Talk:Marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marriage article.
Article policies

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] spouse does not mean you were married

Apologies if this discussion is in the archives but I believe that spouse has been merged with marriage. I would like to de-merge it as at least in the UK spouse does not have to mean marriage. I would like a Disambiguation page which links to marriage / husband / wife and Work spouse. This has been bought about by someone pointing out the Ipswich murderer's spouse was not his wife but a search on wikipedia for spouse found only marriage. sorry returned to add Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Common-law marriage is a much better link that also needs to be added to a disamb. page.Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While i think the disambiguation page is a good idea in many ways it has a big disadvantage in terms of wikilinking for articles. There aren't that many articles that currently wikilink spouse (see [1]) so I'm inclined to think that it's the best way to go and then just trawl through the articles and make the best determination possible for each link. I disagree with the reasoning for turning it back into a redirect last summer, since it was a disambig page not simply a dictionary definition. But given that the page has changed a few times, more input is probably wise before being bold. -- SiobhanHansa 15:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, I will wait awhile and see how the discussion goes. I agree with what SiobhanHansa says , my main difficulty being put in spouse in the wiki search and it goes to marriage missing out the other possibilities. As I come across them I will as you say try to link direct. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Marriage penalty

I've added the following to clear up any perception that dual-income couples are the only losers in tax systems, as might be construed from the existing text.

"Conversely, when progressive tax is levied on the individual with no consideration for the partnership, dual-income couples fare much better than single-income couples with similar household incomes. The effect can be increased when the welfare system treats the same income as a shared income thereby denying welfare access to the non-earning spouse. Such systems apply in Australia and Canada, for example."

I also edited the previous paragraph to clarify that the individuals in a dual-income couple are worse off when incomes are added prior to taxation. They are not, in fact, collectively worse off compared to couples with one earner earning the same gross income.

[edit] Reworking the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section

How do other editors feel about the idea of reworking the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section by expanding it to include other "Contemporary beliefs about marriage"? This wouldn't involve removing any of the existing material, but would provide a place near the end of the article to mention some of the "opposing" views on the topic (i.e. the views of so-called Traditional marriage movement advocates.) Would the expansion of the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section in that way be controversial? (sdsds - talk) 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As this proposal was unopposed I made a first attempt at it. Commenting here (or simply making edits in the new section) would both be great ways to improve this article further! (sdsds - talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil unions by definition are civil not religious

The article under Same-Sex Marriages states "Some religious denominations ceremonially perform civil unions, and recognize them as essentially equivalent to marriage.[citation needed]" By definition Civil Unions are performed as a legal agreement, not a religious agreement.
Cit: civil union. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved May 29, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil+union
I think that it should read "Some religious denominations ceremonially perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or commitment ceremonies, and recognize them as equivalent to marriage." It might be accurate to add something to the effect, "Civil unions, although legal in nature, may also be celebrated in some religious denominations." Civil union is specifically a term to distinguish unions recognized by the state from religious unions. I don't know how to document this - my church recognizes same-sex marriage - and will call it marriage, but I can't find a citation.
Still a newbie. Vectoriousd (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removing section "Hypergyny and isogamy"

Jimmy Wales said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

The section "Hypergyny and isogamy" is a perfect example of this. It is pseudo information full of 'citation needed' tags. Not only is this section unverifiable, it also represents a (feminist) point of view. I will follow the advice of Jimmy Wales and aggressively remove this section daily until sources are provided and points of view are removed. Fschmidt2 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons for deleting the first time sounded a little odd. Admittedly, the current sources are poor, but could you be a little more specific about the POV you see here? And what exactly is "pseudo information"? There was very little that was "feminist" about the text and hypergyny is definitely an anthropological concept. The first five entries off a quick JSTOR search reveal that the term is used in various studies or commentaries about kinship and marriage:
Royal Incest and Inclusive Fitness. Pierre L. Van Den Berghe, Gene M. Mesher. American Ethnologist, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1980), pp. 300-317
Hunters and Farmers: Then and Now. Katherine A. Spielmann, James F. Eder. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 23, (1994), pp. 303-323
Review: [untitled]. Linda Hitchcox. Reviewed work(s): Population Dynamics of a Philippine Rain Forest People: The San Ildefonso Agta by John D. Early; Thomas N. Headland. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 649-650
The Sociobiological Model and the Medieval Evidence. Susan Mosher Stuard. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Jun., 1984), pp. 410-413
Human Behavioral Ecology. Lee Cronk. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20, (1991), pp. 25-53.
--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(I am not sure how to reply to a discussion in Wikipedia, so I will append my comment.) I will dissect the section in question below.

"In social science, hypergyny refers to the phenomenon in which women tend to marry men who are of slightly higher social status."

Common sense tells one that this isn't possible because men and women are on average of the same social status. Women may desire to marry men of higher status, but in general, this desire cannot be met.

I am not a sociologist but I know that this academic field is plagued with feminists. I don't care what anyone's point of view is, but when they make up words like "hypergyny" (which is only used by academic sociologists), the word should at least make common sense and be backed by evidence. "Hypergyny" fails on both counts.

"In the U.S., women’s hypergynous tendencies allow higher status men to be functionally polygynous."

Why only in the US? Not only in the US, and not only among humans, but generally, high status males reproduce more.

"In some cultures, women are expected to marry a spouse who is more economically, socially, or politically powerful. Known as hypergyny, this practice is common in India."

