Talk:Marriage/Archive 7

The Intro

Howdy folks - i'm new here, so would like to say hello to the more established editors - and i haven't meant to leap too quickly intro difficult ground but.....

I've replaced the intro with the one suggested above, mainly because the previous one i found a little cumbersome, and not a great article opener - if we can get that intro stable for a week or so (or another intro agreed on here...) then i think we can move towards removing that tag.... which would be good!

cheers,

Petesmiles 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(and thanks for adding the citations I clumsily deleted back!) - Petesmiles 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, why do you like this version better? It still has the problem pointed out by Dan it is very vague. In addition, it has the added problem that it is incorrect without qualifiers i.e. most, typically, frequently, etc… Please someone tell me what is its advantage, other than it pacifies proponents of traditional marriage. I am not sure I know of another example were inaccuracy is preferred to accuracy.--Riferimento 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Riferimento,

I don't think the definition is vague - just uncontroversial, and it's not really inaccurate is it? I think we need to have a firm awareness of a first time reader here, and present something clear (and of course verifiable). Thanks for not reverting, and nice to meet you! Petesmiles 00:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hows about this one - i think it's p'raps clearer....

Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship most typically between two people, a man and a woman, who become known as husband and wife. The social, religious, or legal purpose of the relationship can vary widely, and may include: the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations and procreation; social and economic stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; companionship or love; security; and transfer of property.

...whaddya' reckon? - Petesmiles 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a major contributor to WP:LGBT and someone who helped Raystorm get Same-sex marriage in Spain to FA status, I would hardly say I am a proponent of traditional marriage. The issue here is not that people such as Nkras should be satisfied, but that marriage is given the clearest definition that we can, given its historical and cultural evolution. The sentence as it stands outlines both the broad definition of marriage and its most common form, which I feel is as accurate as we came come without the prose feeling awkward of making culturally imperialistic assumptions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I previously removed the sexual element from the opening, because it seems unneccessary - and possible incorrect - people can marry without a sexual relationship, and to remove the adjective is a more open definition in my opinion - is it important for it to be there? Petesmiles 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

They can marry without having sex, but the very basic assumption is that people marry to do so. That's why sex is considered to consummate a marriage, and not consummating it is still grounds for an annulment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between two people, who are referred to either as husband or wife. The social, religious, or legal purpose of the relationship can vary widely, and may include: the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations and procreation; social and economic stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; companionship or love; security; and transfer of property.

I like this version better because it is broad enough include same sex marriage and polygamy but not exclude their existence.--Riferimento 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What? It refers to two people, which excludes polygamy and group marriage, and implies that someone in a same-sex marriage has to play the opposite sex spouse. Additionally, as Dan pointed out above, the lack of a sexual element means that here it is loosely defined enough to potentially refer to a parent and child. And I fail to see why the definition of marriage has to include mention of what terms married people are referred to by. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Or instead of and implies the possibility of two husbands or two wives, but spouses would be better (since the oldest sense of husband infers land and property ownership). Polygamy is when one person has multiple spouses and it almost all cases each marriage is a discrete covenant between two people. Group marriage is an exception, but it is so rare that the changes of you encountering such a relationship is near zero if you also have access to a computer.--Riferimento 01:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically, it would be simpler to use my definition which covers all of it but doesn't give undue weight, as opposed to your version which specifically excludes group marriage (it doesn't matter how rare it is, it exists) and requires an alternative interpretation of polygamy to fit, as well as linguistic semantics to understand it's full meaning. Really, I think my version works best for what we want to achieve. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consider this example one man is married to three wives. He can divorce one wife and remain married to the other two. The wives are never considered married to each other so they need not also divorce. Additional if the man in this example dies the women would not be considered married to each other and would be free to remarry without a divorce.--Riferimento 01:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

which definition is yours?--Riferimento 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized sexual relationship between two or more people, most typically between a man and a woman." It keeps it open but really zeroes in on how most people think of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How are you documenting what most people think? Are you sure your not just stating your own preference. In addition, if it is so common that everyone knows this why do we need to state it?--Riferimento 01:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, because we're an encyclopedia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is clever, but I would still like to know how you document what most people think?--Riferimento 01:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the existence of group marriage. The source is fifty years old, try and find a second source within the last 10 years documenting group marriage. How do we know group marriage is not extinct? If it is so rare that it only exist for one tribe in Brazil why do we give it so much weight? Most of the time when people talk about group marriage on this page they have it confused with common polygamy which it is not.--Riferimento 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. So http://www.lovemore.com doesn't exist then. This book doesn't exist. Graham Norton's biography "Graham Norton: Laid Bare" doesn't conclusively demonstrate that group marriage was alive and well in 80's San Francisco 9and presumably still is). I think you're the one being trapped in your own traditional perceptions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, I still doubt the existence. I am sure you realize these are questionable sources. It is really a useless argument since I am bond by assuming good faith and need to trust that when other editors tell me that group marriage exist that they have done their research, and are not just too embarrassed to admit that they have confused it with common polygamy. Who knows, if it is real maybe someone will publish a real peer reviewed article. This concept will kill the traditional marriage people--polygamy and same-sex marriage combined.--Riferimento 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't find them questionable in the least. The most cursory inspection of Google's first pages of results for "group marriage" shows that it's alive and well. If you don't want to look than that's your problem. I fail to see how that means the definition as I have suggested it is inaccurate - group marriage certainly existed and therefore needs to be included. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Update

Btw, I have listed this article at the League of Copyeditors. I think the issues we really need to deal with right now are prose issues and references. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral tag has been put back.

So what exactly are you finding not neutral about this article then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, not addressing the content as such, but when I originally put the tag up, I said it should remain up until the article has remained stable for a little while--not necessarily without edits but without the kind of back-and-forth rival POV edits we've been seeing for so long here. A brief moment of clarity doesn't mean that the POV squabble has really been resolved. It wasn't me who restored the tag, but I think the editor who did was right to do so. DanB†DanD 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was addressing Referimento, but I'm tired now, so I'm going to bed and will deal with this later. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Husband and Wife (again)

Those currently making powerful edits to this article don't seem to want the terms husband and wife appearing in any of (1) the first sentence, (2) the first paragraph, (3) the lead section. Why then have they allowed husband and wife to redirect here? They should please take responsibility to fix this inconsistency, one way or another.Sdsds 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put a sentence in the first paragraph about it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that, thanks! Did you read this earlier discussion? Since you have the current "say" on the topic, I'd love to know your opinion! Sdsds 04:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a crap and convoluted sentence that doesn't say anything that mine didn't, and I hope you realise any copyeditor worth his salt will change it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree: the sentence as you have left it is awkward. I'm sure we would both welcome a copyeditor who would edit for clarity without changing meaning! Do you know of any we could recruit for this effort? Sdsds 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"A marriage" vs. abstract concept "marriage", grammar

I've really got a problem with the sentence reading that "marriage is most frequently" between "a woman and a man". By that logic, since most of the world's people are Asian [1], should we change the People article to say that "people are most frequently Asian"? I'd rather not beat the race-as-a-social-construct horse, here, I'm just trying to illustrate a point: saying that "a marriage is most frequently x" is more POV than saying "most marriages are x, many are y, and some are z". Joie de Vivre 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes me so happy to see use of the phrase "social construct" here! Thank you! My only additional thought is to remember that some contributors here are essentialists. They hold dear the notion that one-man-one-woman is intrinsic in the (platonic) idea of marriage. They may be a minority of the contributors, but this notion is probably held by a vast majority of currently living humans, including some well-respected scholars. The challenge with this article is to give their POV appropriate weight. Sdsds 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

how does saying that "a marriage is most frequently x" is more POV than saying "most marriages are x, many are y, and some are z"? if x is factually more frequent that all other alternatives, that is simply an objective statement. particularly so if x is factually more frequent than the sum of all other alternatives (not a mere plurality). r b-j 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with r b-j. Marriages between one man and one woman are overwhelmingly the most common form of marriage. Both at present and historically. If the reader does not come away from the article knowing this, they have not had the subject accurately described to them. The prevalence of the dominant form of marriage needs to be stated to avoid giving undue weight to the alternative forms that a statistical minority of marriages take. WJBscribe 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It took me a while to understand and articulate the issue I'm seeing, but here it is. What I was trying to convey is that the problem is in the grammar. It's a difference between referring to the abstract noun, "marriage", and trying to define that, and referring to "marriages", the relationships, and describing the demographics there. Saying that "most marriages are x" is fine, you're talking about individual marriages, a group of which are of a certain type. The problem arises when you talk about "marriage" as an abstract noun. Saying that "marriage is... a relationship, most frequently between a woman and a man" is not appropriate, just as saying "humankind is most frequently Asian" is not appropriate. Even the grammar is dubious.

If we talk about about an abstract concept of marriage, it can't be defined other than by what exists. Forms of marriage other than female-male unions do exist, whether one agrees with them or not. To get back to the grammar, it could be said that "Most of the people on earth are Asian". You're not homogenizing the whole group with that statement, you're describing a demographic. Likewise, it could be said that "most marriages involve one woman and one man". However, just as it is important to state that there are many non-Asian people in the world, it is important to state that there are other forms of marriage.

I realize that some people define "marriage" very rigidly as a relationship between one woman and one man, and perhaps that should be mentioned, but it should not be taken as fact, as it is an opinion. I think the best way to avoid a mess would be to avoid describing the abstract concept of "marriage", and to stick to describing the different types of relationships and the issues surrounding them. Joie de Vivre 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what you call the "abstract concept of marriage" is similar to what other editors have called "the institution of marriage." You are right that, in either case, it is a grammatically different entity. At various times the article has had lead sentences that indicated this to readers, e.g.: "A marriage is /whatever/. The institution of marriage is /whatever-else/." That way readers got to see the term used each way, right up front. Sdsds 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Any grammatical issue seems addressed by the form: "A marriage is a". I suggest that everyone reads WP:UNDUE. It seems appropriate to mention polygamy and same-sex marriage within the intro, that ensure that the most prevalent form of marriage is put it context. But it remains the case that an overwhelming majority of marriages are between a man and a woman and that this is how the vast majority of the world's population would define the concept. We should be very cautious of giving too much weights to instances of departure from the norm. They should be mentioned yes, but must not be presented as more widely-recognised or frequent than is the case. WjBscribe 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's partially addressed by referring to "a marriage", but if you go on to state that "a marriage is usually /whatever/", it's POV. Should the People article state: "A person is usually Asian"? No. It's the same problem that I already described. I think we should stick to describing demographics. Avoiding an abstract concept which different people view very differently will save a lot of hassle. If we are going to describe the abstract concept of "marriage", we must be very clear about who holds the various views and why. We can't just default to "MARRIAGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN", because, for example, there are entire countries whose laws do not restrict the concept of "marriage" to that narrow definition. Joie de Vivre 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Close relationships and Family law infoboxes

The "Close Relationships" infobox interacts strangely with the "Family Law" infobox. When "Family Law" is listed first, "Close Relationships" appears to its left. When "Close Relationships" appears first, "Family Law" appears below it, on the right margin. Is there a way to fix this so "Family Law" comes first and "Close Relationships" comes below it? Sdsds 18:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment removed per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. WJBscribe 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

before you remove this for the ostensible reasons of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, you should ask yourselves, "why would an 'an editor who should have known better' be saying such things?" of course it can't be because people (more specifically an interest group) is fucking up the article and using it to score points. the SSM lobby here does not think their own shit stinks. r b-j 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

r b-j, it might interest you to know that Dev is a member of the LGBT project, which I take it is the interest group you are alluding to. What this has to do with infoboxes I have no idea.... WJBscribe 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion. How about putting the templates next to related section e.g. the family law one next to the restrictions or rights and obligations sections? WJBscribe 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Go...

I've had another go at the intro - and i'd like to make a small point here - it doesn't seem to work very well when we take a starting point, and then add extra clauses, definitions and elaborations - readability and clarity suffer enormously.

I think the para i just replaced was quite clearly unwieldy - and hope that what i've gone for says pretty much the same thing without being needlessly verbose.. whaddya reckon? Petesmiles 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also made a few more gnome-ish edits - most significantly removing a para on polygamous marriages which i didn't think fitted very well - and changing a few little words here and there... Having just sat the article now with the article before, I hope i've hit the mark by improving its flow without changing much meaning - the most obvious thing i've left out in this revision is the word spouse - is anyone really keen on getting that one in there? - cheers, Petesmiles 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned by your removal of mention of this from the marriage intro. Polygamous marriages are at least as statistically frequent as same sex marriage if we take an overview of cultures and histories. It seems right that they be mentioned for an overview of marriage to be given, and especially to avoid western bias. Other language Wikipedias include mentions of polygamnous marriage in their introductions and the French Wiki entry for one is much more detailed than the one you moved. There might be a different way to express it but I think NPOV requires polygamous marriage to mentioned from the outset. WJBscribe 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(previous comments copied here by pete - hope you don't mind and remove if you do!)

It seemed a bad fit to me - but obviously should go back based on the points you make (sorry) - could we get a ref for the frequency of polygamous marriages (my french is terrible, but we might be able to grab one from there...) - cheers, Petesmiles 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably should have made my point clearer - i think the intro is long enough (perhaps even too long) - i just like concise article intro.s - that was my only thinking in removing it really, Petesmiles 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll find my translation of the French Wiki version in the archives of this talkpage. Unfortunately other language Wikipedias don't yet have an equivalent of WP:V, so very little is referenced. There are none in the French Wiki article on this subject. WJBscribe 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Petesmiles! Welcome (or welcome back, as the case may be)! I'm glad to see you are trying to find ways to make the article more readable. That's an important goal we all should remember! We should also remember the value of source citations. (As you undoubtedly know, they help alot with WP:V.) Removing them is probably not going to be a path to success for us. Instead, adding more of them would be great! If you need some suggestions for where you might find source citations, by all means let us know. Many of us would be glad to help you in the hunt! Sdsds 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

I took a look over the history, and it seems clear to me that the source of the POV tag has been dealt with as well as it can be. Well done for the fine effort. Leaving the POV tag at this point would be POV all on it's own, so I've removed it.Trishm 12:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

prerequisite

From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/prerequisite :

prerequisite

something that is necessary to an end or to the carrying out of a function

What then is the meaning of, Marriage has been a prerequisite for having children in the past, although such beliefs are decreasing today. which http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage&diff=106025416&oldid=106024884 introduced? This is biologically ... dubious, to say the least. Sdsds 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

=February 6, 2007: A reasonable good lead paragraph

For all the wrestling we have had over the WP:GRAF I think the current one [2] is pretty good.

