Talk:Marriage

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

I would prefer to see "AD" used in place of "CE" as it has been done until the 21st century. There is no non woke reason to do so. Regards, Mike Mleahy67 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both forms are acceptable per MOS:BCE. No compelling reason to change current format given in this request so  Not done Cannolis (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also called

The opening sentence states "Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock". Those two extra words seem redundant. What I mean by that is that (afaik) it's not like there's another culture that consistently refers to marriage as "matrimony" or "wedlock" - instead, these are just "words that mean the same thing if you look 'marriage' up in a thesaurus". But aiui, Wikipedia isn't a thesaurus, and typically when an article starts out with multiple names for the same thing, it's because that thing is more commonly called those alternative names in other cultures/sub-cultures. So someone with edit privileges could edit this bit out, thanks. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:5CB5:9EC3:478C:7095 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nah. Yuiw: That part of the WP:LEADSENTENCE is exactly correct for exactly the right reasons. All three are common terms redirecting here and covered by the scope of this article. (If they were uncommon, they wouldn't bear inclusion or should be handled in a terminology subsection or as a footnote.)
You're just being misled by seeing articles on places and subcultures going out of their way to acknowledge endonyms. Those only deserve the placement they get because English-reading cultures try to acknowledge endonyms to the point that they are common terms for their topics. (And again, if they weren't, they wouldn't bear inclusion or should be handled in a terminology subsection or in an infobox.) — LlywelynII 22:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS in the "Ancient Near East"

1st, there was more to the ancient Middle East than Judaism and, given the WP:UNDUE coverage at present and the fact that the actual text of most of the Bible much postdates its content, the Jewish content might deserve its own separate section. In fact, it already has one in the #Religion subsection but, if we're going to do separate treatments, it would make more sense to shunt almost all of the historical content from the #Religion bit down to #History instead of what we have now, which is random bits here and there.

2nd, I don't understand the point of using the much less common term "Near East" in place of "Middle East". Both are equally misleading and Eurocentric, so just go with the one people actually say and understand. Alternatively, use something that's actually neutral like Southwest Asia... but, yeah, that's much less common and involves three seconds of mental processing from most readers.

3rd, in any case, the area should actually handle the complex of ancient Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia and be mostly focused on them. Depending on how similar/dissimilar they are and how much material is available, they might all go in a lump or each have separate treatment. Similarly, Canaan, Phoenicia, and nearby nomads might slot into that general ancient Middle East section or need their own. Ancient Israel should be a subsection of that.

4th, the thing that brought me here was Herodotus. This section of the History

In his ''[[History (Herodotus)|History]]'', [[Herodotus]] reports approvingly of the former [[Babylonia#Neo-Babylonian Empire|Babylonian]] and [[Illyrian Eneti|Illyrian]] custom of holding an annual [[auction]] of each village's young women reaching [[marriageable age]]. He states that the high price of the healthiest and most beautiful was used in part to fund [[dowry|dowries]] for the ugliest and most crippled, each of the latter being given to the man who would legitimately [[marriage in antiquity|marry]] them for the least amount. Despite his praise, he acknowledges the Babylonians discontinued the practice owing to mistreatment of brides, particularly those bought by outsiders, and says that since the [[Fall of Babylon]] to the [[Persian Empire]] the general poverty of the country had led to many fathers [[prostitution in antiquity|prostituting]] their daughters instead of auctioning or marrying them off.<ref>[[Herodotus]], ''[[History (Herodotus)|Hist.]]'', [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.+1.196&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126 Book I, Ch. 196].</ref>

bears inclusion in some form, although this article is high enough profile and already generally well-written enough that the source material should be handled through modern scholarship before inclusion. — LlywelynII 22:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't understand the point of using the much less common term "Near East" in place of "Middle East". " The main article is Ancient Near East because it was used by the 19th-century British Empire and archaeologists influenced by it. The term Middle East was popularized in the 1930s and the 1940s, primarily in reference to the Middle East Command in Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-constructive reversal of images

