably aren't many people who look at this article expecting to see a picture of two men kissing eachother. --White Requiem (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The intention is to show the diversity that exists under the common concept of a wedding. It seems to do that pretty well. I think the article is better off with it. -- SiobhanHansa 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As the subject of the wedding photograph in question, I really don't think that anyone is any position to remove a photo based on the assumption that people don't want to see "two men kissing each other". Don't forget, White Requiem, that gay and lesbian people are subjected to seeing straight men and women kissing each other every day of our lives and we do so without protest, fuss or the need to remove such photographs from the Internet. Enzedbrit (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Further, as it is not pornography, illicit, violating or anything illegal, there is no reason why it should be censored from Wikipedia, let alone the Internet.Enzedbrit (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

-By inserting a picture of two men kissing, you are stirring up a hornets nest unnecessarily. Stick to images which are not so controversial or it will hurt the neutrality of this article. Respect the fact that a great majority of Americans and Canadians (they are the only countries I can speak for, however I'm sure others share the same opinion) Do not believe in Gay marriage and would really rather not view a picture of two men kissing. Find a better picture of, perhaps, two men walking down the aisle together or leave the picture out completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.36.68 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

- Agreed, don't need to have gay kissing picture... it was pretty nasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.169.205 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The real issue isn't that it was a male-male couple, but that the photo had nothing to do with a wedding. It was, as termed by all, "two men kissing". There was little, if anything, to make apparent that it was a wedding at all. A photo of two men or two women being married, walking together out of a chapel, or similar may be fine, but this article is about the wedding and not kissing, and thus the photo was not appropriate to the article at hand. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the preceding comments. It is largely a matter of censorship. And though it doesn't demonstrate a wedding ceremony per se, it was taken during a gay wedding. The photo's title is something like gaywedding4; not twomenkissing4.jpg. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The preceeding comments are bad arguments in favor of a good decision. The arguments they make are not valid, but their aim is valid, per my comment above. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Though it isn't apparent that it's a wedding photo, it is still a wedding photo. The couple always/normally kisses like that at a wedding, so I would say it is an apt picture. Granted, the examples you gave would be better. However, until someone puts one of those in, I think this one should stay, to ensure that people don't try to censor WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a photograph of a wedding. It is a same-sex wedding. Anyone who wants it removed is nothing but a nasty, bigoted homophobe who hates gay people and wants the world to be pure and straight (and white and Christian and American and middle class). The photo stays. 121.72.70.111 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl: Prove it. (The point being that there is nothing in the photo to evidence that it is a wedding.)

Mr. IP: Please come down off that high horse and interact in a civil fashion. (For that matter, register and contribute so you have some sort of credibility as well.)

The simple fact is that the photo in question has no place in this article. In a different article, absolutely. In this article on weddings, the weddings are the focus. All that photo shows is a couple kissing. Male, female, or otherwise makes little difference. It is not applicable to this article.

VigilancePrime (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may contribute? I am one of the two in the photo. It was taken at my wedding to my husband more than two years ago. Had I been straight and married a woman and my photograph were of us kissing on here, there would be no issue whatsoever about the gender of the participants. This photo shows me and my husband in our wedding outfit, a symbol of our culture and a demonstratable depiction of wedding culture. The issue isn't that it is about people kissing, the issue is about it representing homosexuals. That is what it has always been. Someone speaks of how it will offend Americans and Canadians - I am sure that most of the world would not give a rat's arse about offending Americans, the country that has offended every other for generations, and Canada even allows gay marriage whilst the United States continues to persecute my people severely. I am not sorry that a photograph from my wedding offends. I am only sorry that we couldn't have a marriage, and that as for the United States, 20million non-heterosexual Americans won't even have the benefit of a civil union in their nation. Enzedbrit (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute; that's the joy of Wikipedia! If you read my comments through and through, you'll see that I am not making gender an issue in the photo. It is the content of the photo that renders the image not necessary on this article. Someone could complain about the kilts, someone could comblain about the genders, some could complain about anything else in the photo. That's up to them. I am not making any argument based on the genders or the clothing or the location or any of that. Only on the content of the photo. I think this would be a fine photo on the kissing page. Not on the wedding page. Let me ask you this: Do you have another photo from this same ceremony that demonstrates the wedding aspect? You and your husband cutting a cake together surrounded by wedding-attire-clad guests? You and your husband as you're saying vows before an officiant? Some photo that clearly shows the wedding instead of kissing? That would be a fine photo for this article and would be welcome!

