Talk:Marriage/Archive 5

message: The problem with this article is a lack of sourcing and definition of its subject. "Marriage" is a word in the English language which can literally refer to some things, figuratively refer to others and be part of a phrase like "plural marriage" to refer to other things also. Other languages descibing other cultures can have one or more words that can be translated as "marriage" but cultural differences mean that the translation is never exact. For every claim in this article the question must be asked "Who says so?" WAS 4.250 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing and definitions

message: *Definition of "marriage" as a word and Summary of marriage by reliable encyclopedias
*Marriage in English common law tradition and current American law
*Marriage from an anthropological perspective
*An anthropological perspective of marriage from a political perspective
*An anthropological perspective of marriage from a mathematical perspective
WAS 4.250 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS, they don't get it and they won't get it (they choose not to get it), because they have decided that their POV is the truth (as in "truthiness").  they are POV warriors who don't think that their own shit stinks. r b-j 05:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some sources

message: The second sentence currently reads, "Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony."  
It could be simpler: "Marriages are usually declared by a wedding ceremony."  
For simplicity sake can we make this replacement without controversy?
Also, there is a section that discusses this in more detail.
Would changing its title from "Recognition" to "Declaration and Recognition" draw any objection? Sdsds 08:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Sentence, and "Recognition" Section 

message: One way to improve the first sentence would be to integrate verifiable source citations for each of the points Puellanivis lists above.  Then someone could in good faith remove the  tag.  But there might still be claims that the sentence doesn't adequately express all major points of view on the subject.  Another approach would be to use the first sentence to openly acknowledge a lack of consensus.  For example,
:The fundamental nature of marriage is the subject of philosophical debate:   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.
Can we all agree there is this lack of consensus?  Is the sentence above written with a sufficiently neutral point of view?  Does anyone feel their own point of view is inadequately represented? Sdsds 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitions − as found in published dictionaries for example - won't be useful.  They are what WP:RS calls "tertiary sources."  What the introduction to the article needs to convey is that existing "secondary sources", all of them either scholarly or otherwise meeting the highest standards of reliability, contradict one another.  That is, the first sentence should convey that the meaning of marriage is the subject of scholarly debate. Sdsds 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionaries are not tertiary sources. WP: RS does not even mention dictionaries. Most mainstream dictionaries are scholarly publications produced by professional scholars, known as Lexicographers. Please add to the essay called "WP:NOTLEX" for more discussion on the use of dictionaries as sources. MPS 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A dictionary definition is sometimes a useful way to begin an article and always a useful way to begin a subsection on the use of a word as a word. Reliable Encyclopedia introductions (source provided above) are by definition a useful way to introduce our encyclopedia article either as an example for us to follow or as a quote if there is lack of agreement on a rewording of the sources. WAS 4.250 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is an understatement.  in a contentious article, the dictionary definition is the only way to begin the article in a NPOV manner.  otherwise whatever else is written, was written from some particular editor's POV and there are other editors who don't share it.  if it's OED or Merriam-Webster writing the lead intro sentence, no single party can (legitimately) complain about the POV.  it simply states what marriage is defined to be in the English language.  it is no mere accident that all three English language dictionaries all say in the primary definition, that marriage is a union of or the state of being "husband and wife" and nearly immediately afterward state an alternative definition that includes same-sex marriage.  both need to be in this article, but the primary definition is what it is, despite what the SSM interest groups wants the world to believe. r b-j 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Establishing what the article is to be about is critical to a successful collaboration on an article. WAS 4.250 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different way forward for the first sentence 

message: Many of the  comments have been in this article for multiple weeks. I think it is time we start deleting the uncited assertion. I believe that the problem is NOT that statements are false, I think the problem is that it is very difficult to find a citation for someone else’s work. I am going to start deleting the uncited assertions and pasting them to the talk page.
I understand that some editors feel that some of these  comments are actually passive aggressive POV pushing and unjustified.  I would ask that editors take the time and remove the unjustified  comments.--Riferimento 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Remove Unjustified Citation Needed Comments

message: There's a commonly held conception that a marriage almost always creates a family unit.  I think this point of view should be reflected in the article, especially if anyone can find a good source to cite for it.  Frequently however marriages occur, even in current times, which do not create a co-habitating family unit.  The article cites one culture where it almost never happens.  Also, the historical and modern Saudi tradition called misyar marriage involves the husband and wife living separately.  To say their marriage is for the purpose of forming a family unit would be highly misleading.  These marriages are frequent, not rare. Sdsds 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation of a Family Unit 