A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between people. Most marriages involve one woman and one man, although people of the same sex may marry, and some marriages involve more than two people. The social, religious, or legal purposes of the relationship can vary widely, and may include: companionship or love; legitimizing sexual relations and procreation; the formation of a family unit; social and economic stability; education and development of offspring; and transfer of property. The feminine term for a married person is wife, the masculine is husband, and a generic term for either is spouse.

A marriage may be celebrated with a wedding ceremony, which may be performed by a religious officiator or through a similar government-sanctioned secular process. Despite the ceremony being led by somone else, most religious traditions maintain that the marriage itself is mediated between the two individuals themselves using vows, with the gathered witnessing, affirming, and legitimizing the marriage. Marriages are perpetual agreements with legal consequences, terminated only by the death of one party or by formal dissolution processes such as divorce and annulment.

From 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in several countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, as well as in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex, and they are currently recognized in 24 countries and 6 U.S. states. The legality of such unions vary by region. Like marriages, civil unions are performed and recognized by some religious denominations.

Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Polygyny is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry is rare. Some marriages include more than two people, with multiple spouses being married to multiple spouses, a form of relationship sometimes called group marriage. This unique type of polygamy is rare.

So I just wanted to thank everyone for continuing to seek WP:NPOV and all that other wiki-stuff that guides our edits and reverts and edits and reverts. I think we are taking 100,000 steps forward and 50,000 steps back, which equals slow and steady progress. MPS 18:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually think I prefer this one too. *sigh* Joie de Vivre 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

POV edits

(Joie de Vivre,) you're destroying links to authorative definitions that do not support your POV multiple times. your edits reek with POV. you're not an honest player. r b-j 19:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, you got a smellevision unit installed on your machine? Reeking posts?! Awesome! By the way, my arguments about my edits are here, but this seems to have slipped your mind, you might want to check it out first. Joie de Vivre 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it'd be a lot more civilized of you to be specific about which edits you find problematic (just like I did here), rather than hurling vague insults, as you did above. For example, you haven't explained why you oppose wikilinking the words in the phrase "socially, religiously or legally" to Social, Religion, and Law, respectively. You keep reverting that edit with no explanation. Please calm down and explain. Joie de Vivre 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

but you're not a civilized editor. you are the most blatent hard-core SSM POV pusher coming around. you claimed ignorance on you talk page about 3RR, i hardly believe it. you have a single agenda to use Wikipedia to redefine Marriage to what you prefer (your POV) than to allow Wikipedia to reflect what it is, how the vast majority of people in the world see it. you hide behind these other unnecessary edits (wikifying whatever), but your real agenda is to use Wikipedia to influence social thought about what marriage is and to steer it toward the SSM POV. r b-j 01:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't very specific. From WP:NPA:

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

What is considered a personal attack? ...some types of comments are never acceptable:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

Thanks. Joie de Vivre 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

take a look at the article history and this talk page history. the primary dictionary definition does not agree with you, the vast majority of world thought and tradition is not compatible with the SSM portrayal of marriage you put forth in the article. your intention is clear even though you refuse to take ownership of it. that is the meaning of "thinking your own shit does not stink". r b-j 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't articulated what content or phrasing you find to be problematic, nor have you clarified what changes you would like to see. Therefore, I am going to stop responding to you until you do. Have a nice day. Joie de Vivre 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro take x....

I've rejigged the intro again...

I particularly didn't like this sentence;

Most marriages involve one woman and one man[5][6], although people of the same sex may marry, and some marriages involve more than two people

.. because to have most marriages x, although y and z - is pretty poor in the opening para in my opinion. It may be enough just to say x for the sake of readability - which of course leaves y and z as possible, but doesn't make it clumsy. So i moved that y and z stuff to the end of the para - and i also tried to put the last sentence, which seemed tacked on, into the body of the para...

i don't think i've stuffed up any references or anything this time (sorry all!) - what do we all think?

cheers,

Petesmiles 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I and Sdsds have briefly discussed the problems with trying to define an abstract concept of "marriage", here. As I have repeated several times, I think that attempting to defining an abstract concept of "marriage" as man-woman only is incorrect, because various individuals, cultures, religious traditions, even entire countries define "marriage" more broadly. As I have said, I believe we can best avoid edit wars by focusing on the concrete, by describing various marriages, rather than referring to a rigidly-defined, abstract concept of marriage that excludes same-sex marriage and polygamy. I ask that everyone will please review the contents of the section header linked above before responding; I am finding repeating myself to be tedious. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're finding it tedious, Joie - i did read that bit before, and it was interesting. I suppose the wiki policy bit that i'm trying to make work is the Undue Weight bit....

we probably agree that man / woman marriage is the most common

we probably agree that statistically other types of marriage are fairly low (could we agree on a figure? 5%, 10%?)

that's why it doesn't fit the undue weight bit to mention all other types, just the most common one.

It's important we don't exclude anything from the opening - and i hope we've done ok on that front...

cheers,

Petesmiles 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus that "Marriage is a... relationship, most commonly between a man and a woman...", any more than there is a consensus that "Humankind is a person, most commonly Asian." The grammar alone is enough to necessitate a change. Again, I feel strongly that we need to move away from trying to define the abstract concept of "marriage" as exclusively man-woman. Invariably, defining the abstract concept as more narrow or more broad will anger others. We must not favor a singular definition of marriage, whether as "man-woman only" or "a few other things too". I strongly suggest that we create a section detailing the different definitions of marriage, explaining who holds each view and how they view people who use the other definitions, as close to the top as possible. I think your phrase, "Marriage is not strictly culturally or historically defined" is a great start. Joie de Vivre 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

it's a weak argument. it's like saying "Humankind are mammals that most commonly walk on two feet". it is simply an overwelming fact that the vast majority (so vast that the minority is statistically insignificant) of marriages in the world are between persons of different gender and that is endemic to the primary definition of marriage as is reflected in 3 different dictionaries of the English language. no dictionary, in the primary defintion, fails to say that it's a union of "husband and wife". 5 countries (out of 192) and 1 US state (out of 50), 21⁄2% of the world's population, include SSM in their legal definition. the other 971⁄2% specifically exclude it. even in those jurisdictions, the vast majority of marriages are heterosexual. i've been looking at the Boston Globe recently and i've seen exactly 1 (out of at least 50) marriage announcements that was same-sex.

it is contrary to Wikipedia policy (WP:Undue weight) to elevate such a minority condition to anything approximating equal weight which is precisely what you're doing.

you're not an honest editor and you're getting away with this only because, at the present time, there aren't enough editors with the copious free time to stop it. r b-j 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a few side points, "the other 971⁄2% specifically exclude it." is inaccurate. Many do, but many do not explicitly limit marriages to opposite-gender unions. Admittedly, because it never occurred to them, but still - it is rather important legally to make that distinction. Also, I know that while marriage is 1 man/1 woman in my state, the majority of residents here are firmly in favor of ssm, so keep in mind that legal definiton =/= public opinion. Lastly I'm trying to find out how much of marriages have been samesex in the regions it is allowed. All I have so far is that 3.5% of marriages in British Columbia were in 2003 -- not very helpful. If I find what I want, I'll put it in talk as an fyi. --John Kenneth Fisher 13:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

49 out of 50 US states? (98%) 187 out of 192 countries. (97%) 160 million people (incl. Mass.) out of 6.4 billion (100% - 971⁄2%). it's accurate. what evidence do you have to refute it?

baloney. it's occurred to them and their courts have made judgements regarding it. with the exception of Massachusetts, the courts in many states included the conservative bastions such as California and New York have explicitly ruled that SSM is not marriage in that state.

which has happened repeatedly.

the article is not about (nor does it exclude) BC or MA or Netherlands or Saudi Arabia. the number of SSM "marriages" (the quotes do not reflect my POV, just that of the vast majority of people worldwide) in the world is exceedingly small as a portion of the marriages in the world. much smaller than the amount of space this article gives it. that is the blatent POV editing that you're doing. the article is Marriage not Same-sex marriage. you guys are dishonest POV pushers trying to turn this into a SSM and gay-friendly article (that is compatible with the SSM and gay POV) when the reality, worldwide, has not arrived there (yet). and you shan't edit it such to either use it to push society along in such a direction or to reflect what you think it might be sometime in the future. r b-j 19:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is times like these that AGF becomes difficult. It's hard to believe you misread me THAT dramatically, unless it was deliberate. --John Kenneth Fisher 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New lead, different definitions of marriage described

Perhaps it's a bit impetuous, but I felt inspired by Petesmiles' sentence; "Marriage is not strictly culturally or historically defined". I have made a rough attempt at clarifying that individuals, cultures, religions, and even countries define marriage differently. Rather than simply revert my edits, I want to ask people to recognize that the existence of the debate on this board is a reflection of the fact that people do not agree on one singular definition of marriage. Let's document the difference of opinion rather than give preference to one definition over another. I think it is the only way to end the recent edit wars. Suggestions for improvement are welcome, I know the current edition is rudimentary at best. Joie de Vivre 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"However, in recent years, this has begun to change." This line hints that the change is part of an ongoing process, which is technically speculative. -- Ec5618 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I changed it to read "...in recent years, several jurisdictions have changed their laws.". Thanks for the input! Joie de Vivre 20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"several" is a POV exageration that implies that a lot of jurisdictions have changed their laws. only 5 countries did. Massachusetts did not change the law but the law restricting marriage to a single husband and wife has been declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court. r b-j 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Precision

Putting aside the SSM issue for a moment, "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship" is so weak as to be just noise on the page. There are many kinds of relationships which are socially, religiously, or legally recognized. Only one subset of those relationships is marriage. Surely the article can be more precise? I tried earlier to write that it is the core institution around which a family is formed. I imagine one can add "..from fictive kin". That's at least a step towards more precision, but it was immediately shot down for reasons which are unclear to me. But even if you don't like that, there's got to be a more precise alternative to the above.-75.179.159.240 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort to discuss this! We agree that plenty of legally recognized relationships having nothing to do with marriage. (Business partnerships, for example.) That's why one version of the lead sentence said something like, "Marriage is a relationship ... formed for /these/ purposes." It was an attempt to make clear that only some relationships were marriages. A similar attempt said something about marriage being a "usually sexual" relationship. Now as for your version, that marriage is the relationship that forms a family: sadly this isn't always the case. Some marriages (e.g. in societies where residence is matrilocal) don't form new families. Some marriages don't even lead to children. They're still marriages, though, right? This is why the anthropologists fall back on the idea that the universal distinguishing characteristic of marriage is that it is the relationship that forms kinship ties. If we (the editors of this article) were really trying to be scholarly, we would probably be emphasizing that concept in the lead. Sdsds 05:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, here I go: commenting on my own comments again! Just a note: two more definitions might be, "A marriage is the relationship created by a wedding." Or even more circularly, "A marriage is a (any) relationship recognized as such." Sdsds 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*the universal distinguishing characteristic of marriage is that it is the relationship that forms kinship ties

If we (the editors of this article) were really trying to be scholarly, we would probably be emphasizing that concept in the lead.

I think you've nailed it.Trishm 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, one of my undergrads was anthropology. I can tell you that the claim that regarding your claim that matrilocal relationships don't lead to the creation of families - you may be right, but then you don't define what you mean by 'family'. Without dispute, we can say that matrilocal marriages lead to families every bit as much as patrilocal marriages do. Children, also, are not a requirement for families, they are secondary to it.

However, if we were to define family (I believe it was Dr. Deborah Crooks of the University of Kentucky who gave me this definition), then it would be "those who eat out of a common pot". As such, the core foundation of marriage is economics. We can also say that family is the primary means through which inheritance lines are determined, but again that is a secondary role.-75.179.159.240 11:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Something has to be done about the first graf. This article has always suffered by a tendency for the special cases to overwhelm the the usual, and at the moment the result is pretty vacuous. As far as defining "family" I don't see a problem with using Wikipedia's definition of family; that article is a model of stability in comparison with this one.

It seems to me that this article is consistently beset by the desire to define marriage in terms of only the common elements of all kinds thereof. As a result, the whole matter of forming a family in which the rearing of children takes place keeps getting reduced to a footnote in the opening section, because there are so many purposes to which marriages are put in which children are irrelevant, impossible, or even unwanted. And since some of these arrangements are at cross-purposes with each other, we've ended up not being able to say anything of substance-- and interpersonal relationship is not substantial.

I think we need to get back to something which isn't so concerned with trying to encompass every last variation from the start. The only way to do this is to start with the nuclear procreative family union and work out from there into the variants-- not because this is the preferred kind, but because it is the basis for all the others, even if the others vary from it a lot. It's time to give up the "some marriages don't" line and build this article around "most marriages do". Mangoe 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage across the board

I'd like to step back a bit, and consider the scope of the opening of the article. It should set the scope of the article, and I think it doesn't really do that very well at the moment, because what is written is a bit limited; it doesn't cover marriage over time and in different places. I will use the old trick of listing the "wh" words, to lay out the main points.

• who: between families of individuals, or the individuals themselves
• what: a legal contract. There are social and religious aspects as well of course, but they are secondary. e.g. civil and secret marriages are still marriages.
• when: since prehistoric times
• where: all cultures in some form
• why: defining rights and obligations of the partners to each other and any offspring, including property rights and inheritance.

It is such a long standing arrangement that it has layers and layers of meaning, but I think the core idea is pretty solid. I think the opening as it stands has not given enough weight to the economic and inheritance implications of marriage, which are really quite fundamental, mainly because it looks at marriage through a modern developed-country viewpoint.

