Talk:Marriage/Archive 4

Lead definition of marriage

Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations. Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures. Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Currently in the West, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a limited number of national and sub-national jurisdictions and by certain religious denominations.

Nkras 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that to be an excellent lead, Nikras. It encompasses all the major points that marriage contains, and alludes to the fact that marriage need not fulfill all criteria to still be a marriage. I do have a few minor suggestions/questions, though. Do you think we should limit the section about same-sex unions to the west? I know Israel recognizes marriages of same sex partners married in other countries. Brazil, as well, has expanded its recognition. Also, I think it might be better to name the actual of countries that have granted the right of marriage to all, rather than saying "a limited number". That can be edited/changed as a weaselly term. I would also change it from same-sex unions to same-sex marriage. Lastly, I think it might be better to provide sources for every assertion in the lead of this particular article. I know it is not required, but as has been pointed out, people are less apt to edit sentences that are fully referenced. I commend you for this very noble compromise, Nkras. Jeffpw 19:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point about removing the limitation concerning the West.

Currently, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a limited number of national and sub-national jurisdictions and by certain religious denominations.

or:

The concept of marriage recently has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a limited number of national and sub-national jurisdictions and by certain religious denominations.

It is the number of jurisdictions that have expanded the definition that is referenced here - not the expansion of the definition of marriage - which is already a fact in those jurisdictions. I also agree to your point about footnotes (references). I will proceed on the grounds that you will make statements based on good faith that can be referenced later. I thank you for your compliment. Nkras 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth did you object to other descriptions that stated that same-sex marriage was a form of marriage? I don't actually see how your version differs from any of the versions you rejected. I clearly remember you objecting to the suggestion that anything but 'man and woman' could be considered marriage. I am dumbstruck.

As a technical matter "between two or more people" should be "between or among two or more people".

Dumbstruck. -- Ec5618 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because:

...[f]rom the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage....[c]urrently in the West, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a limited number of national and sub-national jurisdictions and by certain religious denominations.

There are qualifiers on both forms. Nkras 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on RfC. It looks like a suitable compromise has been reached above, but the lead as it it is written now defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not reflect the full spectrum of forms that marriage takes and is POV. --Media anthro 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the entire discussion above for context. Nkras 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a last paragraph from a former edit:

Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations. Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures. Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Currently in the West, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a limited number of national and sub-national jurisdictions and by certain religious denominations.

Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. It is often characterized as a contractual state and engaged as such. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed.

If this is agreeable, we can start to add footnotes. Nkras 04:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great start! A couple of things:

Is "two or more people" appropriate? I don't know that group marriage as such is socially, religiously, or legally recognized anywhere -- in traditional polygamy a man is separately married to more than one woman, but there are still only two partners in each marriage -- the women are not married to each other. I would just say "two people."
"in the West" makes it sound like the whole of Europe and America is happily embracing gay marriage. Also, it's a bit dicey whether South Africa counts as "the West." I would just say "in some areas."
"from the end of Classical antiquity" -- What does this mean? Are we postulating Greek gay marriages before this time? News to me! Also, Boswell has argued that adelphopoesis represented an early-medieval form of gay marriage, so I think this phrase runs into trouble in a couple of different ways.

DanB†DanD 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You've got a point about the broad definition of "two or more people" including group marriages. I'll have to think about how to fix that one. I agree with your second point. Your third point I'll have to research. With agreement on point number two:

Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations. Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures. Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Currently in some areas, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a limited number of national and sub-national jurisdictions and by certain religious denominations.

Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. It is often characterized as a contractual state and engaged as such. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed.

Nkras 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this portion reads too clunky, but it is completely neutral:

Since 2001, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa and Canada. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States also recognizes same-sex marriage, the only state that does so. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations.

What I like about it is that if you click on any of the links, it takes you directly to the relevant article regarding same-sex unions, not just a general page about a country/state/church. I think we are making great progress, Nkras, and wonder why everyone else has suddenly gone silent..... Jeffpw 09:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to provide the same linking for the rest of the intro. Linking will be ok for sources internal to WP, though external links will eventually change over time. User:DanB_DanD suggested above that "two or more people" and "from the end of Classical antiquity" should be looked at for clarification. I concur.

Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations. Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures.

Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Since 2001, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa and Canada. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States also recognizes same-sex marriage, the only state that does so. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations.

Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. It is often characterized as a contractual state and engaged as such. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed.

