Talk:Marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marriage article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Marriage, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

This article lacks historical information. Please add it if you can. For more information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical information. Please remove this message once the article has been expanded.

Archives Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5, Archive6, Archive7

Contents 1 Who's Elmer? 1.1 break so we don't have to scroll so far 1.2 We should not attempt to define the abstract concept of Marriage 2 "Geographic areas" 3 That there intro again..... 4 Why is there a Request for Citation 5 The Neutrality Tag 6 Formatting near the top of the page 7 re-structuring 8 Protection 9 Too few opinions.... 10 Marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society. 11 Complete perspective with this sentence in lead?

[edit] Who's Elmer?

This may seem like nitpicking, fair warning, but it struck me as quite curious indeed that the reference for the first and in some sense the most important sentence in this entire article was an obscure online dictionary which I had never heard of. Now this is not to disparage that online dictionary; I may not be well read enough online if you will. But aren't there several far more authoritative dictionaries than that one?

Could someone explain why that source is the preferred one for the lead sentence in this article, as opposed to alternate but far more accepted and authoritative sources? (Note I am not arguing content per se; I checked and indeed that ref supports this article's content, specifically the first sentence). Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

what they did is remove two of the three authoritive and neutral dictionary references (OED, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage) and replace them with one that is congruent to the LGBT and same-sex marriage POV. we don't have neutral POV here anymore. it's the neutral POV that is satisfactory the the gay and same-sex marriage crowd that goes into the article. r b-j 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, please remember to assume good faith. If you disagree with the current consensus, that is of course your choice, but making accusative or disruptive statements, or going off on soapbox tangents, will not improve the article. Justin Eiler 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

as i said at the other battleground, assuming good faith (or anything else) happens at the beginning. to continue to assume something when the evidence points to something else is not a virtue. r b-j 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to read this discussion page and its archives to form your own impression of how the article's lead sentence was formulated. (In summary: the process wasn't easy!) The source citation was added after-the-fact to substantiate the definition made by the lead sentence. Sdsds 05:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Yep..., "wasn't easy" is one way of putting it.  ;-) Actually, knowing what I know about WP and the nature of this topic, I would have expected worse prose for the lead; my issue was with the (relative) obscurity of its source. But if what you claim is true about it, that speaks more to me than the consensus of a thousand editors. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i can't think of worse prose for the lead! it's so convoluted particularly when there were much simpler, truly NPOV versions [1] and congruent to the dictionary definitions of marriage here. this politically correct spegetti bowl of convolved sentences is there, not for clarity, accuracy, or for neutral POV, but to accomodate the wishes of LGBT and SSM advocates. r b-j 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[2] is "truly NPOV"??? That... wow, that says a lot. Once again I find myself asking where several nations, states, religions, etc. went since last I looked at a map. Look, pal, I understand you have a personal opinion you want to enforce, but pushing for people to change public resources to claim that large sections of the world and the people in it don't exist probably isn't going to win NPOV contests. I'd prefer different phrasing myself, in the opposite direction of yourself, but in the interest of keeping this a worthwhile resource, let's try to keep accuracy above idealogy, a'ight? --John Kenneth Fisher 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

it's what the dictionaries say and it's cited. if you don't think it's NPOV, then your issue of slanted POV should be taken up with the lexographers that write these dictionaries. are you saying that the OED, M-W, AH dictionarys are all three slanted POV in their definition of marriage, of which all three put in "union of ..." or "of being husband and/or wife" in their very first sentence (the primary definition) which is the taboo you demand to be removed from the Wikipedia article? r b-j 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"The ENCYCLOPEDIA that anyone can edit." And dictionaries can lag behind the law of the land. I'm sure it took some time for dic.'s to update the definition of 'rape' when it was expanded to include marital rape, men being raped, etc. Doesn't change that the legal and social meaning of the word had been expanded, and the fact that the dictionaries lagged didn't affect the actual reality on the ground. And again, you're denying the views of various nations, religions, states, etc. because you don't like them. Accuracy, like the curent lede, over idealogy, please. --John Kenneth Fisher 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the dictionaries include a reference to SSM (as they should) but are a better neutral authority than either you or me or the LGBT folk about what "marriage" means. the problem with supplanting the dictionary definition with one of any particular editor's POV is that of choosing whose POV it is. perhaps we should let the hard-core Judeao-Christian conservatives be that POV? should we? if not them, why give it to the LGBT and SSM advocates? as for "dictionaries can lag behind the law of the land", that's also a loser of an arguement. the law of 97¹⁄₂% of the land (be it by population or number of jurisdictions) explicitly does not support defining marriage as SSM. according to the vast majority of people in the world, as reflected by the social structure, law, and tradition of their societies, same-sex marriage is not marriage. and the burden of proof to show differently rest on those who displace the legal definition (in 97¹⁄₂% of the world) and dictionary definition (unanimously) of marriage with a contrived and convoluted definition that can claim no other virtue than that it satisfies their POV. but they don't make the case that their POV (that is not congruent to the legal and dictionary definitions) deserves to be satisfied in a Wikipedia article. they don't make the case that their LGBT and pro-SSM POV is the NPOV. r b-j 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the NPOV is not by definition the same POV of the LGBT project here and it's a real assumption of entitlement for the LGBT and SSM folk to assert that such an article, especially one that does not exist under the rubrik of the LGBT project, to pass a litmus test with them to be considered acceptable POV for Wikipedia. that is the fundamental dispute about the nature of Wikipedia and the actions of the LBGT advocacy to control articles to reflect their POV or even one that is acceptable to them. r b-j 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Please, enough rehashing of the same old same old. I have no intention on reinventing the wheel, let alone the square one that this is. I simply wanted to know about the reference issue. All your replies (and this Talk) have answered my question to my complete satisfaction. In hindsight, I could have answered my own question. Regardless, thanks all. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, you're being misleading again in any case.All the dictionary entries cited specifically mentioned same-sex marriage, and stated that other forms could occur as well. Not one of those had their sole definition as "man and woman". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