No actually, you are. Your argument really is pathetic. This is a photo from a wedding. Cutting a cake, the kiss, the walking down the aisle, the vows, the guests arriving or leaving - it's ALL from a wedding - but you have selected one aspect of it to get rid of because it offends your sensitivities - seeing two men/women kissing - and want rid of it. The wedding is the 'event', it is everything. This is a photo from a wedding, of a wedding, at a wedding - it is a wedding photo. It is OUR wedding photo. What right do you have to say that the kiss is not a part of the wedding photo? I'm afraid that your attitude to this is only going to stoke a desire to have it and other photos remain, rather than a reduction in same-sex content. Enzedbrit (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

On a wholly different note, this article needs major clean-up and expansion. There are already too many photos for the size of the article. While some would say that means that more photos need to be removed, I tend to be of the mind that articles need to be expanded instead. I considered moving most of the photos into a gallery... what do others think?

VigilancePrime (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gallery sounds reasonable to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Enzed, please give Vigilance the benefit of the doubt. He hasn't been anti-gay (and probably bigoted) in his arguments, as have the other people who happen to be on his side. He has a reasonable concern, and I think it wouldn't hurt to provide a more overtly wedding picture. Surely you guys have one that is more obviously from your wedding. If you provided that, you would gain Vigilance's support, he's already told us that. Please let's all assume good faith. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have plenty. The fact is, the wedding kiss IS an integral part of a wedding. Two men dressed in formal wedding attire, in what is clearly a quintessential wedding setting, wearing roses in the lapel - how much more wedding could it be? There is no basis in any argument that says "more overtly wedding picture". This isn't two people sitting on a couch smoking cigarettes and watching telly as they read their vows. I think that the best faith here is to own up to true opinions - you don't want to see homosexuals kissing on a wedding page. As for agreement with getting rid of it, this photograph has remained on here for over a year with the support of many people, even removing myself Enzedbrit (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes.

(Or, alternatively, "Yes, and thank you.")

Side Note: I would like to distance myself from the phrase "on his side" as I'm not necessarily on the same side as the others who have written poorly in favor of the same outcome. We may seek the same outcome, but I think that the method is the "side" and my method, I believe at least, is grounded in logic and fairness and the other "side" not as much... so please don't think I'm just "taking their side" with a different argument. (I don't know if that made any sense or not...) My concern and rationale is independant of the divisiveness of some others as shown above.

VigilancePrime (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge that "on his side" was using a very narrow meaning of his side, and I could have worded it more clearly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

NP VigilancePrime (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BEFORE we start a REVERT WAR

Before we start a revert war and end up with the page being locked, can we talk this out?

1. For the photo, there have been plenty of reasons and rationale given above why it is not appropriate to this article. Yes, much of the commenting has been POV and uncivil, but the NPOV and civil comments are the focus of the discussion and are perfectly legitimate. Please take those into account. They even have requested a better-fitting photo that illustrates the same ceremony.
2. There is no reason to be linking to pages that do not exist. Why are there reverts of the de-linking?
3. The first section was a mess; still is. The bullet points help in readability a lot. Please do not remove them unless improving the section dramatically such that they are no longer necessary.
4. Things like Dowry are not as significant to the wedding as wedding cake and thus in the See Also section, those sub-sections should be rearranged as has been done. The See Also section probably needs to be trimmed down as well eventually.
5. Uncommented changes are reserved, generally speaking, for counter-vandalism. Please comment those changes otherwise. We all (meaning Wikipedians) need to be communicating more on this talk page and note our changes in the comments section. This page is very minimal for what it could be. We can fix it, but not through endless reverts.

VigilancePrime (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to #1...

As has been discussed ad nauseum above, the so-called "two men kissing" photo does not show itself as a wedding photo. I can grant that it is from a wedding, but a casual reader is going to see it as simply a kissing photo with no discernable wedding context. The filename is irrelevant; anyone can upload a photo with any filename. Now, if this is ...4.jpg, what about photos 3, 2, 1, and anything after:5, 6, 7, etc.?