message: Since the onemanonewomen vigilantes have returned constructive editing will no longer be possible. Any constructive edit made during this new war may be reverted and lost. Please keep an eye out for cited work that is added to this article so that it can be returned to the article after the fighting is over.--Riferimento 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd. It should certainly be "between two persons" to be neutral. .V. (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken off the dispute tag- it's really bad to have it on an article if it can be avoided and I don't think its necessary yet. We shouldn't preempt disputes. Lets continue with normal editing, working towards a concensus. I see no onemanonewomen vigilantes... The present text expresses the fact that marriage is usually between a man and a woman (which is true) and I've restored coverage of same sex and polygamous marriage to the intro rather than a later section. Hopefully the present version is a compromise acceptable to all. If someone doesn't like the present content they can change it, this is Wikipedia after all. (PS. I'd prefer two people to two persons if that version is adopted). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to make it obvious that the POV pushers are back. I also placed a request for comment. Consensus was reached on  December 31, 2006.--Riferimento 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the POV pushers hadn't left.  and they are you. r b-j 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  oh yeah, just like Congress voting themselves a pay raise at midnight, while everyone is gone on holiday (and not at their computers) "Consensus was reached on  December 31, 2006".   ha-ha. r b-j 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please lets leave out the whole calling people POV pushers. Personal attacks are not necessary and these debates would be much easier if everyone showed respect for other contributors' opinions. Both sides have legitimate views here and what we're looking for is concensus/compromise (thats what NPOV is) rather than one set of views triumphing over another. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WJB, i am battlescarred here.  i've only been trying to stem POV edits and have cited sources, dictionary definitions, statistics (that hated "95+%"), explained the nature of the POV, defended the reference to same-sex marriage in the lead paragraph, looked for compromise and allowed such to stand, and done everything the WP way, yet this unrelenting LGBT interest group activists insist on their POV in modifying the definition from what it is, to what they want it to be.  rather than wait for the change in society where the status quo becomes that where marriage is thought of without reference to the genders of the partners, these POV pushers cannot wait and are trying to use Wikipedia to further the political and social goals by defining the terms of the debate.  they do not have the right to do that anymore than the religious right has.  i don't wanna see Jerry Falwell coming here and crapping up the article, but the LGBT crowd doesn't get to do it either. r b-j 04:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rb-j-Please cite the 95% in the article and let it stand for itself. Inform the readers. I never have been able to find it so I do not know if it was a legitimate statical analysis of a randomly chosen population or just how 19 out of 20 of your friends feel.--Riferimento 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's not in the article, but several times in discussing what should be the lead sentence (the definition) i mentioned that (conservatively) 95% of human beings do not see marriage or understand marriage to be same-sex.  2 weeks ago CovenantD asked me where i got such a figure and i immediately answered and said that i added up all of the population of the jurisdictions in dark blue on this map (5 countries and the state of Massachusetts) and divided by 6 billion. (and got 97%, so 95% is conservative).  then, as a result, Coelacan said that i'm "just making these numbers up. It's blatant WP:OR. And it's completely wrong."  but, in fact, it is completely right, not OR, and i didn't just make these numbers up.  it's shit like this that is battle scarring.  and these LGBT POV pushers don't even realize that i am not coming from the religious right, nor am i against equality for gays.  not at all.  what i am against is using Wikipedia to define the world as they would wish, not as it is.  i am against using Wikipedia as a vehicle for social change rather than to reflect it.  they are the POV pushers, not me, and that is obvious to any intellectually honest person who thinks critically. r b-j 05:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, another request for calm. You are only going to work yourself up more by bringing up old debates about which you bear ill-feeling. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning though. It assumes that people in countries/states conceive marriage according to what the local law is. There are no doubt people in some countries that do not allow same sex (or polygamous) marriage who encompass those forms in their view of marriage. Similarly, there are no doubt some people in the state of Massachusetts that do not recognise same sex marriages as marriages in their personal definition. Ideally all these personal definitions should be irrelevant. We are not trying to create an article on the most common form of marriage. That would be relatively easy. This article has the much tougher task of attempting to be an overview of marriage generally. And therefore must in some way give fair coverage to all forms of marriage, marriage in all cultures, and marriage at all points in history. How to keep balanced the coverage of such a vast topic is, as I understand it, the problem that faces us here. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i agree with you about the weak connection regarding "people in countries/states conceive marriage according to what the local law is".  but what of the converse?  just because less than 3% of the world's population lives in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage, just because in the past 5 years (out of 5000), that these very few juridictions have, within their boundaries, changed the legal meaning, that means that we change the definition from the current primary dictionary definition in the three major English dictionary to what the SSM advocates want???  95% is still a conservative estimate.  what are they saying that because 2% of the world's population live in jurisdictions that recognize SSM, that a much greater percentage of the world's population think that "marriage" means or includes SSM?  they don't have to justify their numbers??  or, if they don't, that just because almost no-one outside of Wikipedia even stop to think that "marriage" might mean SSM, that they get to taylor the article to reflect their desire that people include SSM when they think of the topic: Marriage?  that is ridiuculous, nakedly POV, and is trying to use Wikipedia to get people to think differently about marriage.  the LGBT lobby gets to use their own media resources to do that, not Wikipedia. the right the SSM interest group has to sculpt the definition to meet their liking is no greater than the right that Jerry Falwell does.  if the religious right had their way, there would be no mention of SSM whatsoever in the marriage article and there would be no same-sex marriage article at all.  or they would define SSM as "disgusting godless sodomy".  that's what they think of it.  do they have the right to go to the SSM article and define SSM as they wish?  r b-j 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think snubbing faiths and cultures that practice polygamy is appropriate in Wikipedia.  Marriage is most certainly not always just between two people, and it certainly shouldn't be defined as such in an unbiased encyclopedia.  The comment above that marriage is "between two people" simply isn't appropriate.  Rklawton 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: I don't know why this hasn't gone to arbitration. That seems the only solution to me. We were almost ready to arbitrate in December, but sanity prevailed and a good lead was written (a lead that was agreed to by people on both sides, I should add). Now that another edit was is erupting, arbitration once again seems the only solution....and page protection Jeffpw 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcom doesn't rule on content, only on behavior. And arbitration is never binding as new editors can always show up and reraise issues.  WAS 4.250 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimetely it can rule on content but there are a few more formal steps to go through first. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There seems to be some concern about the time interval (the holidays) when this "concensus" was reached. By implication, the "sanity" you describe only prevailed because "insanity" was taking a vacation.  Sdsds 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbcom And Arbitration