no, i'm being neutral and accurate. it is the changing of existing definitions to make them acceptable to the SSM POV which is misleading. it is misleading because it implies that the this LGBT has prevailed in the wide social, religious, or legal context but it hasn't yet. the SSM folks are trying to use Wikipedia to reflect a victory they haven't yet won (but they very well may in the next few decades). but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to help move that social movement on. Wikipedia must not be used as an agent of social change for any particular interest group. i am not being misleading and you make no case to support that charge. r b-j 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute - SeraphimBlade is right... I just looked up two of those three dictionaries.... (I don't have access to the OED one? Maybe I missed something) but they both do mention same-sex relationships right there in the definition of marriage... so.... I have no idea what you're talking about. (And the Wash Times article you linked to says that they are working on expanding the definitions to match the legal/social changes in their upcoming editions... so yeah, I'm totally at a loss to explain the conflict between them and what you said up above -- you DO realize that there are multiple definitions listed in a dictionary, and that they are all valid, right? (Take a look at [3] for instance, and tell me if we should only acknowledge definition #1.) Again, I'm going against WP:AGF here, but you almost have to wonder if r-b-j was hoping we wouldn't call his bluff and actually read to verify his claims. --John Kenneth Fisher 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i have always supported "my" claims with references. the dictionaries all have many definitions, but they are not all equally prevalent ("valid" is another property which depends on who is determining validity). that's why principal meanings come first. the article here should reflect that otherwise it's POV. r b-j 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

if you look at what i've consistently been saying, i have always said that the dictionaries include, as an alternate definition (not the primary) SSM (and every edit i have made to fix the POV in the lead of the article has always included a specific reference to SSM including factual information and more space in the lead than its 2¹⁄₂% deserves). but each of these dictionary definitions begin with the definition that marriage is either a "union of husband and wife" or "of being husband or wife" consistently. you guys continue to conveniently overlook that consistancy of definition (as well as other facts). it's always this "we have this handful of countries and one U.S. state, and this ridiculously obscure and unauthoritive reference that reflects or at least does not contradict our POV, and because of that, our POV is the NPOV." that's pretty weak. r b-j 03:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, you've admitted it does indeed exist. So wouldn't "marriage is a man and woman" be sometimes inaccurate? And wouldn't "marriage is MOST FREQUENTLY between a man and woman" be, you know, not inaccurate? Don't you think accuracy is important in an encylopedia? --John Kenneth Fisher 03:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

there is a fundamental issue of whether or not SSM is marriage. it's not recognized as such in virtually all of the world (97¹⁄₂%). it's not whether I think SSM is marriage or not, but the article must reflect what the reality is. but the state of it defines SSM as marriage without reflecting that it is not understood to be marriage in the vast majority of the world. that is injecting POV. marriage should be defined in the article for what it is, and the fact that there are jurisdictions that include SSM as marriage should be reflected in the article, and the controversy should be refected. this article does not do that. it reflect the false image that SSM coexists equally with heterosexual marriage in the lexicon. that's misleading. r b-j 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, the fact that people are against same-sex marriage doesn't mean it isn't marriage. Even opponents to allowing it call it "same-sex marriage", they simply think it shouldn't be an allowed form. Murder is illegal everywhere, but that doesn't mean murders don't happen, or that it's inaccurate to define murder as "the intentional killing of a human being by another human being without justifiable cause", just because it's illegal to do it. Secondly, same-sex marriage is undoubtedly a valid, verifiable, and important consideration to what marriage is, as are polygamy and other forms that have been parts of it in the current and historical context. Finally, if we're going to cite the dictionary, we don't get to pick and choose what part of the definition we'd like to accept. Historically, polygamy was widely acceptable, for example, so telling our readers in an encyclopedia article that the only form of marriage is one man-one woman is verifiably inaccurate. We should cover all aspects while properly framing the subject (which we do, by stating what is currently the most common form). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

and just because a vast minority of people define SSM as "marriage" doesn't mean that it is marriage. people disagree with what is murder and what isn't. people who support the death penalty do not think that a judicial execution is murder and other's disagree. what cannot be disputed is that it is homicide and if someone tried to define judicial executions as something other than homicide, that would be blatently neglecting the meaning of words. also, many people, in fact the vast majority of people as reflected in the laws that reflect the social norms do doubt the validity of same-sex marriage. hardly "undoubtedly" and saying so reveals a POV that is hardly neutral. r b-j 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And 97.5% of the people can feel they are invalid based on their own culture and laws, but wikipedia is global, and there are places it is unambiguously valid. So your suggested sentence would be demonstrably inaccurate. Why is this hard? --John Kenneth Fisher 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with the above, please forgive the redundancy) But rbj, in many places it IS unambiguously marriage. How can you state that there is a fundamental issue of whether people who get married under the law, under their churches, before their communities, etc, somehow might not ACTUALLY be married? Maybe you feel that they SHOULDN'T be, but there's no reasonable way you can claim they AREN'T. To state as an unqualified fact "marriage is between a man and a woman" is simply not always accurate. What is more important than accuracy in an encylopedia? --John Kenneth Fisher 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

