Talk:Arranged marriage

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cet55280.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Top
I can find nothing, and have never heard that arranged marriages are common, or even occur in Tennessee or LOSLOS,LIPA CITY. I think that this could have been true 200 years ago but is certainly not the case today. If a source can't be found why not remove that statement. This is also very contradictory to the rest of the article which states that arranged marriages are in direct contradiction with the western world's beliefs.

not many people have arranges marriages, but i personaly think there rather religoes and are nesersery

The second half of the first section seems fairly biased to me. Anyone else thing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.19.11 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, anonymous. Living in LODLOD, having relatives from across all areas of the state, and knowing many other people from all three states, I have to call the article writer's bluff. Not only have I never heard of arranged marriages in these areas, if it has ever occurred here, it is certainly far from being common. Where is the verification for such a claim? I found nothing either. I posit that these common arranged marriages are an unsubstantiated rumor, much like the one that we don't wear shoes. So, until the author of this article can provide the evidence to back the claim, I've gone ahead and edited out the information. Jaderook (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

bizrate over-emphasis on one religion corrected.

The opening sentence contains a strange error. Maybe it's merely semantics:

Taking a literal reading of the article's opening sentence would seem to define the well-known mass marriages of the Unification Church as somehow as either (a) not being "arranged marriages" or (b) not having a "spiritual purpose".

I doubt if that was the writer's intent.
 * The language in the entire article generally needs help. Arranged marriages may have spiritual or religious underpinnings of some sort, and I don't see the two terms as being identical.  My guess is that the author of the article simply used the wrong word.  Perhaps as an alternative could be

Eclecticology
 * An arranged marriage is a marriage where the marital partners are chosen by others based on considerations other than the pre-existing mutual attraction of the partners.


 * Yes, it was a wrong word, I would have expressed what Eclecticology correctly defines. On a perhaps too romantic point of view, marriage should be the union between two partners essentially based on a sentiment they reciprocally share. The word "spiritual", in my attempt of definition, should have therefore expressed some ideal evolutions of "attraction", like love or other sentimental reasons. But for a general definition of the topic, it is effectively more correct to limit on attraction, the reality being made of many other aspects than ideality.
 * Sorry for late answer, but here the Wiki is becoming very slow to download -- Gianfranco


 * I've replaced the definition with mine. As for the Wiki slowness, I've had the same experience.  I'm at least glad to know that the problem is not with my own machine. Eclecticology

It should be noted that arranged marriages are also still found in Japan, although much less common than in india. I cannot confirm the source, but I heared that in Japan, about 10 per cent of all weddings is arranged in some way. Aslo, it might be interesting to note the fact that even in the west, agencies that help people find a husband or wife are not uncommon. are these also arranged marriages?

You're missing a few sentences. Marriages can also be arranged between the two partners, by the two partners. So, in a way, all marriages are arranged. Please consider moving the article. 210.55.81.34 22:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually I though "arranged marriage" actually means marriage arranged by people other then the two getting married. Maybe not.... --Macrowiz 03:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My mother told me about what "arranged marriages" were like in her culture when she was young. Usually the boy and girl were bethrothed to each other before they were even born, and the bride usually entered her future groom's home for the first time when she was no more than three years old. The boy and girl were raised together, usually by the boy's parents. The wedding ceremony itself usually took place whenever they were physically capable of fulfilling their roles. If either of them refused the marriage, they would be frowned upon, but not really disowned, and not punished.