Before I try to put that together into prose, are there any thoughts?Trishm 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going back to prehistoric times, you can't really define marriage as primarily a legal contract and only secondarily a civil and religious one.-Psychohistorian 04:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course, this needs some more thinking through. Prehistoric times is a long way back for most cultures, but it is easy to get to prehistoric times with, say, Australian Aborigines, because they didn't have written histories until relatively recently. In their case, marriage takes place among specified kinship groups (not too close, not too distant), and defines the obligations between family groups. It appears that these could be considered either legal or social obligations, but it might be hard to separate the two. Property was not a major consideration, and Aboriginal law is quite rigorous regarding obligations to kin. Certainly Aboriginal marriage does not have the same religious associations that other cultures might have.

I don't mean to discount the civil and religious aspects of marriage. I just think the article needs to be a little broader in scope in the lead, and that the economic ties between families are more important to the concept of marriage than is currently written. I would like to know if other editors see it that way too, even if my first broad-brush strokes are not quite there.Trishm 05:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Because lawyers do such a good job of documenting their thinking, we tend to give their thinking more credence. And of course they, especially contract lawyers, see marriage as a contract (and not much more). The mystic, though, sees marriage as a union of two individuals. From that perspective it is the creation of a new entity, not a contract between two entities. Trishm, do you have a plan to include the mystic's view of marriage in your lead? Sdsds 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, no.Trishm 05:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Maybe the article you want to write is Secular views of marriage? Someone said, "A man will ... be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." But perhaps only a trivial minority of humankind think that? LOL. Sdsds 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hardly trivial, but not universal. I am not trying to get religion out of the definition. Marriage is a contract, pact, agreement, whatever you want to call it which forms the basis for kinship ties, with associated social, legal and often religious obligations. It has been part of human society for as long as any of us can tell. Trishm 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you are contrasting the mystical view vs. the legal one. There are strong arguments to be made that they are the same view just written with different words.-75.179.159.240 11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean.Trishm 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Im sure theres good material on cultural materialism on the web somewhere, there has to be.-Psychohistorian 00:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say to me. What I think the article should have is a sense of marriage that would apply to all cultures across the world, as marriage certainly exists in all cultures across the world. Wikipedia should reflect that. I don't see where the label materialistic comes from.Trishm 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, one of my big pet peeves is people telling me "I don't understand". Its much better to say "I don't understand A" where "A" is as precise as possible. Else, in order to respond to the question, I have to explain -everything- and that takes a LOT of time and a LOT of effort - so I tend to respond to such things by steering people to where they can do much reading. Now, I think I understand what you don't understand. I agree that the article should have a sense of marriage that would apply to all cultures across the world. The point I was making is that arguing over the statement, "And of course they, especially contract lawyers, see marriage as a contract (and not much more). The mystic, though, sees marriage as a union of two individuals." where another editor was treating the legal and mystical views as seperate. I was pointing out that there are views of anthropology which do not seperate these two.-Psychohistorian 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the conversation just got totally confused, and your comments seemed totally cryptic to me (so much so that I couldn't formulate an "A"). I think we've got it sorted now, though - thanks for following up. Trishm 09:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Article stability

It might interest people to know that:

1. this article has been edited about 500 times this year.
2. over 200 hundred of those edits happened in the last week.

This article appears to be getting less stable not more so. Given the lack of concensus, are there any thoughts for means of resolving the various disputes? My impression of recent discussions is that opinions are presently diverging, with editors having very different ideas of what the introduction to this page should look like. WjBscribe 05:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

just as the religious right has no right to "own" the article (religious conservatives do not get to define marriage, they have to accept the definition as it is used by society), for the same reasons neither to gay people or allies get to own the article. normal Wikipedia policies apply (or should apply) to this article as to others, but there are several editors, with two most prominently, that insist on making this article perfectly harmonized to the POV of advocacy of same-sex marriage. in 971⁄2% of the world, marriage is not harmonized to the POV of the SSM interest. that fact may change as society changes, but it has not yet in any widespread manner and Wikipedia must not be used as an influence mechanism to push public opinion either way. this article will never be stable until the authorities here (ArbCom) decide to pay some attention and lay down the Wikipedia principles specifically about this article. that can help resolve whether or not there is actual NPOV in the policy or if ostensible Wikipedia systemic bias has taken over. r b-j 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was curious as to what you perceived as bias, so I went through your edit history. What I found was that your issue seems to be over which of the following two sets of wording should be used, " A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between people. Most marriages involve one woman and one man" and "Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship usually involving one man and one woman."

As a concrete example, does that represent your issue?-75.179.159.240 12:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To share love

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage&oldid=106343560 introduced the phrase "to share love" in the second sentence of the lead. I've thus added to the article (for the third time) a section on "Marriage and love". That section could either be a good place to explain why the second sentence of the lead mentions love, or it could be a good place to explain why love shouldn't be mentioned in the second sentence of the lead. But either way, I don't think removing the section (for a fourth time) would be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Sdsds 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While love and marriage go together quite often, where this is the case people are already sharing love (unless you mean "share love" as a euphemism), and so it isn't really the purpose, marriage is a public declaration of the sharing of love, with added rights and responsibilites.Trishm 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

While I have no sources on hand at the moment, I do recall people who have been in arranged marriages stating that they came to love the other person. In other words, love came after marriage.-198.97.67.59 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know who else have said that? Hostages. Joie de Vivre 18:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Golde): Do I love you?

For twenty-five years I've washed your clothes

Cooked your meals, cleaned your house

Given you children, milked the cow

After twenty-five years, why talk about love right now?

From Fiddler on the Roof Sdsds 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed first paragraph

With the goal in mind of having a first paragraph that describes marriage across the world in every culture, i.e. NPOV, I looked at the citations given, and keeping the second half of the introduction more or less as it stood, came up with this:

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman matrimony that forms the basis of a family. All human societies have some form of marriage, and in societies which are governed by law, marriage is a public legal act, with strong social customs and often religious rites involved. The reasons people marry vary widely, and may include: to publicly declare love and/or companionship; to legitimize sexual relations and procreation; to form a family unit; to strengthen social and economic stability; to nurture and educate offspring.

Is there anything controversial here?Trishm 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

the word "matrimony" is sorta redundant and doesn't add anything. the same-sex marriage lobby will not stand for an introduction that says that says Marriage is the union of a man and a woman and since they own the article, what they say goes here. you don't mention same-sex marriage often enough in the intro. this article must include all of the information about same-sex marriage so it is clear to everyone reading this that there is no debate anywhere in the world that same-sex marriage is marriage and that the occurance of same-sex marriage is at least as prevalent as different-sex marriage. r b-j 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was one that had been edited by someone else. I meant:

• A marriage is a publicly recognized relationship which creates kinship obligations regarding the sharing and transfer of resources, between men, women, the children that the sexual union may produce, and in some societies, the extended family. All human societies have some form of marriage, and in all complex societies which are governed by law, marriage is a public legal act, with strong social customs and often religious rites involved. The reasons people marry vary widely, and may include: to publicly declare love and/or companionship; to legitimize sexual relations and procreation; to form a family unit; to strengthen social and economic stability; to nurture and educate offspring.

the LGBT lobby will still not approve of it since it is not gay-centric. r b-j 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I take that to mean that you have not seen anything that is incorrect, incomplete or misleading?Trishm 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I sure don't approve of anything that's inaccurate, incorrect, or misleading. r-b-j, what exactly is it you believe is wrong with it? It doesn't even mention same-sex marriage! Seraphimblade 02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps by sayinf men and women, r-b-j feels it will not "get past" the LGBT folk. --Zuejay 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this has potential, let's try a few different things though, like:

A marriage is a publicly recognized relationship which creates kinship obligations regarding the sharing and transfer of resources between individuals, the children that a sexual union may produce, and, in some societies, the extended family. All human societies have some form of marriage, and in all complex societies which are governed by law, marriage is a public legal act with strong social customs and often religious rites involved. People marry for many different reasons which may include: to publicly declare love and/or companionship; to legitimize sexual relations and procreation; to form a family unit; to strengthen social and economic stability; and to nurture and educate offspring.

I think there's supposed to be an and there at the end of the list... Hmmm... It's a tricky thing. I admire you putting this out here for everyone to give it a go. Thanks. --Zuejay 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Just went to your user page Trishm - maybe there is no and there at the end of the list!! --Zuejay 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements and the kind comments, Zuejay.Trishm 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be no objection, I will put Zuejay's version out into the article.Trishm 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I like this approach. It is preserved here in case we get into another WP:GRAF war. I like it because it doesn't just say "marriage is a relationship"... because there are a lot of relationships that are not marriage. MPS 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"non-constructive information" on wikipedia

A marriage is a universally recognized relationship of a man and a woman who become known as husband and wife. 209.181.235.197 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That is one form, yes. Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss. In the future, I would advise you to do so before you engage in edit wars and violate the three-revert rule, which unfortunately you have. While you may be blocked, I strongly advise that you self-revert your last edit, as this will show good faith on your part and may reduce the length of your block or result in a warning instead. As to marriage itself, it certainly can be sourced that there are additional forms. For example, many cultures either currently or historically have recognized polygyny, a few also recognized polyandry, and currently same-sex marriages or civil unions are also legal in several countries. Unfortunately, the edit you were attempting to implement does not convey or acknowledge this information, and violates our neutral point of view policy. Seraphimblade 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

rev'd. 209.181.235.197 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps I chose the wrong...template...to let you know there was disagreement about the changes you were making. My apologies for the insensitivity of the word choices associated with that template. I will be sure to think my actions through before making another such move again. -Zuejay 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the self-revert. I've noted that on the 3RR report to make sure the reviewing admin knows that. You are welcome to discuss any problems you may have with the article, just please don't engage in an edit war to try implementing a controversial change. That's what these talk pages are for! :) Seraphimblade 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More Reversions than edits

Check it out! 13 of the past 17 edits are self-described as reverts, one other says, "Bull", and another, "are you kidding." That leaves only 2 of 17 that might actually have represented forward progress.

1. (cur) (last) 19:12, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106478310 by 209.181.235.197 (talk) via undo)
2. (cur) (last) 18:40, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106477459 by Zuejay (talk) via undo)
3. (cur) (last) 18:36, 7 February 2007 Zuejay (Talk | contribs) (bull)
4. (cur) (last) 18:30, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106476037 by Delirium (talk) via undo)
5. (cur) (last) 18:29, 7 February 2007 Delirium (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 209.181.235.197 (talk) to last version by Seraphimblade)
6. (cur) (last) 18:28, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106475781 by Seraphimblade (talk) via undo)
7. (cur) (last) 18:27, 7 February 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) (Revert, please see WP:NPOV.)
8. (cur) (last) 18:26, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106475330 by Zuejay (talk) via undo)
9. (cur) (last) 18:25, 7 February 2007 Zuejay (Talk | contribs) (rv opinion)
10. (cur) (last) 18:23, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk)
11. (cur) (last) 17:58, 7 February 2007 Vishwin60 (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 1 edit by 69.182.166.212 (talk) to last revision (106466228) by Rbj using VP)
12. (cur) (last) 17:57, 7 February 2007 69.182.166.212 (Talk) (→Definitions throughout history)
13. (cur) (last) 17:43, 7 February 2007 Rbj (Talk | contribs) (are you kidding? the talk page and multiple archives are FULL of information about the POV edits.)
14. (cur) (last) 17:39, 7 February 2007 Ec5618 (Talk | contribs) (revert to relative consensus. Please discuss major changes on the Talk page)
15. (cur) (last) 17:38, 7 February 2007 Ec5618 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 106247099 dated 2007-02-07 05:19:28 by WJBscribe using popups)
16. (cur) (last) 17:33, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106463327 by Seraphimblade (talk) via undo)
17. (cur) (last) 17:30, 7 February 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) (Reverting, the previous intro is more clear and accounts for alternates.)

Sdsds 04:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a bit of a flurry involving the first edits of a user whose account was created today. It was largely about the lead paragraph, which is under discussion above. Trishm 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that. Some collateral damage was done by these reverts of the lead: other sections of the article were reverted as well! Maybe we should request semi-protection for this page. Isn't that intended to prevent disruption from new user accounts? Sdsds 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is intended really more for when heavy vandalism is coming in from multiple IP's, not just when a single anonymous editor makes good-faith but controversial changes. The anonymous editor also self-reverted the last revert and came here to discuss, so I see no reason to follow up by trying to lock h(im|er) out entirely. (The request would get declined anyway, the reviewer would just tell you to take 3RR violations to WP:AN3 where they belong anyway.) Seraphimblade 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another use of semi-protection is to prevent circumvention of WP:3RR (literally or in spirit). By preventing anonymous edits and edits from short-lived accounts, editors are held more responsible for their reversions. Sdsds 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

dispute tag - what is under dispute?

Can someone tell me what the "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." tag is about?Trishm 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the factual accuracy dispute, I think there's a line of logic that runs like this: articles must start with definitions; definitions are a matter of fact; the factually accurate definition of a term is found by consulting dictionaries; the first sentence of the article doesn't match the definition found in any dictionary. Ergo the article is not factually accurate and "the factual accuracy of this article is disputed."