Nkras 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is mostly good, I think. However, this:

From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage.

does not represent a worldwide or even realistic view of marriage. Even if you argue that most marriages are and have been monogamous, most of the world's societies have and still permit polygamy (one source that I have handy, Altman and Ginat in Heider's Seeing Culture, says 75% of all "cultures" permit polygyny). I am also uneasy about describing "monogamy" as a globally "common understanding" of what marriage entails without evidence. In short, I think the passage is a bit Western-centric, even in its dating ("classic antiquity"). (I trust that I have cited from the latest proposed version; if not, my apologies. This page has quite a lengthy discussion on it.)--Media anthro 18:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting "in a monogamous marriage" results in:

From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman. In their marital roles, the terms "husband" and "wife," respectively, are used; generically, both are called "spouses".

Nkras 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have not expressed my issue with the passage properly, which I will blame on a lack of coffee. 1) Although most marriages are indeed monogamous, most human societies have and continue to permit polygamy. That makes problematic the inclusion of this passage: "From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman" . 2) Dating the history of marriage from "classical antiquity" (i.e., ancient Greece and Rome) does not reflect a global perspective. Most societies have marriage, yet do not trace their systems of morality and law to Greece and Rome. In other words, the phrase reflects a narrow Western perspective, not a worldwide one.--Media anthro 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps use a phrase with "sexual fidelity" rather than monogamy? Certainly, this is core to the idea of marriage even in a context of polygyny: a woman in most such cultures is in serious trouble if she is not monogamous, and even the man is not supposed to go outside his marriages. I'm not sure how this can be worked in without opening a POV can of worms, but ignoring the role of sexual exclusivity in the concept of marriage would be a POV omission. DanB†DanD 18:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's this: From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, traditional marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. This outlines what a common belief about marriage is, and also leads to the expanding concepts of polygamy-andy and same-sex marriage. Jeffpw 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But would that contitute "traditional marriage" among the Yanomamo (who practice cross-cousin polygyny)? Or would it be "traditional" among many New Guinean peoples, such as the Dani, whose practice of warfare used to kill young men at such a rate that women of marriageable age outnumbered men considerably? These are two of numerous ethnographic examples, but quite a few state societies have a different idea of what constitutes traditional marriage as well. Would it be accurate to say that "traditional marriage" is the same as monogamous marriage in many Muslim societies?

I would also like to find some alternative to the phrase "classical antiquity" for reasons described above.--Media anthro 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree that a mention of sexual exclusivity should be in there and that it would be bizarre to omit that. --Media anthro 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More notes: I think that the long version of the same-sex marriage mention is a little undue-weighty for the lead. If we're listing countries, why not list all the more numerous and populous countries where polygamy is accepted as well? I would cut the stretch "now officially ... the only state that does so." Going along with that, isn't "certain cultures of Africa and Asia" or just "parts of Africa and Asia" better? At the moment we make it sound as if polygyny is common throughout those continents. News to the Japanese!

I agree with the characterization of "classical antiquity" as Eurocentric, and together with the concerns I mentioned about the phrase earlier, I think it should just be cut. I'm not sure we can put a historical starting point on the traditional understanding(s) of marriage anyway. DanB†DanD 19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on same-sex marriage passage: Would it be acceptable to specify in this manner Since 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a number of countries. A list of countries appears later in the article and this makes it clearer that it is the legal definition of marriage that has been under debate since 2001.--Media anthro 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would it be possible that "for procreation" be taken out of the opener? That seems to be subtly biased towards heterosexual marriage (given that homosexual partners know what they are doing, marriage is not going to biologically help creating an offspring) K61824 06:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage has been understood primarily in the context of a man and women forming a union and having offspring to perpetuate the human race. The lead that you disagree with is a result of successful negotiations and compromise by both sides of the debate. This is about as good as it will get. Nkras 08:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nkras on this one. Please look at the opening here (bold is mine):

Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations. Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures.

The phrase or any of such combinations nullifies any hetersexual bias in the paragraph, since it admits that procreation is but one of the reasons, and need not be part of a combination. Jeffpw 08:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeffpw and Nkras here as well. While it's true that not all marriage takes place with the goal of procreation, it's certainly one of the major reasons. Not to mention, plenty of gay unions result in offspring, even if procreation isn't the best term.--Media anthro 14:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest version of lead

Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Until the late twentieth century, traditional marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity. In their marital roles, the terms "husband" and "wife," respectively, are used; generically, both are called "spouses". Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in certain cultures in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Since 2001, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa and Canada. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States also recognizes same-sex marriage, the only state that does so. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations.

Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. It is often characterized as a contractual state and engaged as such. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed.

Nkras 19:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems POV to define "traditional marriage" as "joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity." Is the phrase "traditional marriage" necessary?--Media anthro 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffpw suggested the change. It appears ok to me. The definition of traditional marriage reflects exactly how it the phrase is understood. The expansion of the definition of the non-qualified word "marriage" is also included elsewhere. I don't see why this should be a concern. Nkras 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the qualifier "traditional" is needed either. "marriage was commonly understood" is perfectly clear (and, not to revive The Unpleasantness, but "traditional marriage" is a politicized term in America, so it calls up associations not directly relevant to the history being discussed).

I think we've got two votes now (me and Media Anthro) for re-shortening the same-sex marriage mention. DanB†DanD 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the suggested edits:

Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Until the late twentieth century, marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity. In their marital roles, the terms "husband" and "wife," respectively, are used; generically, both are called "spouses". Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in certain cultures in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Since 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a number of countries. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations.

Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. It is often characterized as a contractual state and engaged as such. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed.

Nkras 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is often characterized as a contractual state and engaged as such." Nope. How about "It is often entered into by the parties as a contract and enforced as such." Or "engaged as such"? :-s Nkras 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Marriage is a binding legal contract, giving both rights and responsibilities". Jeffpw 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Nkras 21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting the above:

Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Until the late twentieth century, marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity. In their marital roles, the terms "husband" and "wife," respectively, are used; generically, both are called "spouses". Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in certain cultures in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Since 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a number of countries. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations.

Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. Marriage is a binding legal contract, giving both rights and responsibilities. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed.

Nkras 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks really good to me, Nkras. The only change I made was wiki-linking same-sex unions.Jeffpw 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-dokey. Nkras 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence jumps out at me: Until the late twentieth century, marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity.

I know that this sentence is probably the result of a lot of compromise, but it seems weak for a couple of reasons. 1) Marriage is much more than just sexual fidelity but emphasizing that function in the second sentence minimizes other functions of marriage 2) it ignores polygamy (still).

Proposed revision (additions in bold):

Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. ~~Until the late twentieth century, marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity.~~ In their marital roles, the terms "husband" and "wife," respectively, are used; generically, both are called "spouses". Although many societies permit polygamy, most marriages worldwide are monogamous unions between one man and one woman. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in certain cultures in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Since 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a number of countries. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations

This would further rid the lead of the implicit and erroneous notion that there has been one common understanding of marriage throughout the world for the last 2,000 years. It does, however, concede that the whole one woman/one man thing has been the most common form of marriage.--Media anthro 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Let's keep it in mind, though. Nkras 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has the advantage of recognizing that, in fact, the majority of marriages are monogamous -- whether for economic reasons or by choice -- even in countries where polygyny is legally and religiously sanctioned. DanB†DanD 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose reverting to the monogamous definition of marriage, as "between two persons" rather than "between two or more people." See the comment above.

Also, I recommend changing the factual-dispute template at the top to a NPOV template, as the dispute seems to be about a point of view, rather than about a fact. What do you think? 69.140.173.15 04:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First line goes right against WP:NPOV and should be altered ASAP