When I look at the page and the constant reverting to a photo with no clear context, it is hard to see anything but subtle POV-pushing. In point of fact, the first time I read the article I saw that photo as being so far out of context, that is how I saw it. At that time I didn't care about that point, but now that I am looking at the article and working on it, I think it needs to be replaced with a better photo from that same ceremony.

A lot of Weasel Words have been thrown around in this discussion, including censorship, which is ridiculous. Some people on both sides of the argument have done more to their "side's" detriment because of this. Credibility is lost with comments like "this is censorship" or "that is nasty". It is for those reasons that I and a couple others have been attempting to rationally work through this issue. It is far more contentious than it need be. As I have said before, this photo would do better on the kissing article, but not here.

Lastly, I find the statement "The wedding kiss, like the march, the group shot, the leaving, everything, is an integral part of the wedding ceremony" rather dubious and approaching disingenuine. "The wedding kiss"? What is that? (Let me check: wedding kiss...) Granted, I have been to only a few weddings, but "the wedding kiss" tends to be short-lived, ceremonial at best, and minimal. I find it a bit of an exaggeration to call it "an integral part" of the ceremony on the same scale as the entry and exit procession. (For that matter, what's the point of a wedding? Better to just elope!)

To summarize, this particular photo is not, as demonstrated by the many rational arguments above and in the prior section, appropriate to this article. The alleged subject matter (a same-gender wedding) is fine, but this is not of a wedding but of a kiss. The constant re-insertion of this photo could be seen (and I think some have seen it) as POV-pushing or even low-level trolling. I am choosing to believe that is not the intent, but recognizing that is a part of the result and working to find a remedy that is fair firstly to the article and enhances the total article. Please work with me and us and work together rather than against other editors. The last thing we want on an article as "simple" as this is an edit war.

VigilancePrime (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Again, your argument is flawed. Two men kissing is the problem here - the image of kissing offends so get rid of it. Were it man/woman kissing, it would remain. Don't kid me - you want it gone because it's two men. That's the be all and end all. Two men dressed in their wedding outfit. The argument goes that there is nothing to say that it's a wedding outfit. Well, one photo is of people sitting around what looks a table of food, another is a man and a woman sitting side by side - what makes those photographs 'wedding photographs'? Clearly dressed in wedding outfits? I'm not familiar enough with those cultures to realise that but I am with British culture to know an a groom's attire. Why should the two men photo go but the other 'ambiguous' photos stay? Because one is of two men kissing whereas the others show heterosexual couples, neither of which 'to me' says wedding.
• I'll allow you the honour - replace the homosexual wedding photo. Go on, do the right thing - you removed it, you're the only one offended by it, you put it back. Welcome to the 21st century, but bravo for keeping the non-Western photos there - good move to show that your bigotry doesn't extend to ethnicity Enzedbrit (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please refrain from personal attacks; the above does little more than reinforce stereotypes and give credence to the POV-pushing view. You seem to be in denial of the many, many people who have expressed revulsion or offense at the photo by stating that I am the only one offended; if anything, I am the only one who has not indicated offense at the image in this discussion. Your continued unnecessary vehemence and allegations are only further evidence that your purpose for including the photo is for a personal agenda and that does irk me a bit.

I don't know how many times this can be stated: The photo is of two men in kilts kissing. Now, kilts can be seen at highland games, in Scotland, at weddings, at funerals, or at almost any other occasion where a kilt-wearer may be. We have asked many times about other photos from your wedding and you have not even responded to these comments. While I and others continue to act in good faith, you appear to slide further and further into bad faith in your responses (culminating in the above borderline - which is again assuming good faith - personal attack).

As Carl.bunderson had pointed out, I, at least, have been fair in my comments and unbiased in my views and dialog through this discussion. I have not parttaken in personal attacks, have not made negative comments about you or the photo, and have stuck to facts and cool rationale. I would appreciate the same from you.

And finally, if you will read my many comments above, you will also see that I am not terrible happy with the other photos in this article. They almost all need to at least be pulled into a gallery or commons category. This whole article is terrible. In looking to improve the article and images, as point of information, I did look to see if you had also uploaded photo 3, 2, 1, or 5 from the same series, assuming a similar filename system, only to find none. That's too bad, as I am certain - as I have stated many times already - there is a wedding-demonstrative photo in the lot. It would be nice to find/see that photo and have that added to the page.

Stay cool, and have a great day! VigilancePrime (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)