So, as my conclusion, "arranged marriage" means a marriage that is planned out by close family members, usually when the future bride and groom are very young.SilentWind 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)SilentWind

Proponent's Views
I think it needs to be explained that many people getting an arranged marriage DO NOT have a problem with it, and this is due to the nature of the culture itself. There are reasons for it, many of which I understand, but I still don't agree with the practice as a whole. Nevertheless, Wikipedia must be NPOV --Macrowiz 20:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the criticisms must be included too. The way the article stands it's too much of an advertisment than an actual encyclopedia article. -RomeW 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has changed a lot and I agree with you at this point. There used to be a lot of criticism w/o any positives. I have a feeling we're going in circles. --Macrowiz 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a complete rewrite... I hope it's much less biased.--Macrowiz 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only that, I backed up all my claims. I still don't know how to Wikipedia cite. --Macrowiz 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Arrange your marriage" and similar websites
What is the difference between websites like this one and regular marriage-oriented dating sites like EHarmony? Rad Racer 20:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arranged marriage and love-shyness
Has anyone heard of any studies about arranged marriage being used to overcome problems related to love-shyness? Rad Racer 20:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A dissenting view
--Tjstrf 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)--Tjstrf 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Arranged marriage in the way I see it is wrong and is the cancer of New Zealand's society, if not India's society. I don't know what's up with them. This is 2005, not 1605. We've moved on from this. Seriously we have. Who's with me? Scott Gall 05:18, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)


 * Other than just another opinion, what is your basis for believing this? It seems to me that your name and therefore your background has more to do with your impressions than anything else. If arranged marriages are truly a cancer then I think all of us would like to hear your thoughts on >50% divorce rates that exist on the side of the debate you are coming from. I guess the saddest thing of all is that people like you hold these views but can offer no examples or if you can then you provide extraordinary cases to substantiate your claims. These outlandish examples exist on both sides so lets keep the article free of non-sense rhetoric. 24.7.141.159 09:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for New Zealand, but in India things are changing pretty fast. Every Indian I know has the final decision on who they marry. They can enlist the help of their parents if they like to keep at least some feel of tradition. --Macrowiz 03:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not with you. In my experience with arranged marriages (all my family and most of my friends have had arranged marriages), things have worked out quite well. Certainly by no means could one apply the adjective "cancerous" to it.

Not with you either. I respect the process as a long-standing tradition that allows the parents, who are more experienced, and not "in love," to have a more decisive input on their children's future. Plus, when you consider the crazy divorce statistics we have here in America, it seems like a refreshing alternative. (Also added sub-heading, this section definitely had nothing to do with love-shyness) --Tjstrf 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Scott. This is infact 2006 now and it's still going on. People like to come up with the 'wonderful' 50% divorce ratio in the west. Let me tell you something. You should be proud you live in a part of the country that is willing to admit that marrages end. In India, divorce is considered a sin of the lowest possible kind. Have you heard of wife-beatings and abuse in the India? take a look at those stats sometime, it may open your eyes a bit.
 * (In reference to a since deleted highly inflammatory comment by User: Subhash Rose) Thanks for the totally unprovoked and blatently racist assault on half of the users of this website, it really helps make our point about how arranged marriages are a reasonable idea when its supporters act like idiotic 12 year olds! --Tjstrf 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * what does acting like a 12 year old have to do with whether or not arranged marriages are a good idea?

In retrospect I do realise what I wrote sounds quite fanatical "let me tell you something"! I am indian. No, I don't represent all Indians, and I am not racist in anyway, shape or form. I am talking about a way of thinking, race doesnt even come into this argument. Do some research, find out more about this issue and think for yourself. Arranged marriage is a violation of democracy - the freedom to choose your spouse. I can't see any substantial arguments to the contrary so far, apart from "the ones i know of worked out well"


 * The reason why I got so pissed off at the defamatory tirade above was because I have seen way to many instances of topics like this used to justify hate crimes against Hindus in Europe. I mean, let's look at classical Jewish society (just as another example from a different culture). In ancient Israel, as well as in medeival Europe, arranged marriages were not uncommon among Jewish families. Even today, some Ashkenazy families arrange their marriages with Ashkenazy families (one of my professors, and Ashkenazi, just married another Ashkenazi on the wishes of his dying mother). Now granted, this was largely due to prejudice against Jews in old days and all that. But it did work out well. This has led to selective breeding over the couse of many millenia. That's worked out okay, right? The fact is, most of the really brainy types in the west tend to be Ashkenazy Jews (the greatest scientists, doctors, humanitarians, artists and philosophers in the west in the last 100 years or so have been Ashkenazim, you have to admire that). Look at this article for support