you guys might either want to look at the archives of what i have said about my personal position in the past, which i am trying to deliberately not be a factor at all, but since you keep bringing it up and guessing wrong. i am probably politically further to the left than any of you one practically any issue. i worked on the Howard Dean campaign in 2003 and 2004 and even introduced the Gov to a town hall meeting in the NH primary. you check out what Dean did when governor of Vermont and ask yourself why this long-haired 60's liberal (me) would support him if he was anti-gay for some reason. what's worse than the hypocrisy of the Republicans and conservatives is the hypocrisy in my own camp, because we should know better. this gay-friendly litmus test is the blatent politically correctness that is such an easy target for the conservatives when they discover it, that they will (rightly) beat it over the head of Wikipedia. it is the blatent injection of POV from the systemic bias in Wikipedia that is one of the reasons many scholars laugh at Wikipedia. you guys think you know better than the lexographers and you simply do not. you guys insist that your POV is the NPOV and it is not. you imply that this is reflective of the widespread reality and it is not. it is blatent POV. r b-j 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The INDEFINITE "you", sheesh. Next time I'll say "Maybe one feels". So again, I ask this question clearly and wonder if I will get an answer: Why should we replace an accurate sentence with one that is demonstrably inaccurate, and how can you state that there is a fundamental issue of whether people who get married under the law, under their churches, before their communities, etc, somehow might not ACTUALLY be married? Based on.. what? what's left? Honestly, who else needs to sign off on this before you are satisfied that they didn't imagine the marriage license and vows in a fever hallucination? --John Kenneth Fisher 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a very interesting opinion on your part, Rbj. I hope you enjoy it. In the meantime, as Bob Dylan once sang, "The times, they are a changin'." Whether you choose to start swimming or sink like a stone, I wish you well. Justin Eiler 04:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

they be a changin', but they haven't yet arrived at the world view that the LGBT interest group is promoting in the lead definition in the article. it needs to actually change first, in a widespead manner, for the definition to have changed and that's when the article definition may be changed to reflect that fact in the future. first let the facts change, then reflect that change appropriate and proportionately. by changing this now, you are promoting a social movement in that direction by defining it as the norm when it is far from it. that is blatently POV. r b-j 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The facts HAVE changed - it's legal now in multiple countries. Hence the, you know, reflection of the change. --John Kenneth Fisher 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

only in 2% of the worlds countries (and 2% of the U.S. states) comprising 2¹⁄₂% of the worlds population, whereas less than 5% of the population of those countries are gay. a very tiny portion of the marriages in the world are SSM. WP:Undue weight applies. when a significant portion of the world's jurisdictions have changed the meaning of marriage (that would be a political battle that has not yet been won) and at least a couple of the authoritive English language dictionaries replace "husband and wife" with "individuals", that is when you have a case that the times have changed to the extent that this article should reflect it in its lead sentence. the article creates the false impression that this has completely changed but the surface has barely been scratched. and it might never happen in a widespread manner because of the throwback from conservative forces. this article falsely implies that this battle has already been won by the SSM advocates and that is far from the case. r b-j 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This "primary definition" stuff has already been shown to be a red herring, on 29 December and especially 27 December. That last diff is especially helpful, because it demonstrates that at least some dictionaries simply order their definitions chronologically. So nothing regarding "primary meaning" can be extracted by counting the number or order of definitions. Such stumping was always ill-advised, because WP:You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer. — coelacan talk — 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

and neither are you a lexicographer (or likely anyone else here). so why are you asserting your own POV definition over the one that is consistently put forth by the lexicographers? you can call it a red herring, but that does not make it so. it is fundamentally the principle that Wikipedia, being an NPOV encyclopedia, does not submit articles to any politically-correct litmus test for approval by specific interest groups (it's not a soapbox). here is another link to the OED: [4]. this is very clear. in this concise definition, there is no mention of SSM at all. your diffs not withstanding, every dictionary puts the prevalent definition first followed by alternative definitions. i have never suggested to nor edited the article in such a way to not include SSM in the lead. but you are changing the cited definition of marriage to suit your POV and that is contrary to NPOV. and the motivation is obvious. so far, nothing you have typed refutes that fact. r b-j 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(Note to the reader: above user r b-j actually links to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, an older and far less authoritative "home reference" version of the full OED which is roughly 21 times the length.) --John Kenneth Fisher 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i have the 1971 Compact Unabridged OED in print (the one that needs a magnifying glass to read). while SSM is in there (far below the primary definition) the primary is still "the state of being husband or wife". this is endemic to marriage. (except at Wikipedia where the POV editors are trying to change that fact.) r b-j 06:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So... just going to keep pretending that your "primary definition" claim hasn't been debunked already, are we? okay then. And not addressing the multiple questions I laid out in my last few edits? fine, fine. And hey, what is up with that 1971 dictionary not properly reflecting facts that occured three decades later, hm? Weird. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is accuracy POV? How is your suggestion any more accurate than what consensus came up with? I have yet to hear this addressed. --John Kenneth Fisher 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

