Talk:Marriage/Archive 4

message: Its good to see that the differences in opinion have reached a compromise on wording, I have just unprotected the article. Gnangarra 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no! What happens if someone else trolls by, and messes up our good work? ;-( Nkras 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the watchpage function is for. :-) Happy 2007, everyone! Jeffpw 00:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont worry about the occassional troll, wait until the article becomes WP:FA then gets on the main page. Enjoy, its on my watchlist as well, you can always ask for protection if it becomes a problem. Gnangarra 01:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: The lead paragraph and feature still lacks many features and reflects the many attempts in the current generation to re-define marriage and bring in a revisionist account of the definition, historicity, and role of marriage.  Features lacking include the aspect of covenant, oath, and vow related to marriage along with faithfulness or steadfastness to those commitments.  The solemness of the covenant brings protection to women and  children who are protected from abandonment and hardship by commitment to the covenant.  Also, the common taking on of the man's surname by the woman is missing.  The role of marriage in rating taxes and insurance is missing.  The historicity of marriage is missing including just recognition of its role in ancient cultures and Judaeo-Christian cultures, and its universality across modern cultures.  The section on Definitions Throughout History comes far short of meeting this purpose.  A reference to Adam and Eve is missing where God Himself is said to have brought the woman to the man in the first marriage.  This is the protype of marriage as widely understood. The alleged purposes of marriage are asserted in the first paragraph but never re-visited and never elaborated.  This article is ready for an example of revisionism but not an example of NPOV, fairness, balance, accuracy, historicity, and comprehensiveness. One good thing about this article is that the economics section has become more complete.  In order to stabilize, the article probably needs to be reduced to core necessities with many discussions moved to sub-articles. Itohacs 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree a lot of work needs to be done on the article. Each section must be edited - or deleted and reworked - as the case may be. For arguments, see above and the archives. You'll get an idea about the latest war here. Nkras 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph, revisionism, and future edits 

message: Why the edit replacing "economic stability" with "transfer of property"? I agree with the deletion of the template, though. I won't miss it. I removed the bulk of the two sections - too many "citations needed" and repetition of information. Nkras 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various edits 

message: Nkras, you are going to start another edit war if you remove that section. In the first place, it is part of marriage proper, and is a form of marriage. In the second place, it is mentioned in the lead, so needs to be discussed in the body of the article, per WP:MOS. I had thought I could unwatchlist this article now. I am glad I didn't. Jeffpw 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm done, I'm sure. Not all editors know the Manual of Style by heart, after all. -- Ec5618 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should read about editing before taking a Gravely to the article :-s Nkras 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of same-sex marriage section