Did you also want a synopsis of the neutrality dispute? Sdsds 06:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe both were requested, and it would certainly be helpful. Seraphimblade 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! (Before moving on, I should point out that personally, I don't believe any of the first three steps in the line of logic described above.) As regards neutrality, the dispute seems to be regarding the appropriate weight to give in the lead to each of several viewpoints. The two main viewpoints seem to each be closely associated with a particular form of marriage. Some editors suggest that anything more than a passing reference to the less common forms of marriage give them undue weight. Other editors feel the diversity of different marriage forms deserves heavy emphasis. Thus no "neutral" phrasing has been found, and chronic "revert warring" has ensued. Sdsds 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very helpful. Do you think that the current first paragraph raises any neutrality or fact issues? I don't think that the dictionary definition argument is very strong, I certainly haven't come across it in policy, and this definition needs to be broader anyway. Trishm 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A clear and concise definition is required, but an encyclopedic synopsis is not necessarily the same thing as a dictionary definition. Sometimes the two might be the same, but a dictionary's scope is more limited. Its job is just to say what the word means. An encyclopedia's scope is more broad. While part of that scope is to ensure that readers are clear on the term's meaning, the job is also to provide context, history, and meaning in addition to a simple "word meaning" definition. Therefore, article introductions may have perfectly valid reasons not to line straight up with dictionary definitions, and I think this is certainly one of those cases. Seraphimblade 07:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Have we dealt with the problems identified by the tag? When would we be able to remove it? My problem is that, because it was added without discussion, we have no way of knowing if the concerns have been addressed.Trishm 08:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The current first paragraph is quite good. Its POV is scholarly, scientific, secular, and inclusive. (And the finesse of using both "relationship" and "union" is beautiful!) I think the primary objection will be the use of the gender-neutral term "individuals," and the absence of the gender-based terms "husband" and "wife". This inclusivity will be portrayed as giving SSM undue weight. Note this isn't a fact issue, it's a POV issue. There's also the "populist" concern, i.e. that the current first paragraph doesn't match what many (most?) people think is true. Of course the masses can be wrong, as in the case of bananas, which as it turns out don't actually grow on trees. That hasn't stopped people from writing 381,000 web pages about banana trees. The trouble is, "marriage" is much more of a social construct than "banana". And in the end, a social construct is ... whatever people believe it to be. Sdsds 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been deliberately trying to put together a definition that would be recognised by any married person in the world as applying to them; wouldn't anything less inclusive be POV? The charge of undue weight for SSM seems a bit of a stretch to me, given that the broad language comes from trying to include the myriad forms of marriage, past as well as present, including Australian Aborigines, OT arrangements such as Abraham's situation, and so forth. SSM didn't need any attention at all; it would have needed effort to exclude it.Trishm 09:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Consider those people who believe it's only a true marriage if it involves one man and one woman, neither of whom is otherwise married. They believe their exclusionist definition is shared by the vast majority of people, that it is the "primary" definition, and that its primacy means it deserves to be given first. They would want the second paragraph of the current lead to precede the first. Would that ordering be equally NPOV, or are the exclusionist editors right that the ordering reflects POV? Sdsds 10:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly position is important; the guidelines on NPOV about extreme minority positions make that clear. If there are two mutually exclusive definitions, where one has primacy and one doesn't, then you would expect to put the definition with primacy first. However, where you have two definitions, a general umbrella definition, which applies to everybody (NPOV), and a narrower definition, which applies to the majority (very common POV), then you would expect the umbrella definition first. The problem you foresee, Sdsds, is that some people would not accept the umbrella definition as NPOV, because it includes people whom they would not wish to include. You are probably right to expect that, but there is nothing in the umbrella definition that says anything contrary to the primary understanding of marriage, even in the utmost "true" form, it just doesn't exclude everybody else. I would be reluctant to swap the paragraphs around to elevate a POV over a general definition, just because some people mistake the general definition for a minority POV.Trishm 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the NPOV tag should be removed immediately. perhaps there is a tag for controversial issue? MPS 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit reset) Generally, the tag can be removed after you pose the question (as you did) and no one raises any objections for a day or so. I've no objections to removing it, I think the serious issues have been addressed. Since it's been quite some time, I'm going to go ahead and remove it, but if anyone has serious issues left to solve please revert. Seraphimblade 07:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Since Trishm was bold, let's try to keep that going. I'd like to tweak the second paragraph a bit. I do agree with previous discussion(s) that this is where the "one man, one woman" thing should be addressed b/c it is the "majority" definition. There is also some possible confliuct regarding "husband" and "wife" which currently redirecct to the Marriage article. So, I do need help tweaking what should be said. Here's what I've got. It's a conglomeration of the previous intro para and the exisitng second para.

The most commonly recognized form of marriage is between one man and one woman, who are widely known as husband and wife, respectively; however, other forms of marriage are possible.

Thoughts, suggestions, please help tweak this. Thanks. --Zuejay 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I boldly reinstated much of the deleted relevant content. Joie de Vivre 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See above for discussion of the "bold" change that you have removed. The "deleted relevant content" was not deleted, it was moved. Can you please discuss why this version is an improvement? Trishm 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the version prior to your edits. I understand that this is important to you, and I would like to hear your views on this page. Joie, the changes you made define marriage from a modern Judeo-Christian viewpoint. Although this is a majority POV, it does not embrace all forms of marriage, and certainly does not cover the common points of marriage across time. The paragraph that you deleted is not POV, it is a definition that is inclusive of all marriage across cultures, and will accommodate the earlier forms of marriage found in the Old Testament. If you think that this is not what an encyclopedia article should do, then please discuss.Trishm 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic, of the second paragraph, the obvious next thing to do is to go through all the different forms of marriage. However, I'm not inclined to do that in the opening section because we can't do it justice. I'm tempted to tantalize the reader at this point. I think I would drop the word "strictly" though. It is unnecessary.Trishm 09:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, your version doesn't have "strictly" - that's in the current version of the article.Trishm 09:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold, and this is the current third paragraph: The most commonly recognized form of marriage is between one man and one woman, known as husband and wife respectively; however, other forms of marriage are possible.

Thoughts, suggestions, please help tweak this. I don't think this is the place to expand it though.Trishm 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From the People article: Most people are Asian, although people of other races exist. This is meant to illustrate that omitting information is a form of POV. Joie de Vivre 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• The current second paragraph is redundant within itself. I don't need to be told more than once in the Intro that marriage is most commonly recognized as being between one man and one woman. Let's continue to work on this...

The most commonly recognized form of marriage is between one man and one woman, where the masculine term husband and the feminine term wife are used to describe them. [3][4] In most areas of the world, marriage is defined strictly as involving only one woman and one man per relationship. In many countries, marriages which do not match this description are illegal. Many individuals and groups also hold moral opposition to other forms of marriage. In recent years, several jurisdictions have changed their laws, amid some controversy, to legally allow other types of marriage.

That's a quick suggestion. Note that I have reversed the position of the words man and woman - I'm sorry but it's ingrained into my comprehension that when the two are placed together, typically the masculine is listed first. Yes, the feminist in me is cringing, however, it will make the article easier for users to read. ZueJay^talk 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, I didn't write this bit. Your doing good stuff. I think, though, that "feminine" and "masculine" is unnecessary, it's too heavy handed, as if it were a dig at something. I've started looking at the framework for the introduction in a new section below, before I saw your comment here.Trishm

Merge from Marriage (post modern)

Please merge any relevant content from Marriage (post modern) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage (post modern). Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:30Z

I don't believe any content from that article needs to be merge. All was directly taken from this article in the first place. WjBscribe 03:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What? Nothing from Marriage (Judeo-Christian)? 70.56.169.223 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello!!! Just a Lil' Input

I just happened to stumble by this massive talk-page, but thought I would give some input. I am sure that Jennifer Levi has already been discussed. As far as I know Massachusettes is the only state which has been required to recognize Same-sex_marriage.

Due to this 1 state against 49 others who have yet to legally recognize marriage as anything other than the union of a 'man and woman' care must be taken when defining the matter. Specifically stating that marriage is the union b/w a man and a woman is not NPOV due to Massachusettes. Stating that marriage is the union of two people regardless of sex is also not NPOV.

These two distinctions should be clearly specified in the article, and appear to be clearly defined. But the two distinctions should be made clear, and not intertwined. Clear distinctions and sections for each POV should be present and separate. Each should be clearly separated and made available to readers that rely on us editors to provide information in its entirety.

Well, thats my input, and I admit that I have not looked through the massive talk page. Sorry if I am neglectiing previous consensus, but again this is just how I believe neutrality can be reached. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page. Could you explain where you see that neutrality has been breached? I presume you are talking about the opening paragraph, which is intended to be a definition that would be recognised by any married person in the world as applying to them. Anything less inclusive would be POV. The broad language comes from including the myriad forms of marriage, past as well as present, including Australian Aborigines, OT arrangements such as Abraham's situation, and so forth. SSM didn't need any attention at all; it would have needed effort to exclude it.Trishm 06:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Trishm, that's the second time you have said "definition that would be recognised by any married person in the world as applying to them" ... and so I want to jump in and say that the definition ought not necessarily be "recognized" by everyone, but it should be written as if it applied to everyone who considers themselves married. yes? MPS 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have expressed what I meant better than I did. Thanks.Trishm 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My assumption as to discrepencies as to this articles neutrality came from the RFC description. Yet, as I said, I have not looked over the massive talk page and was simply giving my view. I have no investment here and that is why I gave "Just a Lil' Input". Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 07:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Once you have read the article, even part of it, we would welcome suggestions for specific improvements here on the talk page. Trishm 08:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OfForByThePeople, when you return you may also want to avoid posting comments that make it seem as though you are unaware of anything outside of the United States, and in history. There is more to the world than 49+1 states. -- Ec5618 09:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? And here I am thinking that the world is still flat :-). I thought that when I specifically tyed my comments to the (49+1) states, that I would not have to articulate that I was talking about the United States in particular. Also, as I said this was just a lil' input as I stumbled into this article when browsing the wikipedia:RfC section. Nothing more, nothing less, as this talk page is much to long to delve into. I am sorry that this article has come to the point where assuming good faith is no longer an assumption given to new observers. Yet, I respect your feelings as passion is a beautiful thing. Have a wonderful day, evening, or night. I will toast this Chianti to you!!! Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 04:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a word of friendly advice:

If you wish to contribute, it would be polite if you:

• read the article, even just some of it
• look over the talk page, even just the last few sections
• consider that there is a world outside the USA
• make specific comments directed to improving the article
• respond to, rather than react to, questions directed to you from other editors.

Your comments show none of these things. For the record, you did not need to articulate that you were talking about the United States; that was obvious. Good faith was assumed. You were just very gently being asked to read the first paragraph of the article, and consider the world beyond the US.Trishm 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me the light. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 07:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I look forward to your suggestions and comments on the article.Trishm 08:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The third paragraph needs some work though. We have gone straight into a Christian wedding ceremony, without any sense that anything else has ever existed. We need something more generally applicable - perhaps drawing on the public nature of marriage, and the consequent public nature of the ceremony.Trishm 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we just end the introduction after the second paragraph? No? I suppose we still would not have made some mention of multi-party marriages at that point. However, I really don't think the introduction should be longer than three paragraphs. Usually, my attention span has waned by the middle of the third sentence unless I'm doing research. ZueJay^talk 02:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know nobody's here - It's freakin' Friday night! But here's the third paragraph I'd recommend.

• Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Polygyny, where one man has more than one wife, is the typical form of polygamy. Polyandry, where one woman has more than one husband, is more rare. Some marriages involve multiple spouses being married to multiple spouses, a form of relationship sometimes called group marriage; this unique type of polygamy is also rare.
  

There's no reason for the SSM paragraph that's presented there to be third. That should be down in the SSM section. There should also be a section for Polyandry and polygamy. And I think the wedding ceremonies bugger should be moved as well. Perhaps we should create a section called Heterosexual Marriage and start referring to it as HM. Ack! One thing at a time. ;) ZueJay^talk 02:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I liked the idea of ending the intro at the end of the second paragraph. There is no need to get into detail here, the intro really just needs to give the scope and the one liner that people would take away with them if they don't read any further.

The scope is set, the tone is set. But perhaps there should be something about how norms change over time.Trishm 02:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage is an evolving, amorphous social experiment? Marriage is an evolving, amorphous BEAST? Marriage is an evolving, amorphous construct that changes with both time and society. The first is my fave, but the last is more...PC. ZueJay^talk 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an important concept that marriage is not an unchanging institution, which is really obvious if you look at a country with only a short European history, like the USA:

• The regulations and norms relating to marriage can be complex, and vary with time and culture. Many of the regulations are designed to promote cultural stability, such as those involving intermarriage between nationalities and religions. Even in the short history of the United States, regulations regarding mixed marriages and number of partners have altered to conform to changing cultural conditions. Trishm 05:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Twice I tried to squeeze into the article a discussion of this idea that people have the power to define what marriage means. In a section titled "Marriage as a social construct" I wrote:

• Constructionists view marriage as a social construct created, institutionalized, and sometimes modified by humans; essentialists hold the dialectically opposed view that the essence of marriage is not something humans — individually or as a society — can change. Some essentialists, whose views are based in religion, cannot accept an idea of marriage that includes anything other than one man and one woman living in monogamy. For example, proponents of the Traditional marriage movement hold this position.

There's a middle position too: people who think you can change the language, and thus call certain things marriage, but (these people would say) "That's not truly a marriage. It's a corruption (or even a perversion) of marriage." The parallel to interracial marriage is a good one. There's still a contingent out there (in the U.S.) that oppose interracial marriage based on just this kind of thinking. We can claim these people are wrong, but we can't deny their existence. And its mighty difficult to prove they're wrong. Sdsds 06:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are all good points. I would like to precede those thoughts with something that gets beneath the ideas, so that we are not so much presenting opposing arguments, as presenting a framework in which these arguments all have a legitimate place.Trishm 06:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage restrictions section

Countries where polygamy is accepted (green)

The section on "Marriage restrictions" is unsatisfactory in several ways. First: the lack of citations. Second, its use as a dumping ground for material not wanted elsewhere. For example, while restrictions against polygamy clearly could fit there, Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas described only 186 (of 1231) societies as prohibiting polygamy. So itis somewhat ethnocentric to limit discussion of polygamy to the "restrictions" section. How is it logical to have a section on SSM, in addition to it being mentioned in "restrictions", but not have one for polygamy? Just look at the map! Comments? Sdsds 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I think that the article was shaped by emphasis on US politics.Trishm 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The introduction - without the politics

The first paragraph seems pretty stable. The rest of the introduction needs some refinement. It currently stands:

• The most commonly recognized form of marriage is between one woman and one man, where the feminine term wife and the masculine term husband are used to describe them. [3][4] In many countries, marriages which do not match this description are illegal. Many individuals and groups also hold moral opposition to other forms of marriage. In recent years, several jurisdictions have changed their laws, amid controversy, to allow marriage between members of the same sex.

• Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Polygyny, where one man has more than one wife, is the typical form of polygamy. Polyandry, where one woman has more than one husband, is more rare.[5] Some marriages involve multiple spouses being married to multiple spouses, a form of relationship sometimes called group marriage; this unique type of polygamy is also rare.[6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trishm (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Comments:

• Marriage is common to all human societies, past and present. The lead of the article should reflect that, and establish the common ground and build the framework for the body of the article.
• It is too early to discuss the details of polygamy. Details can be left for the body of the article.
• The current changes to marriage rules going on only make sense after a discussion of the rules of marriage in general, and how and why they change.
• Feminine wife and masculine husband redundant a bit redundant

I will be bold, and implement the following two paragraphs after the first paragraph. I think that this introduction now defines the common features of marriage, sets the scope for the rest of the article, and provides the context for the rest of the article. I'm sure it can be improved, but I think it is better than what we have now.

The most commonly recognized form of marriage is between one man and one woman, known as husband and wife, respectively; however, other forms of marriage are possible.

The regulations and norms relating to marriage can be complex, and vary with time and culture. Many of the regulations are designed to promote cultural stability, such as those involving intermarriage between nationalities and religions. Even in the short history of the United States, regulations regarding mixed marriages and number of partners have altered to conform to changing cultural conditions.

Trishm

As I summarized in my edit summary, removing sourced, verifiable content about what marriage is, and replacing it with unsourced editorial content is not a step forward. Trishm removed sourced, truthful content about same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage, condensing several paragraphs on those topics into one short, vague sentence. I don't understand how this is an improvement. Adding the global template might become appropriate, if people continually omit information on how various people on earth live their lives and form their marital relationships. Their choices may not align with other's views of what marriage "should" be, but that doesn't give us license to obscure the facts. The fact that some people take offense to others' decisions does not mean that they should not be described, particularly in the case of phenomena as prevalent as polygamous marriage and same-sex marriage. Joie de Vivre 20:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the edit pages. You have misunderstood the purpose of the edits. The sourced comments about SSM and polygamy are perfectly appropriate for the article, but not for the introduction. Marriage is a large topic, and the introduction provides a broad definition, and to lay the framework for the rest of the article. Trishm 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the new paragraphs are unsourced editorial. They are certainly verifiable. There is nothing there that is either outside common knowledge, or not covered by the sources in the first paragraph:

• that the rules of marriage change,
• that marriage promotes cultural stability,
• example: regulation of intermarriage,
• that the United States has in its short history changed rules regarding polygamy and mixed marriage.

Is there any thing that actually looks unverifiable to you? POV? Inaccurate? Undue weight? Please commentTrishm 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The most commonly recognized form

Near the end of the #dispute tag - what is under dispute? section above, User:Trishm writes, "Where you have two definitions, a general umbrella definition, which applies to everybody (NPOV), and a narrower definition, which applies to the majority (very common POV), then you would expect the umbrella definition first." The logic of this is good, but not perfect. One could also assert that, where you have an umbrella definition covering every case that anyone considers marriage, and a narrower definition covering the single case that everyone considers marriage, you would expect the one describing cases that everyone agrees about first. But whichever comes first, the second paragraph should clearly communicate that it defines those relationships that everyone agrees are marriages. So in the second paragraph: would it be original research to claim, "The only universally recognized form of marriage is between one man and one woman...." Or is that self-evident? Is there any culture that does not recognize heterosexual marriage? Sdsds 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any grounds for calling it original research. Every culture would recognise heterosexual marriage. I don't think we know of any culture that has not recognised one-on-one. I wouldn't swap the order of the paragraphs, though, because they do different things. The current first paragraph describes what marriage is, the second is the most common form it would take. I would phrase it slightly differently to be clear on scope, by replacing "universal" by "across all cultures" with the appropriate grammatical rearrangment. Trishm 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion issues, again

Looks like the intro is once again getting reverted back to the way it was, both by r-b-j and an anonymous editor that happened to show up right before he did. Would be appreciated if the "new" intro could be evaluated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it isn't new. it is consistent with the dictionary definitions (that evidently is not acceptable to the POV the SSM interest, but they should take that up with the lexographers at OED, Merriam-Webster, and American-Heritage), it includes the fact of SSM and polygamy in the intro but does add any extra space in the description in the intro (WP:Undue weight if such marraiges are a small percentage worldwide). "Several" countries (when it's 5 out of 192) is an exaggeration. counting Isreal as one of those 5 or "several" is factually incorrect. it's just a cleaning up of half-facts, non-facts, and some POV that thinks it has entitlement. r b-j 03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

“Several” in your beloved dictionary is defined as “more than two but fewer than many” (M-W in case you want to check), so don’t be so hasty to deride the word’s usage, as it was technically correct. However, I agree that we should not quantify such a thing.

BTW, "Consensus" in my beloved dictionary is defined as "general agreement: unanimity". the editors should stop inaccurately labelling their POV reverts as the "consensus" version or "as per talk-page consensus" when no such consensus exists and had not existed. r b-j 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

However, I disagree with your assessment of the introduction to this article. I believe the umbrella approach was appropriate. Your special interests are weighting here just as heavily as others’. And before you turn around and say ”Others” like you, right? my answer to that is no. I think marriage is a word best left to religions – where it originated. Governments should be using the term civil union for any and all intimate relationships requiring legal associations to protect, preserve, etc. the interests of the involved parties. But since we’re stuck with this cruddy term marriage which has been invoked by common usage, the least we can do is make it inclusive, not exclusive. Hurry up and create your article on Heterosexual marriage so we can quit infighting. Creation of a HM article is easily justified by pointing to the SSM and polygamy articles – so get’cha booty in gear! ZueJay^talk 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

whether or not you think that "marriage is a word best left to religions" and that "civil unions" should be the purvue of governments (BTW, that's what i think, too) doesn't matter. what you think may or may not be congruent to the dictionary definition. if it is not congruent to the dictionary definition, it is your (or some other editor's) definition and your (or someone else's) POV. we have a contention over the "good definition" that WP:WINAD and WP:LEAD say belongs in the opening sentence. the way this contention needs to be resolved is by using a neutral source of the definition rather than any definition created to be friendly to any special interest group (this includes the Religious right, they have no more right to come here and crap up the article so that it meets with their approval). but the LGBT interest group does not want to submit themselves to that principle. they want a definition that fits with their POV. they have no more title to that than does the religious right. r b-j 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

also, creating a Heterosexual marriage or similarly titled article was tried (by someone else) in the past and was rightly deleted as a POV fork. r b-j 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

actually Zuejay, the MW definition (in fact, all three dictionaries cited, it not just MW) use the words "husband and wife" or "husband or wife". if you were to delete something to make it more compatible with the definition, you should delete "man and woman" and leave "husband and wife". r b-j 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

also, i think you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting WINAD. i've cited and quoted it too many times to repeat that here. take a look at the lead sentence of WP:WINAD at your convenience, please. r b-j 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

the first section is unweildy, trying to focus the scope. pov on HM is probably what pisses off half the heterosexuals and religious right folks and forces this to be a contentious article - I'm sure there's a feeling of being crowded out. LGBT folks want to avoid the same thing and that's why you see LGBT hands everywhere. When someone sources Wikipedia for their report on marriage, etc. LGBT folks want to be assured that report doesn't say something like "Well Wikipedia said "man and woman" and that source is by consensus and it include LGBT folks so that must be absolute truth." I can't wait for the day the reality of eqaulity catches up to the definition of equality. I know you're gonna fix that husband and wife thing - so go ahead. My hands were shaking so bad the last time you changed the article I had to walk away for a bit. If we can get the entirety of the dictionary definition (i.e. both HM and SSM) in the first sentence, fine, else it is POV with undue weight just like the other versions. ZueJay^talk 05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

no, it is this tortured convolution of language and simple POV replacement of the dictionary definition consistant to the 3 major English language dictionaries and of the legal definition in 971⁄2% of the world with the LGBT-friendly definition (a POV definition), in order to make the article acceptable to the LGBT crowd (which is pretty obviously disproportionately represented here) that is the unweildy language. the language i put in, besides being accurate and NPOV, is compact, simple, cited, and consistent with the citations. (the current edit, again removing "husband and wife" says it's consistent with the cited references, but it is not. the cited references, this time including the MW dictionary, specifically say "husband and/or wife" which is precisely the nastly little reality the LGBT POV pushers feel they must remove. they are saying, essentially, that their POV for the lead definition is more neutral than that of all three English language dictionaries, and i find that to be dishonest, ludicrous, and frankly offensive. the LGBT POV pushers feel that they are entitled to remove accurately quoted and cited references to an authoritive NPOV source and replace it with something that they like better. that is blatent POV editing, it is saying "my POV is the Wikipedia POV" and what i'm saying is that the consistent POV of the three dictionaries and of 971⁄2% of the jurisdictions in the world is the NPOV definition. it is not my definition.)

When someone sources Wikipedia for their report on marriage, etc. LGBT folks want to be assured that report doesn't say something like "Well Wikipedia said "man and woman" and that source is by consensus and it include LGBT folks so that must be absolute truth."

the LGBT folks are not entitled to such assurance because they don't own Wikipedia nor the word "marriage". society hasn't changed sufficiently that they can expect that "marriage" includes them. that may be a bad thing or a sad thing or an outrageous thing from their POV and some of us might share that, but that is still the reality of the vast majority of the world and fudging the lead definition in the article to reflect a reform that hasn't happened yet, or to use Wikipedia to help nudge along such reform (by planting in peoples mind that "hey, marriage does include SSM" when, so far, not much of the world says it does, this is where WP:Undue weight comes in) is to use Wikipedia as a soapbox of sorts and is contrary to the base principles of the project. what is most disturbing is that this overrepresented class here (the number of LGBT project editors ganging up to put in the LGBT-friendly language is much higher than the incidence of LGBT people in any wide society) is asserting an entitlement to "fix up" this article (which is not Same-sex marriage or some other LGBT specific article) to fit their POV. that blatent sense of entitlement is unconscionable. maybe someday they will "win" and Wikipedia will officially become a pro-gay or LGBT-friendly encyclopedia and the 2^nd pillar will be replaced with one of "inclusion" or some other politically correct principle. r b-j 08:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

2 small observations:

1. "to legitimize sexual relations and procreation;" is problematic. The structure implies the only "legitimize sexual relations" results in offspring. That doesn't track with an inclusive usage of "marriage". It may be appropriate to amend that item to "to legitimize sexual relations; procreation;".
2. The opening line in the SSM section is, at the least, awkward. The use of "some" implies that the following list is incomplete. At the present time the list is complete in that it includes the 5 countries where it is currently legal to preform SSM and the 1 country that currently recognizes them while not allowing them to be preformed. It may be valid to either shorten the list (IMO a bad idea since it is an important point to either side of the argument) or rework the sentence for clarity.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

rock on, J Greb! r b-j 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction using the umbrella approach

A marriage is a publicly recognized relationship which creates kinship obligations regarding the sharing and transfer of resources between individuals, the children that a sexual union may produce, and, in some societies, the extended family. All human societies have some form of marriage, and in all complex societies which are governed by law, marriage is a public legal act with strong social customs and often religious rites involved. People marry for many different reasons which may include: to publicly declare love and/or companionship; to legitimize sexual relations and procreation; to form a family unit; to strengthen social and economic stability; and to nurture and educate offspring.

The most commonly recognized form of marriage is between one man and one woman, known as husband and wife, respectively; however, other forms of marriage are possible.

The regulations and norms relating to marriage can be complex, and vary with time and culture. Many of the regulations are designed to promote cultural stability, such as those involving intermarriage between nationalities and religions. Even in the short history of the United States, regulations regarding mixed marriages and number of partners have altered to conform to changing cultural conditions.

This introduction seems to have the endorsement of several editors, although some editors have clearly not been satisfied, and have reverted it without discussion. It has been developed to apply to every married person, to clearly convey what marriage is, and to provide the frame of reference for the different aspects and details of marriage to be discussed later in the article.

If any editor feels that this version is inaccurate or violates any guideline whatever, or is not sufficiently inclusive, please discuss your concerns here.Trishm 05:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Trishm, you deserve great respect for the work you have done on this! However, I still feel a short description of the universally recognized form should come before the umbrella definition. While neither is more nor less "true", one will be contested by fewer editors. And at this point the major goal should be to get as many editors as possible feeling like they don't have to change the lead! Sdsds 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. I don't agree with that first line, although I do appreciate the sentiment for the simplified form. There are cultures that would find one-one pairings very very odd. I don't think the statement is wholly true. Please let us try that line again. I don't have a suggestion right now...let me think... ZueJay^talk 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that, but with the possible exception of the United States bit-there's certainly a far longer and more inclusive history to marriage as a concept then the US, and that seems like a bit of systemic bias to me. If we're going to offer a historic summation, we could certainly offer a very short overview of all the concepts throughout history (arranged marriage, polygamy with various religious groups, dowry/bride price, to modern first-world concepts that include choice of partner, some which include same-sex, etc., etc.). I think that would offer a much more comprehensive picture, if we're really going to have that type of synopsis in the intro. Really though, the history might be better left to following sections, with maybe just a statement that there have been many, many different cultural definitions of marriage throughout history, and leaving the specifics until later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. My preference would be to leave the detail for later.Trishm 06:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Zuejay, to which cultures are you refering when you write, "There are cultures that would find one-one pairings very very odd?" Sdsds 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Very honestly, I can't remember which, but I was watching a program on a...either a...Latin American tribe, or an African tribe...please forgive my inability to remember...but every woman had multiple mates and she was considered odd and of very low standing in the society if she only had one mate (male). I know they don't have computers, and probably don't read English, but that doesn't negate the point - they considered it weird. I just don't...I just don't like the phrasing; its a bit presumptuous if its not sourced. Maybe I'm fighting myself on this one more than anything. I should probably go to bed and try again tomorrow; it's only 2:15 AM here. *Sigh* I'm starting to wonder if I shoulda just stuck to copy editing. ZueJay^talk 07:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That certainly occurs, though I don't remember straight off what tribe, it's certainly been known to happen and those types of customs still exist. And hey, don't just stick to copyediting-I'll admit, some days I have a strong desire just to forget content issues and go back to vandal whacking, but sometimes a little input from someone that's not been involved before can break a logjam in these long-term content disputes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Seraphimblade. I'll just have to be more cautious when choosing to work on an exploding article. Ka-BOOM! ZueJay^talk 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As regards the use of offspring: is this really the term we want? As compared with "children" it subtly implies that only biological children resulting from sex between the spouses, and not e.g. adopted children, are being considered. This further implies a POV less inclusive of certain types of marriages. These may be subtle (and I assume unintentional) implications, but that's the way it reads to me. Sdsds 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary approach

I'm not sure I like that stylistically, but regardless, it's also incorrect per the sources cited. The dictionaries cited actually give several definitions of marriage, of which only one is included currently. I've gone ahead and included the other definitions, though, and if everyone's in agreement on just using the dictionary bit, perhaps that will be a good compromise? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

your last edit and justification given is blatently dishonest. you said you "Change to match cited sources", but what you did is change it so that it does not match the sources. you took out the very words that the sources specifically have in their lead definitions and you replaced it with a word they do not use. that is a blatent POV edit and your justification is like "We had to destroy the village in order to save it".

i know; up is down, bad is good, right is wrong, black is white. doesn't matter, does it? r b-j 08:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of things I'm willing to put up with being called, but dishonest isn't one of 'em. I can't get in to look at the OED definition right now, but I can have a look at the dead-tree version at the library tomorrow. However, let's look at the two I can see. Now, if we stop reading at the end of definition 1, you're absolutely right. But when we use sources, we actually use the whole thing, don't we? Let's bravely read on into Merriam-Webster's definition number two!