this "accuracy" is not widely held to be accurate. and it is not my suggestion. i am not suggesting to put my definition of marriage in the lead. i am suggesting that an outside source, that is reputable, and that no interest group controls, define the terms. it is the only NPOV when something is contentious. otherwize it's your definition over that of consistent primary definition in all three reputable dictionaries. and you claim that your POV is more neutral than that of OED, M-W, or AH? it's you guys that are avoiding addressing the issue, not me. but i don't have time to keep repeating this forever. r b-j 06:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright! Great! Let's use what the dictionary says! It specifically says that there are many forms of marriage, one man-one woman being one type, and also specifically indicates it's not the only type. You can't just say "Well I want to cite the dictionary, but I only want to use a piece of the definition." Legal same-sex marriages do and have occurred, that is a verifiable fact, just as, for example, forced marriages do. In most of the world, those would be dissolved as illegal, but in some countries they're legally recognized. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, your claims regarding the order of definitions are not based in fact. You continually claim that there is something special about what you call a "primary definition". But they aren't special. The definitions have been arranged chronologically, as Riferimento demonstrated two months ago in those diffs. "Prevalent definitions", "alternative definitions", etc., are all meaningless phrases that you keep tossing around for rhetorical effect. Your claims about how people think of marriage are also not based in fact. Your numbers are fabricated. I remember because I watched you fabricate them. Let's use your methods for a moment to discover how many United States citizens think of same-sex marriage as "marriage". Population of Massachusetts (2000 census): 6,349,097. Population of United States (also 2000 census): 281,421,906. Ratio of Massachusetts citizens to US citizens equals percentage of US citizens who "think of same-sex marriage as marriage" equals 2.256% by Rbj's methodology. Wow, that's small! But wait! "The fact is that 41% of Americans want legal same-sex marriage. But no matter what the first thing that pops into someone's head upon hearing the word "marriage" might be, Wikipedia is not free association therapy or stream of consciousness writing."[5] That one was put to rest back in December too. I'm sure different polls give somewhat different numbers than 41%, with somewhat different margins of error... but nothing near 5%. "Primary definitions" are dead. "95%" is dead. Drop it. — coelacan talk — 09:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i know you would like me to capitulate this and give you cart blanche to redefine marriage in Wikipedia to be congruent with the SSM POV, bullies and assholes always like other people to defer to their wishes, no matter how entitled such wishes are. you guys think you're entitled to equate Wikipedia's NPOV to your POV. in contrast, i am saying that Wikipedia's NPOV, particularly in a contentious topic, must go to outside authorities that no one controls (WP:V) to form its NPOV. that is why you are decidedly wrong. and that is what i mean when i say you don't think your shit stinks. so stop being silly, stop acting like Wikipedia is a pro-gay rights or pro-SSM web site and start understanding that your POV is not necessarily NPOV. r b-j 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, silly me, I see you've racheted it up to 97.5% now. No matter. It's all your original research and was never anything more, it's blatantly false since much larger sections of the nation (near 40%) think of same-sex marriage as marriage, and it would be irrelevant anyway since we're not in the business of holding up ink blots. — coelacan talk — 09:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, you're kinda full of crap and you're showing it. i've stated that fact and supported it in three different ways (portion of world population in SSM jurisdictions, portion of nations with SSM, portion of U.S. states with SSM) at least as early as Jan 3 . that's over 800 edits ago and it's back in Archive 4. it's nothing new and it's better supported than anything you have said for why we should have this article accomodate the POV of what is clearly less than 2¹⁄₂% of human beings on this planet. you have nothing to support why Wikipedia should replace the simple and straight-forward definition from the external authorities (the consistent definition in all three general English language dictionaries, the utter rejection of SSM as marriage in every U.S. state that has had in in referendum, the fact that almost no jurisdictions worldwide recognize SSM) that i (nor anyone else here) controls and replace it with your POV. you have no case. all you have is numbers (of editors, nearly every one who openly associates themselves with the LGBT project) at the moment (and yet it was me that been accused of meat puppetry). you guys ingore WP:NPOV in at least three different ways: NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity". and it's naked, yet somehow you are expecting people to not smell that this blatent injection of POV (submitting the authoritive definition cited above to a litmus test of a small interest group). i cite my supporting materials, i try to include all POVs (even in the lead) with proportional weight. you're just nakedly POV pushing for political reasons. you're full of crap. r b-j 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, you seem to have difficulty understanding that your own statistical analysis is not respected. Please find a citation for your analysis.--Riferimento 23:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] break so we don't have to scroll so far

(indent reset)And not only that, but please note, Rbj, that lexicographically, same-sex marriage is marriage. Whether it's legal or not has no bearing on that. Polygamy is an illegal type of marriage in many areas, but if you asked someone to define polygamy, they would say "Being married to more then one person at the same time." Ask them to define same-sex marriage, and they'd say "Being married to a person who's the same sex as you." Even if they then turn around and say "I don't think people should be allowed to do that", there's no cognitive dissonance in the idea, the concept, even in those who oppose allowing it in practice. Combined with the fact that it does happen legally and in practice, we must include it, it's part of the concept of marriage. (And by the way, I've never had a bit of affiliation with the LGBT project. And please be civil and don't call people "full of crap.") Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

but you're offering nothing other than your opinion, your POV to refute it. why should this article reflect, in the principle lead statement in the definition of the topic the POV of an exceedingly small and out of mainstream minority? prove that it is not. r b-j 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

being that marriage is understood by nearly everyone worldwide (in proportion of population) as this intimate relationship between husband and wife or husband and wives (or much more rarely, husbands and wife), applying the same term to same-sex couples (or more that two, i s'pose) is not lexicographically meaningful. it is as lexicographically meaningful as colorless green ideas sleep furiously. it has grammar but nonsensical meaning to the vast majority of people in the world. now for Wikipedia to force a change in meaning (within the boundaries of Wikipedia, at least initially) is to either degrade the neutrality of Wikipedia or the appearance of such degradation that conservatives (assholes on the other side) like Rush Limbaugh use to beat over our heads. note the creation of Conservapedia as a consequence. by this clear POV pushing, we make it easy for them to site examples of systemic bias at Wikipedia. now i think this Conservapedia is full of crap, but the heavy SSM emphasis in this article (not having a prominent article on SSM ain't good enough that we have to shove SSM down the throats of conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike?). you are giving them ammunition because of either your own bias that you don't want to part with and must see validated in what used to be a neutral wikipedia, or a lack of dilligence regarding protecting NPOV. Wikipedia is getting bigger, but it's credibility is failing and this is one example of it. r b-j 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, firstly, Coelacan cited support of about 40%, and that's been around the range of dissenting votes on the anti-SSM ballot initiatives. That's not a small minority, that's a very sizable minority.