I paid a little visit to this article while browsing requests on WP:RPP and immediately noticed that the very first line is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. It reads "a marriage is a (...) union between a man and woman", which is not accurate since there are several countries in the world where marriage does not necessarily imply a man and a woman. The first sentence should thus be altered to something like "A marriage is a socially, sometimes religiously, and often legally recognized union between two individuals (often a man and woman) forming a family unit and legitimizing sexual relations and procreation". Please comment.--Hús ö nd 14:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the current resolution process in the above section. Nkras 16:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I do not wish to get involved in this discussion, but I ask for the first paragraph to be freed from the flagrant POV that was inserted before the protection. If there are no objections, I shall temporarily change the first sentence to "A marriage is a socially, sometimes religiously, and often legally recognized union between two individuals (often a man and woman) forming a family unit and legitimizing sexual relations and procreation" (or any better suggestion), which would remain while you decide on the final version of that paragraph. This would thwart most of the POV for now. Please comment/object.--Hús ö nd 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked. Nkras 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That I know well. That doesn't mean that edits following consensus may not be performed to it while protected. I'm just asking for objections to my incoming POV removal.--Húsönd 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Jeffpw 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should discuss this with the other participants in the discussion, or an Admin. It is my understanding that an article cannot be edited when it is locked. I would object if only to keep the peace. Nkras 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, Nkras, Husond is an admin. Jeffpw 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, regardless if Husond is an Admin, let's not do anything in either direction until we arrive at a resolution. Nkras 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nkras, in no way I intend to disregard other users' participation in this dispute. But I see that the discussion about the first paragraph might still take some time, and the blatant POV violation should be removed as soon as possible. That is why I propose a temporary non-POV sentence to replace the one existing already while you work on the final version.--Hús ö nd 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you do end up making the change, may I suggest a slight modification to your proposed edit: "...and often legally recognized union between or among two or more individuals..." This would be inclusive of polygamous arrangements as discussed above.--Media anthro 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Strike this at least until later.--Media anthro 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husond: With all due respect, wading through the POV swamp is exactly why we are have this very discussion to resolve any POV conflicts. Your edit will be pushing a POV. I respectfully ask you to desist. Nkras 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would my edit push a POV, when it is exactly intended to remove it? And is there any particular reason why I should walk away (desist) from this after spotting a blatant violation of the 2nd pillar of Wikipedia that should be fixed as soon as possible?--Hús ö nd 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, twice you assume (or you made a value judgement) that saying that presumably this "first line": "A marriage is a ... union between a man and woman forming a family unit ..." is "a blatant violation of the 2nd pillar of Wikipedia". but that is what is disputed. it is not a certain nor settled fact that this simple statement is any such violation of WP:NPOV anymore that it is blatent POV for it to be the primary definitions in all three leading English language dictionaries (OED, Webster, American Heritage) as well as in Encl. Britannica. in fact, it could very well be that deleting the reference to "husband and wife" or similar language is what is the blatant violation of the 2nd pillar of Wikipedia.

i have pointed this out before and will again. it is only to a particular interest group and some supporters/sympathizers that such a simple and obvious fact regarding the concept of marriage is controversial. for easily better than 95% of everyone in the world, the concept of marriage is something that involves husbands and wives. that is fundamental.

same-sex marriage is a new social phenomenon that has a place as a secondary definition in the dictionary definitions, has a place in the news, and deserves some treatment in the article. but it is sorta like a neologism or protologism. because legal SSM exists in so few jurisdictions (less than 2.5% of the world's population), because a similarly small portion of religious traditions recognize SSM, i made the conservative statement that 95% of ordinary people do not understand or recognise the concept of marriage except for in the heterosexual case. but somehow, the gay advocates here (you can go to their user pages and they clearly acknowledge this) somehow accuse me of OR and claim that even though SSM is recognized in such a small portion of the world's population that we can measure, that it is more reasonable to believe that more than 5% think of marriage as including SSM? that is POV, and to insist that the article accomodate that is the violation of WP:NPOV.

also, as i have pointed out recently, no other interest group has their own official Wikipedia barnstar. The liberals don't, the Republicans don't, the Europeans don't, the atheists don't, the only interest group that does is the LGBT interest group. that should be, to any NPOV editor, an alarm bell.

now, interest groups do serve a legitimate watchdog function. the LGBT interest group can watch this article and make sure that SSM is not completely removed from the article by someone in the religious right, but the LGBT interest group does not get to edit the article to their liking nor to act as lexographers and define marriage in terms that suits their liking when dictionary definitions (not necessarily to their liking) exist that has already defined the meaning of the word, both primary meanings and secondary.

every demand for citation, including dictionary definitions, the legitimate function of such definitions in the lead (WP:WINAD) particularly for a contentious issue, my oft used "at least 95% of people do not see marriage as same-sex", every time they throw that challenge up, i have responded and answered it with fact and justification. but the gay advocates do not hold themselves to the same standard. somehow, because less than 21⁄2% of the world's jurisdictions or religious traditions (by population) recognize same-sex marriage, somehow that means they get to trump scores of centuries of the understanding of marriage, the established dictionary definitions, what 971⁄2% of the world's jurisdictions allow, and what conservatively at least 9 out of 10 ordinary people say "marriage" is? that isn't WP:Undue weight?