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

An anomaly? Well, this "read the whole thing" business might work well on the American Heritage dictionary. Hey, let's try it! Sure enough, first one, man, woman, good...but wait!

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Now, I know you object to the term same-sex marriage, so I went ahead and used a much more neutral term. But if you'd really like, we can scrupulously stick to our sources-and those dictionaries sure say same-sex marriage is marriage! Now, we can either do it that way, or we can play nice and not throw around things like "blatently (sic) dishonest." How about we do that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

r b-j and others know this article isn't going to start, "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife." No matter what the dictionaries say, they know that won't be accepted by a powerful subset of Wikipedia's editors. But for every reasonable editor, there might be a lead of the form, "Marriage, <insert some qualifying phrase here>, is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" which would be acceptable. I just don't know what the qualifying phrase has to say in order to maximize the subset of editors who would accept that lead. Sdsds 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would personally accept "in its most common form", provided that this statement is qualified immediately, and not presented as a standalone lead sentence. I also made a recent change at revising it, what do you think of that one? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry if you don't like the inference of dishonesty, but the point remains. you changed the text from something that matched the cited reference to something that did not, and then you put in your edit summary that you "Change to match cited sources". what you did was opposite. you really haven't answered that charge although you made it clear you took umbrage to it (the latter is normal). this is the same charge i make and repeat every time someone tries to tone down the heavy-emphasis on SSM and return the article to a state that doesn't imply that SSM is 40% of all marriages worldwide and then the SSM POV-pushers come in and revert that edit (back to the heavy SSM emphasis) labelling the previous as POV. such hypocrisy.

every single time that i have edited this lead, i was careful to put in a reference to same-sex marriage in the lead, it was fine by me to put in the qualifier "most frequently" or "most typically" or similar, even though these qualifiers are an understatement, but i knew the SSM crowd would not like "nearly always" as a qualifier but "nearly always" is the accurate qualifier. i have made multiple stabs at this including putting in both the consistent primary definition ("husband and/or wife") and' the secondary definition (SSM) of all three dictionaries and that was immediately reverted. so the verbatim dictionary definition that had 50% of the space given to SSM which is far, far less than 1% of the marriages worldwide, somehow that is biased against gays? you guys are just completely and brazenly unreasonable.

the SSM advocates must accept the reality that SSM is not the primary dictionary definition (it is a secondary definition) in all three major English language dictionary references, it is legal is less than 21⁄2% of the world, and even in those jurisdictions, account for a vast minority of marriages. SSM is a vast minority of a vast minority of marriages worldwide. SSM is not even recognized as existing in the vast majority of the world. SSM is not what comes to the vast majority of people's minds when the subject of marriage comes up. this is changing, but it hasn't changed even to the point of a significant minority yet. so why is this article, which is not Same-sex marriage cow-towing to LGBT interests and being written in such a way that SSM has roughly equal weight in space and emphasis to heterosexual marriage?

i know what the answer to that question is, and it does not reflect well on either the intent, reasoning, or arrogant sense of entitlement that the SSM advocates here have. despite the denials, it is blatent POV pushing to use Wikipedia to promote the notion of SSM marriage to a public (the vast majority of people worldwide) that simply does not recognize it nor accepts it.

i am a long-haired, pot-legalizin, tax-and-spendin, peacenick, anti-death-penalty, anti-corporate-greed, pro-universal-health-care, pro-education-funding, pro-environment, pro-civil-union librul that did volunteer work on the Howard Dean campaign and even introduced the Gov to a town hall meeting in the 2004 NH primary season, and i ain't ashamed of the "L-word". i have relatives and aquainances that i respect that are gay (one is magistrate in NYC, the other is the president of an audio electronics company in NJ), i do not see the LGBT interest group as some powerless, oppressed group anymore long since Stonewall. every gay or lesbian person i know is competent at their careere and doing quite well professionally. but when these guys revert NPOV edits to highly POV edits and then call this shit "caviar", it reminds me of Sandra Day O'Connor saying in Bush v Gore that the citizen's vote in an election is "sacred" that the courts may not trump, and then she and 4 other "justices" did the very same thing. it's bullshit.

i am not ashamed of being an "L-word" 60's liberal and i am not ashamed of any known association that i have any gays and i am not unhappy with the social movement toward increasing acceptance of homosexuality, but i am ashamed of what hard-core gay POV pushers are trying to do to this article as well as some others (there used to be a big battle at Homophobia, i guess the LGBT folks think they own that word, too). i am also alarmed and dubious that there is an official barnstar for the promotion of LGBT issues here at Wikipedia (which is evidence of the sliding loss of NPOV here). maybe the Republicans and Religious Right and the pro- or anti-immigration crowd and the pro- or anti-environment crowd, etc., maybe they should get their own barnstar for the promotion of their POV here at WP. r b-j 22:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I didn't like the inference of dishonesty (and still don't) is that you claimed the cited sources made no definition other than "man/woman".

i have only claimed that for the primary definition in the dictionaries. because we have been over this time and time again, in repeating the point (which is still never refuted), i have failed to include the word "primary", but many times i have made it a point to include that qualifier. all of my edits to the lead has always included the SSM definition in the lead (but not the first sentence) giving it a lot more space than its small percentage of 21⁄2% prevalence in reality.

I just clearly showed you that they do,

not for the primary definition. the primary definition in all three dictionaries clearly say that it is a "union of husband and wife" or of "being husband or wife". it is a secondary definition, not a caveat in the first definition. do you understand the difference? there are conflicting definitions of marriage in the dictionaries because the lexographers writing them are reflecting what people think the word means and there are conflicting definitions in people's usage. for the same reasons the lead and secondary definitions exist, in conflict with each other, are the same reasons these same two definitions must be presented as so in the lead of this article. it is the only NPOV way to do it. to rewrite the lead definition in the article to one that is more SSM-friendly is to compose a definition from one's own POV. what you are doing is equivalent to the Religious right coming to this article and defining marriage to exist only between heterosexual couples and that SSM doesn't even exist. they may concede that something called same-sex "marriage" is practice in a very small minority of the world, but they will assert that it is not marriage. the Supreme Court can trash the law (incl. the Constitution) and thousands of Floridians' votes and claim that the are defending both. just attaching a label to something does not name it for widespead use. here in Boston, they call it "frappe", but in the vast majority of the world they call them "milkshakes" (dunno about the Francosphere). now i know you don't want Same-sex marriage to redirect to Marriage, it deserves its own article, but the effective weight that SSM has on this article to imply that no conflict in definition exists and that lead definition of marriage is inclusive of SSM is a POV edit that far more people of the world would take issue with than would agree with it.

when a significant portion of the world's jurisdictions change their legal definition to be inclusive of SSM and when at least some portion of the authoritive dictionaries of the language change their primary definition to delete "husband" and "wife" and include "individuals" or "persons" of nondescript gender, when that time comes, then your edit would be both more accurate and more NPOV. but you're insisting on the SSM-friendly definition before such a day has arrived. that is an improper use of Wikipedia. it violates the 2^nd pillar of Wikipedia. r b-j 04:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

and in fact, even specifically mentioning same-sex marriage would be in keeping with those dictionaries-they specifically mention it! However, as that would be relatively contentious, I used a much more neutral phrasing. But the fact is, those dictionaries define a wide range of marriage, and if we're going to use them as sources, we must represent that! This has nothing to do with your beliefs or mine. NPOV means we reflect the source, and in this case, the sources cited reflected a wide range. To "cherry-pick" one definition out of many is absolutely not NPOV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross purposes again

Is it true that for an article to meet Wikipedia standards the lead must fairly present all major points of view on the subject? Are we all working toward that goal? Remembering that from one major POV it's only a marriage if it's between one man and one woman, and from another POV polygamous and same-sex marriages are perfectly valid, perhaps we should each ask ourselves if the last edit we made presents both points of view fairly. Sdsds 07:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant policy, edited for relevance to this article:

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias.

Types of bias include:

• Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism.

• Gender bias, including sexism and heteronormativity.

• Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

• Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation.

• Religious bias, including bias against religion, or in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.

• Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.

My interpretation of this is that it's not so much that all major views need to be presented fairly in the lead, but that you can't accord any particular view undue weight. This is particularly tricky in this topic, because there are so many points of view. We have enough trouble balancing the ones held by wikipedia editors: there are others out threre too. That is why I was aiming for the most neutral common ground that I could.Trishm 10:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Right! Your point about undue weight can't be emphasized often enough here. Specifically, WP:Undue weight reads, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In some editors minds, the prominence of the one-man-one-woman-only point-of-view (OMOWOPOV) means it should be accorded primary (i.e. first-listed) status in the article's lead. Sdsds 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

Types of bias include:

• Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.

• Commercial bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media.

• Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism.

• Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

• Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation.

• Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate.

• Religious bias, including bias against or for the religious, or the secular.

• Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.

• Scientific, which may include favoring a scientist or inventor, or believing one theory over another for a reason listed in one of the above

Note: subject to revision by WP:GS. 63.228.40.145 18:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but gender is a speck compared to the log of nationalism. I find it very interesting that my edits to counter ethnic bias have been taken as pro-SSM by some editors.Trishm 22:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead def should be concise and not a dissertation. 63.228.40.145 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if we could come to some consensus about the length of the lead section of this article! Personally I favor a two sentence first paragraph, followed by a longer second paragraph, followed by a mid-length third paragraph. The first paragraph whould give a simplistic view, emphasizing the commonest form. The second paragraph would give a general view, emphasizing inclusivity. The third would give some context explaining why we needed 50kb more text to explain the preceding paragraphs in detail. Sdsds 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my edit to Ssm[3]. It has not been rev'd in its entirety. The same cannot happen here apparently, nor can a Traditional Marriage or a Judeo-Christian Marriage article be created because of the over representation of WP:GLBT editors - and to a lesser extent, adherents to WP:GS. The existence of a Ssm POV fork proves the uneven enforcement of WP:NPOV. WP:GLBT editors will have to face the fact that marriage has a primary definition, and "alternative" forms will have a secondary mention in the Marriage article. 63.228.40.145 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

63.228.40.145, in the SSM article, are you refering to the term "civil marriage"? Or the "History of same-sex unions" or the "Degree of uptake" headers? It actually has been altered slightly. If you're refering to a different edit within the article, could you be more specific, please? I'd like to understand your example edit.
As for a POV fork regarding Traditional marriage, there is an ongoing debate to have that redirect to Traditional marriage movement. I recently proposed a Heterosexual marriage article b/c that seemed equitable (when compared to SSM and Polygamy existant articles), but was told that debate had all ready taken place and the option was 'shot down,' as it were.
I would also beg to differ on the "over representation" of "LGBT editors" - some LGBT-interested editors simply have more interest in this particular subject than certain other groups; for instance, gamers or science fiction buffs or comic book collectors, who do work on Wikipedia in force. ZueJay^talk 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
PS - Sdsds, I like the comment about why we need 50 more k of space; gotta suck the reader in just like any news article! ZueJay^talk

I'm not sure where this conversation is going. I wish the conversation could stay on one line long enough to get somewhere. There has been favourable comment, but not been much adverse comment to the contents of the proposal in "Introduction using the umbrella approach". It is concise, as 63.228.40.145 would wish. There ought to be something to say, judging from the reversions, but these have been made without discussion. I would appreciate it if whoever dislikes the approach would do me the honour of giving some concrete critism on that section.Trishm 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinship obligations

Several recent edits have modified the language about kinship obligations to state or imply these are between the married couple. That's not it. Marriage creates obligations binding on the sanguinal (blood) kin of one spouse to the sanguinal kin of the other. It isn't cool to wage war on the kingdom of your son's wife's father, for example. Sdsds 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. The marriage redefines who is considered family. In tribal situations, it defines who you share resources with.

There are are also many modern societies where a marriage between two people creates obligations between the families.Trishm 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there are! I suppose anyone who has forced a smile to their lips and nodded while their mother-in-law expressed uncomfortable views is responding to just such an obligation. Sdsds 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the people on earth are Asian (wife/husband-debate)

Repeatedly on this talk page and in change log comments, User:Joie de Vivre has asserted some leads to the article are the equivalent of "Most of the people on earth are Asian." Most recently, Joie de Vivre removed from the lead the sentences that read:

The form of marriage that is almost universally recognized is the union of one man and one woman as "husband" and "wife". However, other types of marriage also exist.

Face reality: almost universally, when we see a man and woman living together as husband and wife, we call those people "married". No other type of relationship is anywhere nearly so unanimously considered marriage. Not polygamous marriage, not group marriage, not same-sex marriage or marriage to dead people. All of those things exist and are in my opinion marriage. But not everyone sees them as such, and we can't deny that point of view without making the article unfairly biased. There's a whole 'nother paragraph that admirably provides an "inclusive" definition of marriage. The purpose of the sentences Joie de Vivre deleted was to describe the state that everyone calls marriage. Joie de Vivre, how can the article explain that to readers without the sentences you deleted? Sdsds 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No! Have I not repeated this enough?! Saying that "people are most frequently Asian" is the equivalent, not "Most of the people on earth are Asian". One is a statistic, the other is an opinion. Most of the marriages, plural, are male-female, but Marriage, the abstract concept, isn't anything but what a person thinks it is.