in a limited geographic location. r b-j 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And, secondly, if we properly frame what's the most common, numericals aren't the only consderation. Please have a look at the carbon article. Really, just humor me for a moment. You'll notice that in the very same paragraph are mentioned graphite, diamond, fullerenes, and nanotubes. Now I guarantee you, less than 2.5% of the earth's carbon exists as diamond. Far less exists as nanotubes or fullerenes, indeed, those seldom are found other than artificially created. Yet, they are all notable aspects of carbon. Similarly, SSM, polygamy, etc., etc., are all notable aspects of marriage, and part of what it can mean. We already frame the statistics properly. That doesn't mean we should leave anything out entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, I gave 41% from a reliable source. You gave 2.5% from your original research. Riferimento presented evidence that what you call "primary definitions" are based on nothing more than chronological order. You ignored this evidence. You asserted "the utter rejection of SSM as marriage in every U.S. state that has had in in referendum". I present Arizona Proposition 107 (2006). Those are the facts. More importantly, how many times do I have to ask you to stop cursing at me? I've made it clear that it's not okay. You need to stop. This talk page should be a place where everyone can speak without being targetted with namecalling. — coelacan talk — 05:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

it's hardly worldwide (do you think such would be the case in Saudi Arabia or Iran or the Philippines?). i did not make up the numbers of the populations of these different jurisdictions or of the population of the world. nor of the number of countries with SSM and the number of countries recognized by the UN. nor of 1 state in the US divided by 50. i did not make that up even though you continue to falsely state that i have. as depicted in your edit summaries (most recent example) you misrepresent what i am saying, that is misrespresenting me and that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. you say that i fabricate the numbers (which is untrue) (Personal attack removed). so who is the hypocrite? r b-j 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User r b-j has consistently declined to address points that are asked to him in hopes of clarifying and understanding relative positions. He has responded to "this statement of yours is somewhat debunked, or at the least raises the following questions, please at least consider them and/or an alternate view and let us know what you think" with "let me restate that 'fact' over and over again as if I hadn't seen your post." He has decided statements are all about him and are attacks, be it the somewhat understandable misinterpretation of the indefinite you as a personal reference, or his odd decision that mentions of nkras are actually about him, even though they mentioned a permanently blocked user and are dated prior to his short-lived block. He disrupts conversations, and when asked to clarify a point, calls the questioner an "arrogant asshole"... which I would almost be okay with, if he'd answered any of the many questions tht are repeatedly asked. He misunderstands the layout of dictionaries, and insults those who attempt to help. I really think at this point we need to consider him a worst a troll, or, at best, a well-meaning editor who is becoming blinded by his emotions. Either way, debates are rarely productive, and are very one-sided, with people considering and addressing his concerns, and concerns raised back being met with, well, "arrogant asshole." And, of course, I'm leaving out some rather... questionable... actions during the nkras incident. It has been suggested that r b-j take a break from the wikipedia, a suggestion he clearly is under no obligation to take, but if he's not planning to, it might be a good idea if we take a break from arguing with him, and, as long as the article is not compromised, allow him to vent here in peace without working him, and ourselves, into a non-productive frenzy. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

no, i address nearly every one of your points brought up. if i find them. eventually. but there are about 10 of you and 1 of me (maybe User:Petesmiles) and you guys seem not to have any other life which allows you the time to control the article. i have to work. that's why i get to this so late at night and sometimes leave it alone for days. i do not ignore points you make, and i address them (as i am now). what you wrote is a falsehood. and it's hypocritical, you guys just dismiss the major points i've made without disproving them (since you can't).

not every one, but some folks here are arrogant assholes. the epithet remains valid. you are using Wikipedia to advance a blatent POV that is friendly to a particular interest group. that betrays a sense of entitlement and "arrogant asshole" is a pretty good term for someone who takes over a resource that does not belong to them for such a purpose. you're damaging the project for the sake of your POV. r b-j 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rbj: "take the sum of populations in the jurisdictions depicted in dark blue in this map and divide by 6 billion ... this 95% is not what people want for the law, but is what people think of when the term "marriage" is presented to them."[6] But if your methodology were accurate, then Americans outside of Massachusetts would not be able to conceive of same-sex marriage as marriage. So the highest results from the polls should be 2.256%. Yet the results are as high as 41%. So your methodology is wrong, and cannot be applied. You can't say "limited geographic location!" because if your methodology were accurate, it should apply within that limited geographic location. It doesn't work in the USA, so there's no reason to expect that it works anywhere else. You have taken one number (percentage of people who live in same-sex marriage jurisdictions) and claimed that it meant something else (percentage of people who can conceive of same-sex marriage as lexicographically meaningful). That is the definition of fabrication. You have never presented any evidence of this "can't conceive" business. If your claims were true, then the vast majority of people, when polled, wouldn't say either "I support same sex marriage" or "I oppose same sex marriage", they would say "I don't understand what you're asking". You have presented zero evidence to support these claims. I don't think it matters, because even if a lot of people "couldn't conceive of it", that wouldn't change the fact that others can and do. But even so, all you've done is essntially claim to be a mind-reader. Now, if you're ready to start offering evidence of your claims, go ahead. But please, stop making personal attacks. This talk page needs to be an open discussion area. — coelacan — 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We should not attempt to define the abstract concept of Marriage

As I've repeated several times, arguing about an abstract concept of Marriage is going to get us nowhere. Some people define Marriage as an institution which is reserved for one man and one woman. Others see Marriage as a celebratory commitment of love which any two unrelated adults may enter. Still others view Marriage as the means by which a man becomes responsible for the care of multiple women who bear his children, but that view isn't as hotly debated as whether the first or the second view is correct.

Those who hold the first of these views tend to be exclusive in their view of Marriage. This causes chagrin with the SSM supporters. Bickering won't create a consensus; the beliefs held on both sides are too strong. We aren't going to agree on an abstract concept of "Marriage".