(http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/29/20293/9910). How can you deny us Hindus the right to plan our own gene pool in this manner? Don't we have a fundamental right to determine our genetic future, instead of it being dictated by this occidental bestiality called "love"? This fiction, invented by the French during the middle ages to justify having incestuous sex with their sisters? Please. Arranged marriages without consent are un-democratic, true. I am opposed to those. However, most arranged marriages in India today are done with the consent of both the bride and groom. It is an informed decision made by families where the bride and groom respect their heritage and the decision of their families and choose to follow them. It is understood, however, that the bride and groom have the last word in this issue. If either one does not like the match, then the marriage cannot be allowed. What you're talking about are "FORCED" marriages, which is an entirely different thing altogether, and is a serious felony in Indian law. People who equate arranged marriages (as an idea) with forced marriages are trying to pursue an agenda of libel and defamation of Indian society. That is typically the domain of white-trash rednecks who lot their jobs to outsourcing, and commie leftists with a racialist agenda against Hindus. Even the damn terrorists don't go this far! Forced marriages do happen, and it's regrettable when they do. There is a separate wikipedia article on that. Go troll there, bhaiya!--User: Subhash Bose
 * OK, great, whatever you say. I support arranged marriages, though obviously not forced marriages, but you really aren't helping the view by going off on little mini-rants in which you use blatent stereotypes. If you are angry about the stereotype from the imperialist era literature of Hindus as a bunch of "wifeburning heathens" and do not wish to be viewed as such, then you should show the same courtesy in your reference to those of other nationalities. As is, you have called the French incestuous, Americans rednecks, (among other things) and claimed that the liberals hate Hindus. All this without anyone making a single comment about India anywhere in this page, except for one inhabitant of India who said that the people he knew all wed people of their own choosing. If you wish to keep acting this way, I suppose you have that right since this is the internet, but you are merely going to promote negative views of both arranged marriage and Indian people as a whole. That will be all.--Tjstrf 07:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, why would one user's behavior promote negative views on "arranged marriages" or on Indian people as a whole? You seem to be opposed to generalizing, and I agree with you on that, so aren't you doing the same by saying that Subhash's views and attitude represents more than a billion people?  Even the prime minister of India cannot adequately represent the whole country's views.
 * Where did I refer to ALL Americans as rednecks????? Only the inbred deep-south trailer-trash morons, and it's these people who typically troll the internet searching for ways to defame minorities. Also, if you read newspapers and WIKIPEDIA articles, you will know that the American Academia is predominantly Liberal, and has intensely anti-Hindu, as well as anti-semetic segments. Read the wikipedia articles on Wendy Doniger and Michael "Nazi" Witzel, if you don't believe me, or the virulently racist publications of Mearsheimer and Walt (http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp). These people are intolerant of all cultures but their own warped reality, and will resort to any low-life tactic to defame all of us of the old world. This is a real problem, people, and you are not helping matters any in this talk page.--[User:Subhash bose]]
 * You were being blatently racist, and speaking in some of the broadest generalizations possible. Learn to present your opinion in a sane and nonoffensive matter. I am dropping this now, because anything I said to you past this point would be crossing the lines of civil discussion. --Tjstrf 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nein. I was being defensively nationalist, as is my right. Racism is a western ideology. As for the large scale tirades on arranged marriages, they are entirely without merit and are touted by REAL racists who are frightful of the increasing successes of Indian Hindu minoroities in the west and are resorting to increasingly desperate tactics of ritual defamation. The fact is, any evidence that lends support to the "undemocratic" nature of arranged marriages is anecdotal at best, and usually traced to urban or rural legends. These racists are clouding the REAL problem of FORCED marriages as part of a sociopolitical agenda of hate. A properly and discerningly arranged marriage lasts a lifetime. The (western) alternative ie a "love marriage" is a pile of bunk. There is no scientific or anthropological evidence to support that an emotion like "romantic love" even exists. The very notion was invented in Medeival Europe. Ask any historical anthropologist worth his salt and (s)he'll tell you that the idea originated during feudal times. Don't get pissed because a brown "mud-blood" like me can refute the lies of "pure blooded white Aryans (so-called)" like our New-Zealander or whoever.--User:Subhash Bose