If we're going to state what a marriage consists of, we have to list all the main relationships that people define as marriage, perhaps with some mention of where they occur and how widespread they are, and regardless of opinion. Going into detail would be my preference, but if we're not prepared to do that, we should be vague.

It is not acceptable to omit mention of the other forms of marriage, because that would require us to conspicuously avoid mentioning the same-sex marriages and civil unions that many countries have approved, and to gloss over the fact that polygamous marriage is widespread and socially accepted in some areas.

Cultural bias is not acceptable. -- Joie de Vivre 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LGBT and WP:GS bias is also not acceptable. 216.160.22.48 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

of course it's acceptable. the Wikipedia rules don't apply to LBGT bias. r b-j 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Joie de Vivre's assessment. While we absolutely should note that the vast majority of marriages are 1-1, male-female (to fail to report this would be leaving out very important information), we should also incorporate that other types are possible. Linguistically, same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage are marriage. The legal definition of polygamy is being married to more then one person. The fact that that's illegal doesn't mean you're not married, it simply means you're married in a way that's against the law. A similar example would be that illegal possession of a gun doesn't mean you didn't possess a gun, it means you did possess one in a way that the law disallows. We would be remiss in our definition if we didn't acknowledge and include the fact that other forms of marriage are possible, regardless of whether they are regarded as acceptable or are legal. Murder is almost universally considered unacceptable and is almost universally illegal, but that doesn't mean we'd put in murder that "Murders never happen"! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that other forms of marriage are not just "possible", as you said; they actually exist. There are many areas of the world where same-sex marriage or polygamous marriage are socially acceptable and legal. While I agree that it is factual to note that woman-man marriages make up the majority of marriages, we should be very careful in wording that statement. We can avoid a hassle if we referring to a number of marriages ("most marriages consist of...") rather than some loose, abstract concept of what people think Marriage is or should be ("a Marriage usually consists of..."). Joie de Vivre 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hej Joy, thanks for checking out "ironical"! And you did not reply to the wife issue at "If we're going to state...Cultural bias is not acceptable." But i dont really care, i am just interested why there is such a large group deleting the two key terms connected to marriage. Just for fun, i found this http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/12/01/safrica.gaymarriage/index.html, which mentions "husband, wife or spouse". And even if Christian (33%), Muslim (21%) and Hindu (14%) (16% no religion, all from religion if that data's correct) were no majority, even if there are different kinds of marriage, why are you unable to mention "hw&s" in the lead section??? And no matter what marriage, you still have participants (as you said yourself), and there is a term for them. BTW; this is all in English, and all other languages have their own (various!) terms for hw&s, which are not included, check them out!--Flammingo^Parliament 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The "wife issue" is that if we are going to specifically mention female-male marriage in the lead, we must mention the other kinds as well. I deleted the sentence because various attempts by various people to add the complementary information had been reverted. It's POV to leave the "husband, wife" sentence there on its own. Until we can fairly describe the main relationships that the word "marriage" describes, that sentence must be omitted. Joie de Vivre 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, great! --Flammingo^Parliament 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone, Seraphinblade, sdsds, and others, Joie de Vivre did not like my starting the wife and husband articles, and he would like to nip them in the bud here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife. The question is not what these articles are now, but what they were ([[4]] and [[5]]) and what they might offer in the future. His arguments are that the article is short (not surprisingly) and that it contains an etymology (WP:WINAD). I believe there is more to the topic (which might be listed on the deletion page), and wikipedia should give it a try for some time (seven days, necessarily, rather a month).Flammingo^Parliament 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting defamation. This discussion is not appropriate for Talk:Marriage; it's off topic. Joie de Vivre

Joie de Vivre, you are a rude and presumptuous "editor" that thinks you can control other people's speech. you may not delete comments (supported with links) that other people make on the talk page, no matter if you like them or not or purport they are defamatory or not. you already think you own the article, are you now asserting that you own the talk page as well? r b-j 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please cool it. Name-calling doesn't accomplish anything constructive. Joie de Vivre 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

perhaps if you stop acting rudely and presumputously (hey, we'll declare anything you say as uncivil and delete it, or we'll revert anything you write and call it a "minor" edit, or just ignore anything you say as if you hadn't said it) there would be nothing for you to construe name calling in the first place. your behavior has words to describe it, and when those words are used you should heed them or take issue with them. ignoring them is merely inconsiderate or disrespectful but deleting the is arrogant. r b-j 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre suggests we might have to "list all the main relationships that people define as marriage." I have made an attempt to do so, and eagerly await your comments here. I have also reinserted the observation about the near-universal recognition of one kind of marriage. Just because a relationship isn't recognized as marriage doesn't mean it isn't a marriage, nor does lack of recognition make a marriage illegal. Of course the text I inserted borders on weasel-wording: it begs the question, "Who recognizes (or not) a relationship as a marriage?" If the section titled "Recognition" doesn't explain this, please improve it! We would be remiss if we failed to communicate to our readers the vital relevance of governmental, religious, and social recognition of marriages. Sdsds 00:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph is much in need of sources. (Where are half the marriages multiple? In what countries does the living/dead marriage occur, and under what circumstances?) Even if we're going to be general here, readers should be able to easily follow links to more specific information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See Marriage#Polygamy and Types_of_marriages#Unique_practices. Cite 'em if you got em. Sdsds 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit to the second sentence, for the most part restoring wording from 5 February 2007. Both before and after my edit, the sentence introduces the terms "husband" and "wife" without putting them near "man" and "woman" or "most common form" or "union". But: the absence of those other terms makes what remains a relatively unimportant bit of information. Why is it given a place of such prominence? Can we move it lower in the lead? Out of the lead entirely? Sdsds 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That second sentence gives no information whatever. I have removed it. Trishm 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably made the right choice. But I would like to leave the sentence in the lead for a bit, to see how it reads to other contributors. So I moved it to the third paragraph, where the terms are first used. Sdsds 03:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've no objection, but it seemed to do no more than define common words that should be in anyone's vocabulary. Is there something I'm missing?Trishm 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the presence of these definitions plays into the current debate about articles on husband and wife. When those terms redirected to marriage, as they may well do again, it seemed prudent to define them separately from their use in the highly contentious (and thus often removed from the article) phrase "union of man and woman as husband and wife". That is, it seemed bogus/embarrassing to have wife redirect to marriage during the times when marriage didn't mention wife in its lead at all. Sdsds 03:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, pretty new here. If this sentence is going to be used in the introduction... "The most commonly recognized form of marriage is between one man and one woman, known as husband and wife, respectively; however, other forms of marriage exist." in the first paragraph.

Immediately following would there be any objections to putting a link that immediately takes you down to the section on Types or to the Types of marriages article? This would give immediate access to outside readers who come to Wikipedia looking for information on something other than the 'man and woman' marriage. Perhaps this has already been discussed, so if I am neglecting something which has already been greatly debated...I sincerely apologize. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think having a link like: "however, other forms of marriage exist" would be great. Sdsds 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I am not be intrusive, but I have changed the intro to include a link where it says 'other types of marriage'. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The information which you added is all contained in the article 'Types of marriages'. That is why I changed those three words to contain a link. Adding a list of other forms of marriage to the intro, defeats the whole purpose of including a link in the first place. The introduction is supposed to be just a general starting place for the following portions of the article. I like to think of it as the start of a tree-diagram. Listing every particular style in the intro would violate NPOV unless all forms of marriage were to be listed as well. This would be irrational b/c a long list like this would not be indicatative of an introduction. The pupose for stating 'between a husband and wife' bears some relevance b/c it is what most people think of when they think of marriage...adding only the link makes the other forms of marriage immediately available.

Perhaps simplifying it to only say 'There are many forms of marriage' would be the most appropriate thing, but the long intro which you have added is not necessary and detracts from the rest of the intro. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmm....

Hello all,

Having been away for a short while, I thought i'd pop in now i'm back..... I don't suppose there's a terribly nice way to say this, but the current state of the article is not good. The opening para.s constantly watch their backs, referencing all sorts of what seem to be fairly obscure situations - am i the only person who thinks it's embarrassing to mention marriage between living and dead people in the lead?

I'll work on my version of the intro shortly - and I do think it's appropriate to mention husbands, wives, and spouses as the most common / traditional / whatever setup of marriage - its my belief that anything else gives undue weight (to mention the policy term) to important, but less common setups... thanks all - Petesmiles 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There it is.....

I've replaced the intro. Main rationale below;

• It read very badly, I think this is an improvement on readability and clarity

• The central paras in the lead were very weaselly and contained unsourced claims (many, most etc. etc.)

• This version tips its hat at all types of marriage, whilst leaving the weight where it statistically belongs

Thanks folks!

Petesmiles 10:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably also like to remove specific mention of the state of Massachusetts, which is terribly US-centric and overly specific (but yes, accurate - just not terribly vital at that point...) - I've left it in because of a feeling that its inclusion is important to some folk... Petesmiles 10:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, It's very nicely written, but I wish it described more than modern Western marriage. It needs a little historical depth, to my eyes.Trishm 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think it is describing solely Western marriage - the implication there is that other (eastern? alternative?) forms of marriage are worth significant weight in the lead, and I'm not sure that that's true. Sorry for being dippy, but would you mind giving an example of a type of marriage that this lead excludes that you wish to be included.... and thanks again - i think that's actually the nicest wiki compliment i've had! hooray! - Petesmiles 11:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. I was writing this:

I don't mean that the history of marriage needs to be in the lead, just that marriage is very ancient, and has existed in every society.Trishm 11:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I will say that the touchstone for me is Australian Aboriginals, pre European settlement. My issue is not the types of marriage, but the purpose of marriage. At rock bottom, It's all about kinship ties, and marriage defines who your family is, and sets up obligations between extended families regarding the sharing of resourcesTrishm 11:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I think you're undoubtedly right - that in a 'big picture' way, marriage really is about kinship ties - and the Aboriginals have a fascinating set of cultural practices. However, i don't think 'kinship ties' is a good defining phrase in the lead, and I think that Marriage globally is covered pretty well. Also, I don't think anything in the lead actually excludes traditional aboriginal societal structures either - it just states (honestly i hope) the most common forms internationally (and across all cultures...) - Petesmiles 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - can we remove Massachusetts? - Petesmiles 11:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

From the Union? Ok with me. 63.228.46.229 23:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The cat article's intro is quite good. It starts, "The cat (or domestic cat, house cat) is a small carnivorous mammal." This kind of definition doesn't attempt to exclude everything except cats. Ferrets are also small carnivorous mammals. What it successfully does is get the reader thinking in the right direction. This version of 'Marriage' tries to do the same thing. It works for me. Petesmiles, does it work for you? Trishm? Others? Sdsds 04:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

article wife

There is a discussion whether Wife (pre-fact-flagged version) should be deleted taking place here. Please join!--Flammingo^Parliament 12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

compare: Wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

NB: Please use the capitalized permanent link, Joie wishes to delete and pov/fact-flag every sentence to support his deletion proposal. And @Joie: it does not have to perfect the first day (what article is??), please be patient, assume good faith. --Flammingo^Parliament 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC):compare: Wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I disagree that NPA applies. There was no threat, no personal attack, what Joie de vivre deleted there. --Flammingo^Parliament 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version is at Wife, with the fact tags and banners which highlight how little of the article is sourced. Joie de Vivre 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

added sources Flammingo^Parliament 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

publicly recognized vs secret marriage

Perhaps I've been reading to much Shakespearean tragedy, but are there no historical examples of marriages created by secret wedding ceremonies, with only religious recognition? Is public recognition really a requirement for a union to be a marriage? Sdsds 15:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening

I think riff's edits are pretty good - but still take issue with the opening sentence. I don't think 'kinship obligations' is a good phrase to use, and I think the sentence, with lots of clauses like this one, doesn't read well and is too long. I'll try and tweak it a little... Petesmiles 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Petesmiles, you can't really think the phrase, "The most typical form of marriage" is appropriate, do you? What would "typical" even mean in that sentence? Are you trying to communicate something to the reader by including that word? Sdsds 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right - i didn't mean anything by the word 'typical' - frequent is much better. Petesmiles 11:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

... Please join in here!

Hello! - There's alot of edits going on - but not alot of comment here - my recent work was removed without a squeak which i think was a little rude... I'm going to do my last change back shortly, and then i'll leave well alone - but please remember to comment here. Thanks! Petesmiles 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about the prominence civil unions are currently given in the lead paragraph. Yes, civil unions are a topic related to marriage. So too are other topics, e.g. engagements, which we don't mention much at all! What's special about civil unions? Sdsds 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I chose the same-sex marriage section as the appropriate place to move the sentence about civil unions. Is there a better place for it? Sdsds 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinda redundant sentence...

I removed this...

Common types of marriage are (in alphabetical order) polygamous marriage, same-sex marriage and traditional marriage between a man and a woman

Because i thought it was redundant given the third para - and i don't think it works well in the first para... Petesmiles 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct...though since as of yet I have very little invested here...I am simply trying to critique what is already in the article. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring on THIS page now

That's really enough...Joie, if you disagree with someone's comments, please just disagree. The comments may have a bit of an edge but nothing near warranting removal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All righty. If they want to get themselves blocked, again, I guess they can keep up the name-calling. Joie de Vivre 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you should be concerned about getting yourself blocked. r b-j 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, thing is, if someone wants to make personal attacks, leave 'em there for the world to see. Revert warring over them just tends to get both sides blocked, I generally just tend to ignore them if possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks. Joie de Vivre 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

totallydisputed template

Why is this banner still present? Joie de Vivre 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, the current version's only been subject to a few tweaks over the past couple days. I'd support its removal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

it's a disingenuous question. r b-j 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it the way you interpreted it. I didn't know who had last placed it or whether it was still appropriate. Joie de Vivre 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Total number of marriages and undue weight

1. How many total marriages are there worldwide?
2. How many are of one man and one woman?
3. How many are polygamous?
4. How many are polygynous?
5. How many are of two females?
6. How many are of two males?