Grammar, to the rescue: Again, I think the best way to avoid this problem is to first define a singular marriage, by saying, "a marriage is... (whatever)". We may then discuss marriages, in the plural, referring to statistics or different types. We may add a point about how certain Christian groups vehemently oppose SSM in the states, that they define marriage a very certain, specific way. We can point out that SSM is illegal in certain areas. It's fine to report the facts. But it's not factual to attempt to define the abstract concept of Marriage as any one thing. Obviously different groups see it differently. We should document that. Joie de Vivre 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of legality: the importance of a "legally recognized" marriage is that it becomes illegal to deny to a same-sex married couple rights that would be granted to opposite-sex married couples. A prime example is the right to visit a hospitalized spouse, or to have a doctor explain the hospitalized spouse's condition, or to participate in health-care decisions on behalf of a spouse. One might think, "Oh, well, same sex unions can grant those rights too." But in the U.S., marriage has the special characteristic that marriages legally recognized in one state are recognized in other states as well. So for example a couple can elope to Nevada and get married according to Nevada law, and then return to their home state as a married couple even if they couldn't have gotten married in their home state. A same-sex couple married in one state could legally claim the rights of marriage, even in a state where the marriage couldn't have been performed. (Also in the U.S., marriages performed outside the U.S. are usually recognized here. What happens if a wealthy Saudi travels to the U.S. with his multiple wives? Could he be charged with bigamy?)

On the subject of the "abstract concept": are you sure grammar helps? Doesn't "A marriage is a..." define a characteristic that applies to all instances of marriage? To truly use the singular, wouldn't we have to say something like, "John's marriage to Suzy is a...?" Sdsds 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Yes, I think grammar does help. It doesn't fix it completely, but it helps. If we accept that there is no consensus on what "Marriage" is, we can better avoid some of the conflict. We can quickly define "marriage" as broadly as possible in the first sentence. We can then illustrate what marriage actually is by comparing and contrasting differing "marriages", plural, and by clarifying the differing legal and social meanings of the word. We can document that some people define marriage as for one man and one woman only, and the vehemence with which they defend this definition. We can document the legal battles surrounding SSM. We cannot only say "Marriage is this, period. God said so." or "Marriage is anything. I married a tree last week." Let's document the differences of opinion.

I don't really have enough information to answer any of the first paragraph. We should report the facts wherever they are available. The topic of marriage legality is complicated and not one with which I am terribly familiar. I have no idea what would happen to your imaginary Saudi.  :) Joie de Vivre 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Geographic areas"

Good choice on replacing "geographic areas" with "jurisdictions" that is a much better sentence now. Is there some way we can replace "legal concept" with something more concrete? "Legal concept" implies an idea whereas this is more of a legal fact. ZueJay (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "law" or "legal ruling", depending on context? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point about context, sorry I didn't initially include that. So, I'm looking at the (fourth) intro sentence:

"Beginning in 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in some jurisdictions."

So maybe law -- "the law of marriage" doesn't sound right. And it wasn't necessarily a "ruling" in all cases; was it? Oh, how about "definition"? ZueJay (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While this is being discussed, I think it's kind of a distraction to focus only on legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I mean, the intro just said, "religiously recognized", and I know churches in the US had been performing same-sex marriages for quite a while before 2001. Maybe it should read, "Since at least 19xx, some religions have been performing same-sex marriages; governmental recognition of these marriages began in 2001." Or something like that. — coelacan talk — 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Zuejay, yes, I like "legal definition" for that. In response to Coelacan, I think we should cover that, but it might be a bit fine of a distinction to have in the lead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The current distinction is a bit fine. Same-sex marriage is the only part of the lead where we get legalistic. We don't discuss the legal recognition of polygamy, although polygamy is not legal in many of the places that it used to be. I just don't think we should give the false impression that same-sex marriage began six years ago. — coelacan talk — 16:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The implicit assumption of the current sentence, "Beginning in 2001..." is that there were no legally recognized same-sex marriages before 2001, not even in pre-modern societies. That assumption might be incorrect. Consider the history of pre-modern Europe. There are cases in which a ruler (i.e. the legal authority) grants rights to or imposes obligations upon a member of a same-sex union, in recognition that the nature of the union had made the couple "family." Examples include placing the children or parent of a deceased parter into the care of the surviving partner. These rulers seemingly recognized the unions had created kinship. Of course that's a bit obscure. But nonetheless the sentence "Beginning in 2001..." could be improved by removing "Beginning." And why have a crisp date and yet be vague about the jurisdiction in question? Compare:

In 2001, the Netherlands expanded its legal concept of marriage to include same-sex marriage, and since then five other jurisdictions have similarly expanded their concepts of marriage.

Doesn't that provide "just the facts"? Sdsds 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Was just considering the question of what these "jurisdictions" were. Sdsds, your sentence clears it up quite nicely and it remains "worldly." But, you've still got "concept" in there...I'd rather definition or some more concrete wording. ZueJay (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence I proposed above is still weak in several ways. What is it, actually, that has been "expanded?" Is it, "the kinds of couples eligible for legal marriage"? If so, how can that be worked into a well-written sentence? Sdsds 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I like what you have written. I think it is well implied what has been expanded. Maybe...

In 2001, the Netherlands expanded its legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples; since then several other jurisdictions have similarly expanded the definition of marriage.

By the "similarly," it implies what has been expanded. ZueJay (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined toward "concept", actually. It's not any more nebulous a term than "marriage" itself. People actually haven't been in the business of "defining" marriage for very long; the practice began in earnest when it rather suddenly became necessary to exclude certain people. Marriage is a concept; it's a shared consensus reality. One can talk about definitions, but they are definitions of the concept. I'd actually like to resurrect my old suggestion: describe, don't define. — coelacan — 05:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I could probably go for "describe" (or appropriate conjugation). Would you propose "its legal description" or simply "its description."
You have a good point in that's its only been "defined" in more recent times. It is odd, now that you point it out (or maybe I just realized it), that polygamy is simply stated as another form of marriage, yet same-sex marriage is "defined," all in the intro. Hmmm... ZueJay (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at earlier when I said "Same-sex marriage is the only part of the lead where we get legalistic". I still have to look into when exactly the twentieth century religious recognitions of same sex marriages began. — coelacan — 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes me want to say "Quick, merge those sentences," but we best word-smith it here first to avoid edit wars.

Other forms of marriage also exist including polygamy, in which a person takes more than one spouse; and same-sex marriage, in which both individuals are of the same gender.