I do bot believe that this reversal was constructive. The article's top image should be more comprehensive for the topic, not particualar to any cultural intermarriage or similar. I will reverse this again unless someone can come up with a specific reason why we should keep the specialized intercultural image at the top. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: you are defining this image as "specialized"? The image depicts a marriage.
That the couple pictured is international does not make their image any more "specialized" than a depiction of a European marriage.
And a European marriage cannot comprehensively define marriage better than an intercultural marriage. So your promise to revert on that ground is preposterous.
Your position against the image is simply that it is intercultural. In which case, you should see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You'll have to raise an actual logical objection to this image in order to revert, since the onus is on you to explain *your* reversal. What you're doing is threatening to edit war. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are all supposed to try hard stick to topic on article talk pages, as per guideline, and avoid lengthy diatribes mainly aimed at other users.
That said, I can only repeat that the article's top image should be more comprehensive for the topic, not particular to any cultural intermarriage or similar. If there is to be any top image at all, that's what we should go by. I believe others will agree (my having had this type of discussion several times during my active 16 years on Wikipedia). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we are not supposed to revert until talk has reached consensus. That goes for every one of us. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely an international marriage image is more comprehensive than one involving two people from the same culture. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative to showing an individual couple (same vs. different nationalities, gay marriage, church vs. justice of peace, group weddings, etc.), consider posting a symbol of marriage—maybe two wedding rings or something even more generic. 01:55 + Try Googling "symbols of marriage" and click on images, to get ideas. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be much better. My point, to try to be crystal clear, is that if we have people at all in an old top image in this case, it should show a standard marriage couple, as regular, as ordinary as possible, or, for general cultural value, a marriage portrayed in old artwork of historical weight. A photo with anything special about the couple in it is not representative for the whole of the subject. My idea of comprehensive is that a photo of only one kind of special couple clearly goes against that word. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS There is a perfect section in the article for the photo which has been restored to the top twice, after I tried to move it there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, some posts here are loaded with cultural biases. In my country, marriages between people from different ancestries are not seen as unusual, so they are standard, regular, ordinary, representative of the whole subject, and not special in any way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your unneccessarily negative interpretation of these words and yout assumption of "cultural bias" are way off. Sorry you feel that way! I refuse to be insulted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to know how many sections of this article you'd like to see removed, since they are too "normal" to be mentioned especially. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply pointing out that the meaning of the words standard, regular, ordinary, representative, and special vary between cultures. Whose culture do we apply here? HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None in particular. That's the point. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collage: A collage along the lines of the lead of Effects of climate change would allow us to portray different cultures, historical eras, genders, etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No!!!!! Collages are a terrible idea. They become almost incomprehensible for those using devices with smaller screens, and with ageing eyesight. And I have seen many quite unpleasant debates on Wikipedia over which images to include in a collage. Nothing would be gained. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a collage/assemblage would be much better than the current top image, which should be moved to the very approproate section it was in before the latest revert. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On small devices, people can easily review each pic separately, whether or not they are in collages, as in Effects of climate change. A collage helps to solve the ~diversity issue, which would make the discussion more "pleasant". —RCraig09 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It just leads to a different argument, about who should and should not be in the collage. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with no collage.... They are accessibility nightmare for the majority of our readers on mobile phones and give a child like feeling to an article. As an academic topic this should look professional and have one very informative image that is visible without having to click on it to gain information.Moxy🍁 01:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what image would you suggest? I have proposed one below. There are many more generally fitting images at Commons. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus as to what image we should have at the top. Thus we should have none for now.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol for marriage, often used in genealogy
Absent agreement on a photograph (due to inclusivity issues), I propose the pictured Unicode (textual) character which is more universal in scope. See Miscellaneous Symbols. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top image proposal

I propose this magnificent artwork ro be the illustration at the top of this article. Anyone else? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects I will place this image at the top and move the other one to its appropriate location. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to this change on an interim basis; however, there is an unfinished discussion above, relating to a collage. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I see no reason for a change. And no justification for that particular change. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We all know you insist on the current image and won't accept anything else but your getting your way. You don't need to reapeat that again and again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the photo of the couple per se, but to my mind it doesn't specifically say marriage; the only thing in the photo that indicates it is a marriage is the word "wedding" in the caption. A vast improvement would be a picture of a marriage ceremony, illustrating the communal nature of the event (even elopements have an officiant representing "the community").
The article Wedding has plenty of such, so maybe we should have something more subject-specific. As such, I like the idea (above section) with a uuniversally accepted symbol. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has several marriage certificates with illustrations or photographs that are not too prominent. Vacosea (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Marriage"