This should settle the undue weight question. 63.228.46.229 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards (1): good question. If you can find a source, please share. Note that some strict interpretationists would say summing the values for various countries, and reporting the total, would be original research, and thus not appropriate for Wikipedia. In regards (2) and (3), please realize these overlap, i.e. most polygamous marriages are marriages of one man and one woman, where one or the other of the spouses is already married. Note also that (4) is clearly a subset of (3). Why did you ask about the genders of same-sex couples in (5) and (6)? Why didn't you ask about group marriages? And as regards counting group marriages, in 1878 the population of the Oneida Society was 306. In theory, every male was married to every female. Do you count this as one marriage? 306 marriages? Or, counting each pair and assuming half men and half women, 23,409 marriages? (Oops! Doing that math was certainly original research, which I likely got wrong! ;-) I like the idea of nailing down hard numbers for questions like these, and of course we should report any data we find in our search of sources. Maybe someone should ask a librarian these questions? Sdsds 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also the problem of statistical aberrations-for example, in many countries, some types of marriage are illegal but still done in practice. (I've actually found some sources indicating that while Utah still technically has anti-polygamy laws on the books, the DA there won't prosecute unless any of the people involved are underage.) While WP:NOR does indeed allow trivial mathematical calculations, the interpretation of sociological statistics is rarely trivial. Also, we'd have to determine what we are and are not counting. Would a civil union be a marriage if it confers all the same rights and responsibilities of a marriage? What about only some of them? Would statistics on common-law marriage count? While this appears simple, just "summing the numbers" actually would involve a good deal of interpretation, and thereby violate WP:NOR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IOW, regardless of verified data of types and numbers of marriages, everything is open to interpretation and therefore all the data would be meaningless. Is this correct? 63.228.46.229 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily meaningless, but it would have a depth of meaning that should be interpreted by an expert. If we had, for example, a report by a sociologist, who had interpreted the data and corrected for errors, we could certainly use that as a source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Utah polygamy provides a great example of the difficulties in counting marriages. According to one source the main "trick" polygamists use is what appears on civil records as serial monogamy, i.e. the husband marries one wife, has a few kids, and then dissolves that marriage (on paper) before marrying the next wife. But he still lives part time with his "former" wives, just as if he were still married to them. One recent conviction for this depended on the DA proving these were common-law marriages and thus in violation of their bigamy laws. That's a long digression but it illustrates the question: would we want to count these "former" marriages, or not? Sdsds 03:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(Those interested might want to look at http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ethnoatlas/v860.html.) Sdsds 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What we disagree about

Hey I know: let's start a list!

1) Is marriage "just" a relationship between spouses or is it also a (metaphysical) union of spouses?

2) Is marriage a contract? If so, who are the parties? The spouses? The families? Sometimes one, sometimes the other?

3) If the spouses don't live together (e.g. a "walking marriage"), is it really a marriage?

4) If there is not and never was sex involved, (e.g. many "green card marriages") is it really a marriage?

5) If there is no possibility whatsoever of offspring from a sexual union of the couple, (i.e. infertility) is it really a marriage?

6) If one of the spouses is, at the time of the wedding, something other than a living human, (e.g. a ghost or a god) is it really a marriage?

7) If no affinal ties are formed, (e.g. the families of the spouses don't know about the marriage, as in a "Fleet marriage") is it really a marriage?

8) Do we want to define what "A marriage" is in the first sentence, or what "Marriage" is?

9) How do we want to structure the lead paragraph? Inclusively (ala Trishm) or commonest case first?

10) If we mention a particularly common form of marriage in the lead, must we mention all forms? Must we mention any other forms?

I suspect there might be a few more of these! Anyone want to add to the list? Sdsds 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(i edited the above comment to turn bullets into numbers for ease of discussion - hope you don't mind Sdsds....) - re. point 10) there's an easy answer i think - No. - if certain types of marriage are verifiably statitisically dominant (eg. 15% this, 61% that etc.), then we certainly don't mention forms that are 0.001% in the same breath (like marrying a dead chap) - that's the 'Undue Weight' bit of being neutral. I have a feeling that in this case there is one 90%+ setup (but we kinda need a source) - so that's the only one that needs to be reffered to.....

To give my super quick take on the others;

1) Yes

2) Yes - parties differ

3) Yes

4) Yes

5) Yes

6) no need to strictly define silly behaviour - it's just not relevant

7) Yes

8) Yes

9) This is not the choice we have - it should just be readable, balanced and clear.

see above for 10)

ttfn.. Petesmiles 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think in most of those cases, there probably is a realistic dispute as to whether the union is a marriage. In those cases, we should certainly report on the dispute, not take a side. As to Petesmiles comment that if one form is statistically common it's the "only one we need to refer to", I entirely disagree-we don't only report on Asians in the human article, even though statistically that is the most common. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Domestic partnerships

"Many localities do support various types of domestic partnerships." This is not true as compared to the total number of localities, and is another example of Ssm pushing. It should be removed from the article. 71.34.19.220 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend engaging the above troll - it seems to be banned user nkras who has decided "your rules and policies are not binding upon me." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Continued_Nkras_vandalism ) He has been given an indef, block, his comments should be deleted outright. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Many" doesn't necessarily mean "a majority of". Certainly, we could say "Many cities in the United States are state capitals", even though the majority of cities in the US are not. (Though, if you could actually source the exact number, this would be very helpful!) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

it's just more of the same adjective inflation that is repeatedly pro-SSM. "several" is more accurately depicted as five, "many" would be more accurately depicted as several. it's as if someone is writing a political commercial for the advanment of the SSM agenda using Wikipedia. r b-j 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to dislike the vagueness of those in general, which is why I said that if someone can find a source with exact numbers, we ought always to favor those. I would always rather see information such as "In the United states, XXX counties and YYY cities, in France, ZZZ jurisdictions..." But, without a source stating exact numbers, it's kind of hard to get them! I'll see what I can dig up. In the meantime, if nobody knows the exact numbers, fighting over a specific adjective is pointless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why bother with weasel words like 'many' and 'several' when we can just say how many. 5 countries and 1 US State recognise same-sex marriage. 20 countries (+6 partially) provide some form of civil union for same-sex couples (according to Civil Union). WjBscribe 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Duhhhh, I should've thought to check there...let me grab the sources out of that article and shamelessly copy the refs and numbers over here! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually looks like that's US only...to bring all that over here might be pretty cumbersome, but we should find a way to link to civil union. They've got good numbers there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessments of article quality and progress

Wikipedia:What is a good article? lists six attributes of an article that make it good. I'm wondering how far from that standard other editors see this article as being. More to the point, I suppose, I'm wondering if other editors see the article as making progress towards each (or any) of those goals? Sdsds 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of the lede, I think marriage does decently well. It's no FAC, but it's not a bad article either by any stretch. The lede clearly has problems where it keeps drifing in and out of numbers 3, and 4, and lord knows we can't seem to find #5: stability, but this does not really apply to the rest of the article, IMO. And I do think we've made real progress. As I write this, the lede says "The most frequently occuring form of marriage is between a woman and a man..." Would I prefer it to be a little more open in phrasing to those other forms? Oh, absolutely, but what is there is factually correct, verifiable, and clearly allows us to go on and say, essentially "but not always," once we work out some kinks. Note that with the loss of just one editor who pushed ideology over accuracy, we've become far more able to work out compromise phrasings that, while neither side (for lack of better way of putting it) may embrace, and everyone, including me, wants to tweak it large and small, I think we can all agree it is, at last, truthful. This is indeed a huge step forward over how it was in the last few weeks.. --John Kenneth Fisher 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Having just reread the entire article to get the full flow and context, let me alter my view to be closer to Seraphimblade's below- it is a balanced compromise and a much better article than I gave it credit for. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would even say the current lead really is approaching comprehensiveness, and is really a very good NPOV compromise. The article really is also pretty comprehensive-the coverage worldwide (with free-as-in-speech photos, even!), and covers all different kinds of marriage, currently and historically. With the...assisted departure...of that particular editor who would rather we not cover the subject comprehensively, I think this can be gotten to GA or even FA. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

the assited departure of this particular editor was thwarted by Jimbo. nice try. i wish i could censor whatever you put on your own talk page and when you undelete it, i'll just get a gullible young admin to upend the WP pillars on their heads. r b-j 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Rbj, you'll note that I posted that well before you were blocked, and your block was not to be permanent in any case. Of course, I might be referring to User:Nkras, who the whole thread was referring to. And if I restore a banned user's legal threats in my userspace, I expect I would be blocked, and that someone would attempt to stop me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am performing a copyedit on this article as a member of the League of Copyeditors. Given the comments above, would it be fair to remove the "neutrality" tag on the article? Thanks! Galena11 20:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article completely fails WP:WIAGA criterion 5 at the moment. If the edit war settles down, it could eventually qualify. Mangojuice^talk 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

it also fails criteria 1, 2, and 4. r b-j 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2 at least, there are still {{fact}} tags, which is an autofail. Some of that stuff needs either sourced or removed, I'll see what I can dig up tonight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Please check the edit history for problem areas, noted with hidden comments in the text.

"most frequently occuring" vs "most frequent"

Reading the current lead from a copy-edit perspective, it would be tempting to replace the phrase "the most frequently occuring form of marriage" with "the most frequent form of marriage." Would doing this have subtle implications? Would it change the meaning somehow? Sdsds 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds strange. My grammar is not so Olympian as to be able to say why, but I don't think it sounds right to say "this form is frequent". What's wrong with the sentence as it is? Can we reword the entire sentence? Joie de Vivre 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points! It is more proper to speak of the frequency of occurance. The guideline, "As simple as possible, but no simpler," probably applies. Reading it again, my concern is more with the relative passivity of "occuring". It begs the question, "Whose actions make this occur?" A rewrite using the active voice would make it stronger, though maybe too strong given the delicate political nature of the subject. Thanks for helping me understand this better! Sdsds 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone edited this line again, and the change was properly reverted as vandalism. I wonder, though, if that edit wasn't a hint that the line is objectionable to some percentage of the article's readers. Thinking about those readers (who are after all potentially disruptive editors) I wonder if a change to "The usual form of marriage" would work for everyone? It isn't as scientifically accurate as "most frequently occuring", but it is a bit less awkward. Is implicitly calling other forms of marriage "unusual" offensive? It is denotatively accurate.... Sdsds 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put my two cents in against "the usual." While I quite agree about the denotation, "unusual" gives other forms a connotation of abnormality.

As for those who object, it's difficult to apply any universal conclusion, but I would surmise that the most recent edit (that you note was reverted) was attempting to apply the connotation that their preferred form of marriage was the only form. Justin Eiler 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that objection to 'usual', as it adds a POV connotation even if it has a neural denotation... I have to say, I still don't see the objection to the current "most frequently occuring form of marriage" or similar. I would personally prefer a simple "between individuals", but the current seems a fair compromise that reads to me as accurate, and neither denies the existance of SSM nor denies that Opposite-sex marriage makes up, at the current time at least, an overwhelming majority of all marriages. --John Kenneth Fisher 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The mormons vis-a-vis death-do-us-part

terminated only by the death of one party
Don't the mormons think that marriage continues after death? Martin | talk • contribs 07:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe some other cultures have held that belief as well. Let me see what I can find on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a tough time finding sources for this, but I'll have a look at the library tomorrow or day after. I'm very sure I've heard this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In Mormonism it's called celestial marriage. — coelacan talk — 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The most frequently-occuring form of marriage is ...

With due respect to all the different viewpoints, and recognizing that every good editor wants the article to read as NPOV, we would be well advised to allow right wing fundamentalist christians and orthodox jews to finish the second sentence, which starts, "The most frequently-occuring form of marriage is...." Or at least, unbiased editors should rewrite that sentence to primarily reflect that viewpoint. My personal suggestion is, "The most frequently-occuring form of marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife." It's simple, short, and gets the viewpoint across clearly. If we allow that sentence to say those words, that will sufficiently represent in the lead the fundamentalist christian and orthodox jewish view of marriage. The rest of the lead (including the current first sentence) could then be devoted to explaining the (many) other views of the subject. Sdsds 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your sentence sdsds, so I'm putting it in.... also, i've reworded the very opening just to get rid of those horrible - dashes.... Petesmiles 22:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - any objections to archiving this rather huge talk page? Petesmiles 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As this discussion seems poised to continue, I can just sic Werdnabot on this page, if no one would object? (By the way, I like that intro too Sdsds, that's a lot clearer phrasing then the one I wrote.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the Werdnabot header since no one's objected, set to archive any thread that hasn't had anything posted in over 7 days. If anyone objects, please remove it, or post here and I will. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the wording of that sentence! (As regards the dashes: maybe a good approach would be to take a look at the history of the article, figure out what copy-editor put them there, and then figure out if that editor's sense of correct Wikipedia style is widely honored in the community. Or at least, ask them why they did it!) I also put back the wikilinks in the first sentence. I believe they are of high value in helping the reader understand the POV inherent in that sentence. (And yes, every sentence has a POV. IMHO our best hope is to use a set of sentences which, when taken as a whole, fairly represent all the relevent POVs.) Sdsds 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

close relationships box

does anyone like it? - I don't think it helps at all, and is somewhat incongruous.... my choice would be to either remove it or move it down.... whaddya' reckon? Petesmiles 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the box where it is. The "close relationships" series is a useful one; as a navigation guide to contrast and compare various human relationships I think it works well at the beginning. Certainly not incongruous. — coelacan talk — 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ps. I agree with rbj that it's a bit rude of riff just to revert an edit without coming here - and I don't mind half dome's reword. Though now there's lots of 'lys' to upset me...... Petesmiles 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I too support the presence of the close relationships infobox. If one wants to empahsize the legal-contract aspect of marriage, one could put the family law infobox higher, as was the case earlier in the article's history. But almost by definition, family law varies by jurisdiction. Close relationships, by comparision, seem much more universal to the human condition. Is there some even better infobox that might be placed near the top of the article? If someone found one and inserted it lower down, near the most relevant subsection, that would give all editors a chance to see it.... Sdsds 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)