That eliminates this description/definition/legal thing; as well as being too verbose in an introduction. (My patience is generally five sentences) ZueJay (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But as to what sort of description, which I forgot to answer... I would just describe what occurred. The current sentence, "Beginning in 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in some jurisdictions", is less than ideal, but if I were just using that to work from I'd say, "Beginning in 2001, some civil jurisdictions began legal recognition of same sex marriages." — coelacan — 06:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty good too. ZueJay (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That there intro again.....

Please save me from the dashes! - I tried a solution which didn't stick, but I would say quietly that there's no excuse for those dashes in the first sentence. They're horrible. We must try to do something about it.

I take the points mentioned above about the 'close relationship' box - I'm obviously in a minority of one not liking it! thanks all..... Petesmiles 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough....according to the Chicago Manual of Style, the hyphens are unnecssary in these types of adverbial clauses. I've removed them. Galena11 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there a Request for Citation

“The act of marriage often creates obligations between the individuals involved, and in many societies, their extended families.” I am a bit unsure as to what type of citation the requester is looking for. Most western type weddings involve wedding vows which create obligation between the individuals involved. An example of some traditional wedding vows could be added to the article, but a citation does not seem to me to be necessary. It is my suggestion that if the requester does not clarify why this sentence needs a citation the request for citation should be removed--Riferimento 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi riff - and thanks very much for your comment on my talk page - I'm not sure if I added that citation needed bit or not, but I would guess that marriage creating obligations between extended families is the bit that I would wonder about - I certainly don't doubt it, but would be curious to find out more (what obligations? property? income? legal responsibilities etc.?) - I don't think we need to go into that detail there, just maybe point people in the direction of a reference. I genuinely don't really know what it may refer to.

On the other hand, it's not that big a deal, and those tags don't half ugly up the page.... cheers Petesmiles 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Petesmiles: the request must be for citations supporting the claim regarding obligations between the extended families of the individuals involved. I did search for these; such sources would also support the claim about the near-universality of the creation of affinal kinship ties. I didn't find a good source for this in my personal library, nor online. Surely somewhere there's a good example of the use of marriages to secure alliances between the parents of the married individuals? Sdsds 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that references regarding political marriages of royalty and such would suffice. The problem is if they don't explicitly state what was going to be gained by each family then they might not be specific enough. Colincbn 07:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Neutrality Tag

We seem to now have a fairly regular group of editors, and are getting on pretty well - how would we all feel about removing that neutrality tag? - I think we're making pretty good progress... Petesmiles 06:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Other editors continue to assert the article suffers from systemic bias. Rather than replacing the neutrality tag, I wonder if using instead Template:Toofewopinions would appropriately reduce the severity of the warning? Sdsds 07:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the assertion here that there's {{toomanyopinions}} in this particular article? Personally, I've little problem removing the neutrality tag. To be quite blunt, one person continuing to shout and call names after every point he's made has been addressed repeatedly is not a neutrality dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Petesmiles and Seraphimblade remove the tag.--Riferimento 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to "weaken" a neutrality tag is to use the Template:POV-check tag rather than the Template:Toofewopinions or a Template:Toomanyopinions tag. What do you think? 198.24.31.125 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go ahead and take it down - am i right in thinking that sdsds doesn't personally want it there, but feels that others do - i'd fully endorse seraphim's response to that argument..... Petesmiles 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting near the top of the page

I've implemented several changes to the formatting -- and one change to the order of sections -- near the top of the article. The most radical was the reformatting of the transcluded "close relationships" template. Please comment on that here. The next-most-radical was flowing text around the table of contents, using Template:TOCleft. Finally, a content change moved the "Definitions throughout history" section lower. In part this was to alleviate formatting collisions with the Template:unreferenced in that section. But just as importantly, I felt the "Recognition" section deserved to come immediately following the lead. This is because (I assert) it is by the recognition of the relationship as marriage that we know it to be a marriage. I understand that is a biased POV not shared by all. So: how badly does the change in order of those two sections distort the article's overall bias? Sdsds 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a bit, I'm sorry to say. Putting the historical perspective first sets the tone for the rest of the article as an encyclopedia. The issues about templates can be mitigated and should not take precedence over the ordering of the text. I ask you to revert that until some discuss can happen. CovenantD 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, somewhat under protest I have reverted the re-ordering of sections, per your request. (NB: "Definitions throughout history" is deservedly tagged with Template:Unreferenced. It could also be tagged with Template:POV-section. If this paragraph must be the first one after the lead, some of its more glaring flaws need to get fixed!)
Sdsds 08:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's a link to the diff so people can look at the two versions in question. CovenantD 08:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the unsourced tag needs to go. Less disruptive ^{[citation needed]} can be placed where desired. I think the POV tag at the top of the article mitigates the need for another so close. I'm not sure the woodcut adds enough to the article to justify competing with the navboxes. And this gives me the opportunity to point out again that the History section is woefully inadequate for an institution that goes back thousands of years. CovenantD 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete agreement on "Woefully inadequate." Let's remove the section entirely until an adequate version has been drafted! <grin> Sdsds 09:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a joke, right? I'd rather leave something there, as skimpy as it may be, to at least provide a basis for expansion. I mean, c'mon, an article about marriage that doesn't touch on it's history? CovenantD 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No joking: much of that material does more harm than good, particularly when it is prominently featured by presenting it so early in the article. Sdsds 08:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re-structuring