give me a break! you guys are so full of POV that you are totally blinded by it. and i'm not even anti-gay (i would have the same kind of objections if the article was being taken over by right-wing extremists). but i recognize POV when i see it and this is it. you guys inject blatent POV into an article and call it "NPOV". and when someone corrects it, you call that "blatent violation" of NPOV. you guys aren't even intellectually honest. r b-j 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, I'm officially sick and tired of your accusations of bad faith for any and every editor that disagrees with your POV for this article. It's really past old at this point. CovenantD 08:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so the section title: "First line goes right against WP:NPOV and should be altered ASAP" or that i made up OP, that isn't the same? Covenant, you guys need to answer these charges, namely that there is a repeated and systematic by a particular interest group to sculpt Wikipedia articles, that this interest group has a vested interest in, to the particular liking of this interest group, to reflect the "reality" that this interest group would like to see - a reality that may be come some day, but isn't reality yet (the primary dictionary definitions, are they just as POV for including "husband and wife" and relegating SSM to a secondary definition? is there any evidence that any more than 1% or 2% of the world's population see marriage as the LGBT community does?). when this interest group does this, they are using Wikipedia as a means to further this group's goals (which are not bad goals, BTW, but using Wikipedia to promote such goals is bad.) this purpose of this group is nakedly displayed by the existance of such "official" Wikipedia props as an official barnstar for doing such. r b-j 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have to respond to conspiracy theories? Fine. By the standards you've set out above, members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity are part of a similar interest group with a vested interest in pushing an agenda. In fact, any Project is part of the vast conspiracy to promote their own limited world-view, whether or not they have a Barnstar. Abolish the Projects!! CovenantD 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"conspiracy theories" is your characterization. i am just saying that the LGBT interest group has clearly crossed the line (unlike any other WikiProject group that i know of) and is given way too much editorial control of content when they can remove the primary dictionary definition (that is the accepted definition by the all but a tiny minority of peoples in the world, that is the law in nations represented by greater than 97% of the world population, that is the policy of all but a tinier minority of the world's religious/cultural tradition) from lead definition in the article. there is no justification for this naked, blatent POV yet you're still getting away with it only because of systemic bias (the proportion of WP editors who are LGBT is comparitively high). this content dispute (plus some minor annoying behavior of his) has resulted in the expulsion of User:Nkras. it is disgraceful and this is heading toward an all-out content and editorial war. the LGBT interest group assumes it can define Marriage (and who knows what other topics, the other big abuse used to be at Homophobia) to its liking and kick out those who strongly disagree. r b-j 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked that Nkras was blocked indefinitely, and think it was a gross overreaction on the part of an admin here. I would hope somebody with authority can reverse this decision, as Nkras, while being somewhat problematic at the beginning of his editing here, was a major force in resolving the conflict on the Marriage article. If he is unblocked, I will be the first to welcome him back. We had strong differences of opinion, but he certainly had my respect for his ability to compromise in order to achieve consensus. Jeffpw 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rjb, Your use of the term "LGBT interest group" reveals much about your attitudes towards editors of this article (and, apparently Homophobia) who disagree with you - they have a single purpose, their goals are united, they can't recognize bias and act in a biased manner, they ignore the policies of Wikipedia, etc. All very insulting. Any other groups of people you'd like to generalize about? CovenantD 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I completely disagree with the lead as it now stands, progress is now being made in a neutral direction. I note as well that there are so many tags on the article that any casual reader is well aware that the article is non neutral and the subject of a severe editing dispute. So perhaps it is better to leave it as it stands for another day or so, until we can manage to come to some consensus. I have been feeling like this was going to become a matter for arbitration, and am hopeful that the current delicate negotiations can avoid that. Jeffpw 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. DanB†DanD 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Husond, may I suggest that if you (rightfully) wish to change the lead, you take the paragraph in the section above? While it is not perfect, there is consensus among the editors currently engaged in the dispute that it is a great step in the right direction. Jeffpw 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. To clarify, which is the version of the paragraph that you propose to (temporarily) replace the current one?--Hús ö nd 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Until the late twentieth century, marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity. In their marital roles, the terms "husband" and "wife," respectively, are used; generically, both are called "spouses". Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in certain cultures in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Since 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a number of countries. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations.

Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. It is a binding contract. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed. Jeffpw 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the last edit in the above section. Nkras 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the first paragraph, "A marriage is a socially, sometimes religiously, and often legally recognized union between a man and woman forming a family unit and legitimizing sexual relations and procreation. Marriages are generally publicly declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures.", have you agreed to have it simply removed?--Hús ö nd 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we forgot to add the substitute paragraph: Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations. Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures. It is my understanding that this would replace the contentious paragraph, and the rest of the lead replaced with what we have hammered out above. Jeffpw 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. The lead shall be replaced with the following:
"Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations. Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures
Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Until the late twentieth century, marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity. In their marital roles, the terms "husband" and "wife," respectively, are used; generically, both are called "spouses". Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in certain cultures in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Since 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a number of countries. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations.
Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. It is a binding contract. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed."
Please comment/object.--Hús ö nd 21:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're keeping "two or more"? DanB†DanD 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the current version:

Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Until the late twentieth century, marriage was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman in a bond of sexual fidelity. In their marital roles, the terms "husband" and "wife," respectively, are used; generically, both are called "spouses". Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in certain cultures in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Since 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a number of countries. Same-sex unions are also performed and recognized by certain religious denominations.

Marriages may be mediated by religious or political institutions and are generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. Marriage is a binding legal contract, giving both rights and responsibilities. Marriages may be formally ended through divorce, or may be annulled if improperly formed.

Nkras 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is for the lead as Husond just added here, but if the first paragraph is still too contentious, the version that Nkras has added above me here is temporarily acceptable. Jeffpw 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that those are in fact the same version, and that Nkras simply left off the beginning? DanB†DanD 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so. It's ok. Let Husonds' version stand for now. Nkras 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and in that case, I do think two or more is important, since we do dsicuss polygamy in the next paragraph. Jeffpw 21:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have a suggestion. Rather than the clunky parenthetical dicdefs on polygyny and polyandry, just make the words into links. DanB†DanD 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--Media anthro 21:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the links. What is your final decision about the "two or more people"? Shall it be included for now?--Hús ö nd 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to be the only one who doesn't like it, so I guess it stands. DanB†DanD 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's done. Please verify the changes and promptly report if there's anything wrong about it. Once again, this is likely a temporary version of the lead. Feel free to continue discussing further changes, always conforming them with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thank you.--Hús ö nd 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. A great step forward. Happy New Year, one and all. The ball drops here in 40 minutes, so I am over and out for 2006! Jeffpw 22:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence of the last lead paragraph, it looks like you changed "Marriage" to "it" to avoid repetition. However, this makes the antecedent unclear and the reading clumsy in English, because the singular "marriage" hasn't been used before in the paragraph. I suggest this tweak (changes are very minor, to wording only):

Marriage may be mediated by religious or political institutions and is generally bound by conventions which establish rights and privileges, and which establish limits of consanguinity and other restrictions. It is a binding contract, which may be formally ended through divorce or annulled if improperly formed.

Happy New Year to our editors in Europe! DanB†DanD 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed that last paragraph to singular. Happy New Year to you all. I still got 1 and a half hour of 2006 ahead. :-) --Hús ö nd 22:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone's happy with the lead, we can start on "Definitions throughout history". You think? Nkras 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/crickets :-s Nkras 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, since you came around to realising that marriage cannot be defined as strictly a union between a man and a woman I am confident that the article will not contain such obvious POV problems. In this case, my main motivation in editing here was making sure that the Wikipedia article on marriage wouldn't become the Wikipedia article on one person's views on marriage. Thanks for doing your part.

For the record, Nkras, I find it a little disturbing that you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the only reason so many people objected to your edits was the fact that you stated that "BTW, marriage is between a man and a woman. You'll just have to take my word for it", and such. I don't think anyone expected you to compromise. In fact, the definition you now propose is remarkably similar to the original definition, to which you objected. -- Ec5618 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are important distinctions. See [[1]] Nkras 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Nkras. My somewhat crass message didn't trigger an agressive response, and I'm very glad. I have reviewed the diff you posted. The main change seems to be that the introduction more clearly lists various motivations for marriage, which were previously listed below, but I'm not sure how this has satified you. I was under the impression that you wanted to 'make the point' that nothing is marriage unless it involves one man and one woman. How has that issue been adressed?