message: OK, I'm going to make a suggestion to try and stop this article from getting stuck in deadlock/ a revert war.
I am assuming that there are 2 competing views on how the introduction should read (please correct me if I am wrong). I suggest that both sides of the debate create below a version of how, in their view, the introduction should read. Please remember WP:NPOV in drafting them. Those sample intros can then present a basis for discussion and hopefully a mutually acceptable compromise.
Note. A version that contains no mention of gay marriage/polygamy is unlikely to gain concensus. Similarly a version that doesn't note that the predominant form of marriage in the world is between a man and a woman is unlikely to gain concensus. 
Lets try and see how much distance there is between the 2 groups here... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, that could be fun!  I wonder, though, that you perceive only two competing views!  I propose an introduction with a single sentence, leaving everything else to be hashed out in sub-sections.  The intro I propose is, "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of two or more people, usually a man and a woman." (But any tightly worded compromise would be better than the current text!) Sdsds 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful though it would be to keep it that simple, the Manual of Style requires 2 or 3 paragraphs for the lead section in an article of this size (see WP:LEAD). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The text to which you refer in WP:LEAD reads, "The following specific suggestions have been proposed."  That is, 2 or 3 paragraphs is a proposed suggestion, not a requirement. Of course we agree my proposal couldn't do everything WP:LEAD says a lead should do.  In particular, one sentence couldn't adequately describe the subject's "notable controversies." But apparently neither can 3 paragraphs.... Sdsds 06:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed way forward