.... i'm not sure about it at the mo... i certainly don't like having the second section start with all those boxed disclaimers - it may just be my way of thinking, but i find that many templates wholly undermines the text that follows. Further cogitation required..... Petesmiles 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed two of those templates, because they seemed redundant given the re-write one. On a side note, do these templates really help? Sometimes I think their use needlessly polarises the debate. Just a thought... Petesmiles 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The two you removed indicated to the reader that (some) editors have a low opinion the material presented in that section, and why. Because they gave more specific descriptions of the section's failings, the article without them (as per your edit) now does a poorer job of cautioning readers about the low quality of that section. Sdsds 08:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, it's my belief that maintenance tags should stay in place until there's a consensus that the maintenance they request has been handled adequately (or is unnecessary altogether). I don't know why people see them as some sort of attack, quite often, articles do often need maintenance, and those are a good way to call people's attention to it. (I got my start editing by seeing cleanup tags on some articles, and saying "Hey, I could clean this up!"). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost agree - a lot of tags can be removed after the issue has been addressed. Unsourced? Provide sources and remove the tag. Trivia? Integrate the useful, toss the irrelevant, and remove the tag. You get the idea. Some, like POV, are by nature controversial tags and should be discussed if there's an active talk page. CovenantD 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your points - I suppose I just feel that quite often these tags are placed without any explanations here on the talk page, and without any contributions to the article by the editor placing them. I wonder sometimes if they're not just more disruptive than explanatory. Surely almost every paragraph everywhere could do with attention from an expert for example? Obviously some tags are great - but I'm not sure overall... anyways - sorry for any annoyance at their disappearance - I'll try and address their issues and get rid of them that way! Petesmiles 11:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I requested full protection for the article. This lead has been changed more than 500 times in about one month. I've made some of those changes, but I'm not the only one, and overall, it has gotten ridiculous. Let's figure out what we're going to write, place it, and get on with something else... like the rest of the article, perhaps! Joie de Vivre 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anybody edit warring about the lead lately. So I think the protection is unwarranted. I'm going to ask for unprotection soon unless someone makes a specific case otherwise. — coelacan — 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't agree that protection is a good idea - there's not much conflict, and instability isn't a reason to shut the doors on an article - if I knew how, I'd ask for it to be unprotected.... Petesmiles 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured it out - no offense intended at all, Joie, I just don't think that anything's happening that warrants protection... Petesmiles 11:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to get edited, so long as the editing doesn't amount to an edit war. I haven't seen that happening recently, so I'm unsure why the protection is required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The next time edit warring actually does begin, protection is probably a good idea. Although sometimes just a WP:AN3RR report does the trick, and that's better when it's just one person being disruptive. — coelacan — 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too few opinions....

I wonder if we might be able to clarify why this tag is at the opening...

does it refer to primarily the lead, or to the article in general? I notice sdsds placed the tag there - is that your feeling (Sdsds) as an editor, or a reflection of the conversation here (or both!)?

My feeling is that, particularly in the lead, we have covered many bases, and I'm not sure what opinions have been left out. Perhaps a specific example of an absent opinion would help....

I don't really like all the 'ly's in the first sentence, but haven't figured out a reword yet, thanks all! - Petesmiles 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the body of the article (not particularly its lead) lacks material it should include, largely due to the systemic bias reasons discussed at WP:BIAS. That is, there is not sufficient participation by editors with personal or academic knowledge of the material, and yet that material is vital for the article to be unbiased. We need to either recruit knowledgable expert help, or ... search for citable source material ourselves. Sdsds 08:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Awhile back I asked how others assessed the quality of this article. I didn't give my opinion before the thread was archived. So: I would invent a new a "C-class" for this article. It's more than a "Start", but painfully worse than a "B-class" article. Sdsds 08:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S.: If you really dislike the 'ly's, try "Marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition." Sdsds 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks! - done. - Petesmiles 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society.

Why does the history section start with the sentence, "Marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society." How is that related to the history of marriage? Sdsds 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That bothered me too. I think that can easily be fixed by changing "is" to "has been" and tweaking the qualifiers. Virtually every recorded society? The fact that it's prevelant (or not) in history seems like a fitting first sentence. Not attached to the wording, as long as it's accurate. CovenantD 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a source would be good :) Some academic must have said something one way or the other at some point. In essence, the rest of the section goes on to provide examples and proof of that very first statement. CovenantD 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a citation for the 1903 book, "The History of Human Marriage" by Westermark. (I've based this on the excerpt Amazon provides.) Of course it presents a 1903 perspective on the subject!) Sdsds 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For a historical statement like that, I don't see a problem with a 1903 perspective. (Also, check if that book's on Project Gutenberg, it would be public domain by now.) But really, that wouldn't have changed in the past 100 years. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just been granted a clue! Please, would you all help me assess the value of:
Palmer, Craig T.; Lyle B. Steadman, and Kathryn Coe (2006). "More Kin: An Effect of the Tradition of Marriage". Structure and Dynamics: eJournal of Anthropological and Related Sciences 1 (2).  It seems chock-full of relevant (scholarly) material. Sdsds 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete perspective with this sentence in lead?

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.

This doesn't seem always to be true-the Wiccan handfasting, and its predecessors, often were "trial" marriages which lasted for a year and a day, and were not considered to be permanent arrangements. Toward the other end of the spectrum, there are other societies and traditions which consider marriage to last even beyond death and not to be dissolved under any circumstances. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Seraphimblade. That statement certainly doesn't apply to Eternal Marriage, for instance, and LDS is a pretty large group. I would recommend removal of that statement. Also, the intro as it currently reads: "Marriage is an interpersonal relationship ..." is ungrammatical. "Marriage" is a concept and a social practice. "A marriage" is an interpersonal relationship, though. So I'll go fix that; I hope adding a single letter will be uncontroversial enough. — coelacan — 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One hopes! I think the other sentence probably can be removed, we could clarify it too, but the lead's already getting a little long. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I support both: transforming the lead into the form, "A marriage is a..." is (as Coelacan suggests) more grammatical. (Having another sentence somewhere that started, "Marriage as a social practice is ..." would improve the article even more.) Removing the "perpetual agreements" sentence seems fine, though it really comes from a family law POV, which the article is slowly losing. Maybe gathering together all the family law stuff in one section would make sense? Sdsds 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)