Please, explain to me what changes in particular you feel are vitally important. What point do you believe has been clarified, or what misconception dispelled? Thanks. -- Ec5618 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am also surprized to see Nkras capitulate even though i did not share his previous vehement opposition to any description or reference to SSM in this article. my objection (and it still exists, but i try to play by Wikipedia rules) is that a social and interest group (LGBT movement) is assuming edit authority over the article. i would have just as strong objections if the Christian Right or Republicans or Islamic extremists were trying to do the same. but these groups are not asserting the kind of political control here at WP that the LGBT movement is (Homophobia was another example of such). no other interest group has their own "official" barnstar that i know of. (i do not equate "interest group" to academic disciplines like science, etc.). i haven't seen anywhere else such edit control exert for political correctness by any other single interest group. it's unlikely (almost certain) that this is not settled. r b-j 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe it as "capitulation". I will describe it as having successfully provided a check and balance against POV. Neither side got what they wanted, but both sides got what is required. I see the result as a damn good effort at giving the reader or researcher an exposition of the facts about what was, what continues to be, and what is. To answer Ec5618's question, the lead demonstrates the basis for marriage has always been the union of a man and woman for specific purposes, that of procreation, et. al., and at the same time acknowledging the expansion - or redefinition, if you will ;-) - of marriage in a limited number of jurisdictions as a union between members of the same sex. If we can work on the rest of the article in the same way - and get the same results - this will be some type of victory, I think. :-/ :-) Nkras 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. -- Ec5618 11:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

Its good to see that the differences in opinion have reached a compromise on wording, I have just unprotected the article. Gnangarra 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! What happens if someone else trolls by, and messes up our good work? ;-( Nkras 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the watchpage function is for. :-) Happy 2007, everyone! Jeffpw 00:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry about the occassional troll, wait until the article becomes WP:FA then gets on the main page. Enjoy, its on my watchlist as well, you can always ask for protection if it becomes a problem. Gnangarra 01:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph, revisionism, and future edits

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

I agree a lot of work needs to be done on the article. Each section must be edited - or deleted and reworked - as the case may be. For arguments, see above and the archives. You'll get an idea about the latest war here. Nkras 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various edits

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

Removal of same-sex marriage section

Nkras, you are going to start another edit war if you remove that section. In the first place, it is part of marriage proper, and is a form of marriage. In the second place, it is mentioned in the lead, so needs to be discussed in the body of the article, per WP:MOS. I had thought I could unwatchlist this article now. I am glad I didn't. Jeffpw 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, I'm sure. Not all editors know the Manual of Style by heart, after all. -- Ec5618 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should read about editing before taking a Gravely[2] to the article :-s Nkras 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor, hopefully uncontroversial change to wording of same sex section

I changed marriages or socially-accepted unions between same-sex partners are rare or nonexistent in other cultures to marriages or socially-accepted unions between same-sex partners are rare or nonexistent in most societies. --Media anthro 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. -- Ec5618 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Good. "marriages or socially-accepted unions" are not rare or nonexistent. Gay marriage may be pretty rare but civil partnerships are now recognised by a large number of countries. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with either of the two sentences, to be perfectly frank. Some form of Same-sex Civil unions are recognized in over 30 countries on 4 continents, including most of Europe. Unless you or someone else can find a reference to support that statement or limit it to only same-sex marriage (with a parenthetical explanation about other forms of unions that are accepted), I think it should be deleted entirely as POV. Jeffpw 00:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've switched the word most to many for now. Discussion of the right phrasing may be a good idea though (especially if we can find a phrasing that allows us to remove the cite tag that accompanies the sentence). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have edited it further, WJB, to reflect what I just wrote above you here. Jeffpw 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O dear, I apologise. The change was an improvement, but certainly not ideal. Many jurisdictions certainly allow for same-sex unions. -- Ec5618 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I agree with all of the above. I was just trying to change one particular problem that I saw with the passage without causing a revert war.

Here's another change that I would make (additions in bold): Same-sex unions have been recorded in the history of a number of cultures, but formal, legal marriages between same-sex partners are rare ~~or nonexistent~~ in many societies. Thoughts?--Media anthro 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex unions have been recorded in the history of a number of cultures‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}, but formal, legal marriages between between members of the same sex are rare or nonexistent in many societies. or: Same-sex unions have been recorded in the history of a number of cultures‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}, but formal, legal marriages between between members of the same sex are rare or nonexistent in most societies. The number of countries that recognize homosexual unions, divided by the total number of countries, will determine many or most. Nkras 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]