This makes it sound odd for women to desire higher status men, while the truth is that this is essentially universal, just as it is universal that men prefer physically attractive women.

"Though an expected social norm in America, hypergyny is slowly being replaced by isogamy, marriage between equals, and the marrying 'down' of woman. Many anthropologists ascribe this to increased gender equality between women and men."

This is pure nonsense. As I pointed out, it is simply impossible for women on average to marry up. No evidence is provided for the above statement because it is impossible for it to be true. The above is simply a lie designed to make it sound like feminism in America has promoted equality, when nothing could be further from the truth.

My point of view, which probably does not belong in Wikipedia, is that feminism has caused American women to become sluts, having lots of sex with high status men outside of marriage and ignoring men of their own status. I can also reference academic papers backing up this point of view. If the section on "hypergyny and isogamy" is to remain, then I should be free to add a section expressing my point of view.

Fschmidt2 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's the thing: You cannot edit Wikipedia based on "what you know." All content has to be drawn from reliable sources, which a scholarly journal certainly is. Whether it's an academic term or not is irrelevant to whether it belongs in the article.
Just as an aside, arguing against peer-reviewed published works on the use of the hypergyny concept on the basis that "you know differently" is not going to work here. I do agree with you though that some better sources are necessary for the statements in the second paragraph.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The only source sited in the whole section is a book review published on the web, not an academic paper with peer review. This is hardly a reliable source.
If the term "hypergyny" is going to be used, it should be made clear that it is an term of academic sociologists, and not a term in general use. And there should be at least one reference to a truly reliable source containing the term.
I just noticed that the second paragraph of this section is a copy of a blog entry.
Fschmidt2 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone wants to replace this text, there are numerous reliable sources that use the term hypergyny. One of the sources I gave above would probably work. We do agree, however, on the need for sources and the second paragraph, which fails WP:V--though I'm pretty sure the blog took from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I'm not really clear on why it matters whether JoeJohn Q. Public uses the term or not; it's not like we do this with articles relevant to physics, geology or biology. (PS: Since you hinted that you're new to talk pages, I took the liberty of indenting your responses with a couple of colons; adding a colon to each subsequent response nests the exchange and makes it easier to follow.) --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In articles that cover controversial topics (like this one), if the article has poor source citations (like this one ;-) it is important not to eliminate any of the existing source citations without extremely good reason. I would encourage Fschmidt2 to read the cited source in the section being removed, and find at least one citable bit of information in it. Then present that information in the article and cite the source, eliminating all the unsourced material from the section. It isn't particularly the job of Fschmidt2 to do this, but it gets what Fschmidt2 apparently wants: less unsourced material in the article.

It certainly isn't Fschmidt2's job to add source citations to this material in the article: that job falls squarely on the shoulders of anyone who wants the material to remain! (sdsds - talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Right--I wasn't trying to suggest that was his job, though I guess it could have seemed that way. I was pointing out that hypergyny exists in numerous WP:RS and that anyone who thinks it belongs in the article could justifiably add some of that material back in (properly cited). What I left unsaid was that I probably won't be doing that because I'm busy and don't really care to read up on hypergyny.
Regarding the source you mention, closer inspection reveals that it's a student report or something of the sort on a book. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think it's appropriate to use it here at all. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, those are good points! If the cited work does not qualify as a reliable source, then it is reasonable to remove it. At that point, the entire section is unreferenced and thus it is equally reasonable to eliminate it entirely! (I note as an aside that the book mentioned by the source does, according to Amazon's online book-searching software, contain 6 pages with references to hypergyny. But even so: that wasn't the work being cited! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Fleet Marriage article

I have restored the wikilink to the Fleet Marriage article. What was the motivation for removing this? It seems directly relevant to the topic of recognition of marraiges by the church or state. Is there some dispute that Fleet Marriages existed? (sdsds - talk) 08:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy and consensus

I wonder if there's some misunderstanding: are all active editors aware of how incredibly controversial society (and wikipedians) find the topics covered by this article? Please re-read the banner at the top of this talk page, and reproduced here:

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please take a moment to glance through the archives of this talk page if you're in any doubt! This can't be about lots of editors insisting on the right to be WP:BOLD. Please can we work toward concensus on changes before being reckless? (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible how obstructionist contributors to this article are. The article needs a lot of work to clean it up, and is flagged as such, and note that every time someone makes any attempt in that direction, it is frustrated. I have tried several times to crack through the barrier, without much to show for the effort. I understand that the article covers an area which is sensitive to many people, but if contributors remain objective there should not be the stand-off that has developed. I note my attempt to clean-up the section on Recognition, as an example of worthwhile clean-up which has been reverted several time. Good luck to those who are still there.Ewawer (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] definition

I would suggest that the definition in the first sentence should state that marriage is normally between two people. Also, in the fourth sentence, instead of saying "It is often created by a contract or through civil processes" it should say that it is often "considered to be" a contract or created through civil processes. What do you think? Bwrs (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't clear the term "normally" could be used within the constraints of WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS. I attempted (for months) to introduce a phrase like "most frequently between one man and one woman," but I don't have statistics to support that frequency claim, and even so other editors might assert that mentioning that "detail" in the lead is inherently POV. (sdsds - talk) 03:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By consent

The current revision of the article includes the phrase, "Prior to 1545 all Christian marriages in Europe were by consent." This reads like an attempt to deny the reality of forced marriages. At a minimum this needs to be "clarified" or "tidied up". (sdsds - talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)