Talk:Marriage/Archive 7

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between two people, who are referred to either as husband or wife. | Merriam-Webster definition. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: which definition is yours?--Riferimento 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Um, because we're an encyclopedia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 
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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update 

message: So what exactly are you finding not neutral about this article then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral tag has been put back. 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Husband and Wife (again) 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "A marriage" vs. abstract concept "marriage", grammar

message: 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)
replies: text: Comment removed per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. WJBscribe 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Close relationships and Family law infoboxes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another Go... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed POV tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  prerequisite 

message: For all the wrestling we have had over the WP:GRAF I think the current one  is pretty good. 
A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between people.  Most marriages involve one woman and one man | Merriam-Webster definition., 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.
Excerpt -  page 335: '... at the wedding; hence the importance of including in the marriage ceremony the words, "With all my worldly goods I thee endow." ...'
 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.Schwimmer, Brian. (2003). Polygamy. Kinship and Social Organization. http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/polygamy.html.  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. See also: Kaingang.
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)
replies: text: I actually think I prefer this one too.  *sigh*  Joie de Vivre 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =February 6, 2007: A reasonable good lead paragraph

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title: New lead, different definitions of marriage described

message: It might interest people to know that:
# this article has been edited about 500 times this year.
# 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)
replies: text: 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 97% 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article stability

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "non-constructive information" on wikipedia 

message: 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.
# (cur) (last)  19:12, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106478310 by 209.181.235.197 (talk) via undo)
# (cur) (last) 18:40, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106477459 by Zuejay (talk) via undo)
# (cur) (last) 18:36, 7 February 2007 Zuejay (Talk | contribs) (bull)
# (cur) (last) 18:30, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106476037 by Delirium (talk) via undo)
# (cur) (last) 18:29, 7 February 2007 Delirium (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 209.181.235.197 (talk) to last version by Seraphimblade)
# (cur) (last) 18:28, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106475781 by Seraphimblade (talk) via undo)
# (cur) (last) 18:27, 7 February 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) (Revert, please see WP:NPOV.)
# (cur) (last) 18:26, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106475330 by Zuejay (talk) via undo)
# (cur) (last) 18:25, 7 February 2007 Zuejay (Talk | contribs) (rv opinion)
# (cur) (last) 18:23, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk)
# (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)
# (cur) (last) 17:57, 7 February 2007 69.182.166.212 (Talk) (→Definitions throughout history)
# (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.)
# (cur) (last) 17:39, 7 February 2007 Ec5618 (Talk | contribs) (revert to relative consensus. Please discuss major changes on the Talk page)
# (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)
# (cur) (last) 17:33, 7 February 2007 209.181.235.197 (Talk) (←Reverted revision 106463327 by Seraphimblade (talk) via undo)
# (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More Reversions than edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: What? Nothing from Marriage (Judeo-Christian)? 70.56.169.223 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Marriage (post modern)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: You're right.  I think that the article was shaped by emphasis on US politics.Trishm 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage restrictions section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The most commonly recognized form 

message: 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.
Excerpt -  page 335: '... at the wedding; hence the importance of including in the marriage ceremony the words, "With all my worldly goods I thee endow." ...'
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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... ZueJaytalk 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good point.  My preference would be to leave the detail for later.Trishm 06:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. ZueJaytalk 07:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the encouragement, Seraphimblade. I'll just have to be more cautious when choosing to work on an exploding article. Ka-BOOM! ZueJaytalk 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction using the umbrella approach 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The lead def should be concise and not a dissertation. 63.228.40.145 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Take a look at my edit to Ssm. 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)
replies: text:  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. ZueJaytalk 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  hmmm.... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  publicly recognized vs secret marriage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  ... Please join in here! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kinda redundant sentence... 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Good advice.  Thanks.  Joie de Vivre 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert warring on THIS page now

message: Why is this banner still present?  Joie de Vivre 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  it's a disingenuous question. r b-j 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: totallydisputed template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (Those interested might want to look at http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ethnoatlas/v860.html.) Sdsds 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total number of marriages and undue weight 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What we disagree about 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Domestic partnerships 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Yeah, this article completely fails WP:WIAGA criterion 5 at the moment.  If the edit war settles down, it could eventually qualify.  Mangojuicetalk 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it also fails criteria 1, 2, and 4. r b-j 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 at least, there are still  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)
thread_title:  Assessments of article quality and progress 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: In Mormonism it's called celestial marriage. — coelacan talk — 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mormons vis-a-vis death-do-us-part 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The most frequently-occuring form of marriage is ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  close relationships box