This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marriage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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. |
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
http://sdhammika.blogspot.ca/2016/06/buddhism-weddings-and-marriage.html. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the
GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2016082910004111. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marriage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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. |
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
http://sdhammika.blogspot.ca/2016/06/buddhism-weddings-and-marriage.html. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the
GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2016082910004111. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)