message: :Oh yes, that could be fun!  I wonder, though, that you perceive only two competing views!  I propose an introduction with a single sentence, leaving everything else to be hashed out in sub-sections.  The intro I propose is, "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of two or more people, usually a man and a woman." (But any tightly worded compromise would be better than the current text!) Sdsds 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful though it would be to keep it that simple, the Manual of Style requires 2 or 3 paragraphs for the lead section in an article of this size (see WP:LEAD). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The text to which you refer in WP:LEAD reads, "The following specific suggestions have been proposed."  That is, 2 or 3 paragraphs is a proposed suggestion, not a requirement. Of course we agree my proposal couldn't do everything WP:LEAD says a lead should do.  In particular, one sentence couldn't adequately describe the subject's "notable controversies." But apparently neither can 3 paragraphs.... Sdsds 06:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Path of a One-Sentence Introduction

message: To gain an external perspective on the matter, I thought it might be interesting to see what other language Wikipedias say in their marriage articles. I also edit on French Wikipedia so have looked at the article there.
I have translated below the introduction from the article there:
In the majority of societies, marriage is an alliance between a man and a women, the aim of which is to form a family. This is described as a manogamous marriage. In some contries, notable in Africa and the Middle East, a form of marriage involving one man and a number of women is practiced, which is known as polygamous marriage. In some very rare instances in Asis, a marriage between one woman and several men is practices and this is described as polyandry. Equally, homosexual marriage has begun to be legalised in many countries.
Marriage is a union of indefinite duration which is terminated only by divorce or the death of either party. The union can be religiously as well as legally recognised if performed by leader of a religious congregation.
In France, since a law of the 14 April 2006, the man and woman cannot enter into a marriage contract before the age of 18 (previously, the age for the female party was fixed at 15) wihout the permission of their parents, which is necessary even in the case of emancipated minors.
In terms of canon law, marriage in the law of the Catholic church cannot be entered into before the age of 14 for the female party and 16 for the male party.
In general the implication of marriage is that sexual relations take place between the spouses (martial sex was a legal requirement overriding consent until recently in most jurisdictions and still is in numerous countries). Non-consumation can be a ground for annuling a marriage.
Notably none of the sentences are referenced in the original version there. The coverage of polygamous arrangements seems more extensive and the coverage of same-sex marriage less so. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the French Wiki, but Dutch and German Wikis don't mandate references, so most articles don't have them. Jeffpw 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage at French Wikipedia

message: Marriage is a type of living arrangement, generally between one man and one woman, which forms the legal foundation of many families and generally forms the legally and socially accepted basis of sexual relations and family ties. The precise definition of marriage is dependent upon the historic and cultural context (see below). World-wide, heterosexual, monogmous marriages are the most common, followed by polygamy (a marriage between one man and more than one woman). Frome the late 20th century onwards, some countries accept the term marriage to define homosexual unions. In the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Afrika marriage between people of the same sex has been legalized (See gay marriage). Other countries, such as Latvia, define marriage in their constitution as explicitly a contract between a man and a woman. Jeffpw 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage at the Dutch Wikipedia

message: A dispute exists when two sides each claim to be "right": objective, true, correct, unbiased, whatever they say of their position.
Wikipedia's role is never to declare either side to be correct but rather to describe the dispute between them. We do not say that Pluto is or is not a planet but rather that, until last year, astronomers generaly considered it to be a planet; then it was demoted by them regardless of what most people think.
Marriage has traditionally been held to be a relationship between one man and one woman, although many variations have been described. Pending a discovery that it has been a minority tradition, we should play it safe by describing it as the norm. Yes, in some cultures men have had mistresses, concubines or even extra wives, but how prevalent has this been? I've seen no research in the article to suggest it was ever more than a rare variation. 
As for the modern gay rights movement attempt to enlarge the definition to include "two or more people of either sex", we should write an article on their advocacy; we should not simply adopt it as a "consensus view". There is no consensus here. Rather, there is a dispute between those who feel marriage is one man, one woman, and those who feel it does (or can) have a broader definition. The place for a full description for all the variants of marriage is Types of marriage. --Uncle Ed 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marriage has traditionally been held to be a relationship between one man and one woman With regard to passive voice declarations like this, it might be helpful if we knew specfically who holds this view. I find it hard to believe that this formulation of "traditional marriage" that excludes any other form extends to, say, countries in the Middle East. Saying that a majority of marriages are heterosexual-monogamous is not the same as saying that monogamy is the only tradition.--Media anthro 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing

message: Please take a look at the subsection above called POV pushing. Uncle Ed, a longtime contributor and experienced capable dispute-resolver, has made some apt comments. Perhaps he could be drafted to help resolve some issues with this article. Do any of the disputants care to let him take a shot? WAS 4.250 09:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Uncle Ed has been a great contributor to this encyclopedia, his reputation on POV pushing is not exactly stellar.  Last summer's ArbComm Case does not support the idea that he is an able resolver of disputes like this. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What process or person do you recommend as an alternative to the current "I used up my reverts" situation? I like it when people add relevant quotes from reliable published sources (and do not delete relevant quotes from reliable published sources) and then when everything in the article is properly sourced begin the task of rewording quotes (where appropriate) and moving the actual quotes to footnotes. In other words: Step one: find sources; Step two: accumulate relevant quotes; Step three: reword using sourced quotes as footnotes. Arguments should be about whether or not to say "According to The Oxford English Dictionary" or not; about whether a source is reliable or not; about whether a quote is in context or not; about whether a rewording is supported by a quote or not. This business of having a revert war over whether the first sentence includes gay marriage or not is just sad. WAS 4.250 14:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of Uncle Ed’s use of the phrases “Marriage has traditionally been held to be a relationship between one man and one woman” and “attempt to enlarge the definition” I am not sure he understands the controversy. If he did I am sure he would have avoided using these controversial prejudicial phrases both of which support a particular POV. I suggest that we describe the different types of marriages and stop creating definitions or citing partial definitions.--Riferimento 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think marriage issues are complicated enough that even professional anthropologists debate them and Ed's suggestion to document the controversy is appropriate. I also fully agree with your recommendation that "we describe the different types of marriages and stop creating definitions or citing partial definitions." Can others agree to this? WAS 4.250 15:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we might be best off by identifying (on the talk page) what the leading journals and centers of research are around the world.  Then we might be able to describe the significant views of experts in the field on what marriage is, it's impact on the world and how it developed.  I agree the current discussion is unproductive (which is how I read your comments above). -- Siobhan Hansa 15:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this also and it is fully compatible with Riferimento and Ed's suggestions. Can we all agree to these three things
#Ed: document the controversy 
#Riferimento: describe the different types of marriages and stop creating definitions or citing partial definitions
#Siobhan Hansa: "identifying (on the talk page) what the leading journals and centers of research are around the world.  Then we might be able to describe the significant views of experts in the field on what marriage is, it's impact on the world and how it developed."
WAS 4.250 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I guess I can hardly say no since I suggested it!  I do think this sort of thing needs more than one person.  I have no idea how to find research on Asian, Latin American or African marriage for a start, and my knowledge of the English speaking social science research world is not huge, so I would appreciate any help people can provide. I'm starting collecting things in my sandbox.  I haven't actually looked at the sites yet.  I'm trawling through things like Google scholar getting links and info together.  It may take a while to get up to speed.  I'm flying for most of the rest of the weekend and will be online only intermittently for the next 10 days or so.  -- Siobhan Hansa 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  check this diff (with the current).  the version from me that you insisted was too skewed, in i dunno what direction but i suspect it was not liked by those not wanting "man and woman" or "husband and wife", now has that and does not have the same-sex reference that my unacceptable version included.  what gives?r b-j 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a tag above this article that clearly says that the “neutrality and factual accuracy are disputed” no reasonable person would trust this information. After a while real editors give up and let the POV pushers have their way.--Riferimento 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing - part two

message: :A form of group marriage where an individual (male or female) is married to more than one other person is called polyamory. This is unique from traditional group marriage in that each member of the group would be legally married to each other member of the group regardless of gender.
It appears one school of thought among Wikipedians contributing to our Marriage article, is that common forms of "marriage" are variations on the general concept of Group marriage. 
In my thinking, marriage (or perhaps "traditional Western marriage"?) is indeed a more narrow concept; group marriage is the variation. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Group marriage as the general form

message: Cut from intro:
:Convention assumes that people who marry are normally in love.
Where and when has this been a convention? (Don't get me wrong: I've heard this all my life, growing up in the Northeast of the US, but we are talking universals here.)
Let's do a little research: what proportion of marriages are love matches (as in Bend It Like Beckham) as opposed to arranged (by force as in Ever After or voluntarily as in many Asian countries)? --Uncle Ed 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Love and marriage