It is a great illusion to believe in this concept of "arranged marriage" and "forced marriage", as two separate concepts. The reality is that there is a definite grey area between the two. By growing up in a culture where pre marital relationships are frowned upon, the "choice" of having an arranged marriage is an illusion. It is simply a by-product of a culture imposing its thought pattern on a younger generation, and wiping out any interpersonal independence. I really can't take any of Subash's point seriously, since they sound quite fanatical...cue inteligent debate please!!!
 * I can say the exact same thing about "Western marriages", that they are the product of a culture imposing it's thought pattern on successive generations. Arranged marriages were quite common in the west (Royalty and Nobility in England, France, Holy Roman Empire etc., even common folk got married not because of any "love" but because there were practical and familial reasons to do so). I can't take any of your points seriously, since they are racialist and biased towards the "white miracle" myth. How's THAT for an intelligent debate, or does "intelligence" not apply to non-whites in your mind? --User:Subhash Bose
 * I am indian. Look up wikipedia for "generalisation" It is clear that you do not wish to debate, simply to flame.
 * You look up wikipedia for "self-hatred" my pseudosecularist friend. It is clear that you are ignorant of the ground realities of Hindu society and too busy swallowing any old crap tha the liberal media spews out of it's lie-machines. You may be an Indian, but you are no more Hindu than Noam Chomsky is Jewish.Netaji 01:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)]
 * Correct. I am not Hindu. I'm sorry that that you feel so strongly about this issue and cannot see the other side. Best of luck to you.
 * If you're a mlechha, then you are in no position to comment on Hindu marriage customs, unless you have a scholarly background on the subject (and even then it is suspect) or have done some kind of factual research from impartial non-partisan sources (so leftist media like New York Times and cheap Bollywood crap doesn't count). I'm sorry you hate hindus so much that you have nothing better to do than troll wikipedia gainst us. Please find another outlet for hatemongering and flaming. May I suggest stormfront.org?Netaji 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)]
 * What is a mlechha? I dont hate anyone, nor have I flamed or hatemongered. You assume that I am leftwing, you assume I am hindu, you assume I am a 'mlecha', and you assume that I have done no research, you assume that I read the new york times and you assume that I watch bollywood. I guess you've got me figured out. Why bother with debate, why doesnt everyone on wikipedia just listen to you?
 * 'Mlechcha' means gentile (non-Hindu). The fact is, most mlechchas who 'criticize' arranged marriages do so not because they care about 'free will' or 'democracy' or any of the usual liberal talking points, but, in fact are anti-Hindu racist hatemongers with an explicit intent of defaming the Hindu ethos . They do so largely to justify ethnic cleansings against Hindus that have taken place in recent years {, and who but a useless liberal from a bastardized meaningless quasi-multiculturalist hippie dump would endorse mass-murder (proof, the most horrendous crimes against humanity have been committed by socialists in the last century )? So clean up your own damn backyards before you try clean up ours.(Pusyamitra Sunga 06:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC))
 * hmmm...
 * For an illustration of how arranged and forced marriage are different, consider the following situation: You wish to acquire a new car, but, because of your own inexperience with cars, and because you do not wish to be suckered into a bad deal due to a persuasive salesman or nonessential features of the car, you tell one of your friends who has a greater amount of experience with cars to find and recommend one for you, maybe even allowing him to purchase the car in your name. This would be the car equivalent of an arranged marriage, and offers the same advantages. Arranged marriage is a deputization of the marriage decision of your own will. --Tjstrf 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What about never being allowed to buy/drive a car as a young adult? surely this affects your decision. Besides, who is this friend with greater experience? Parents have only their own experiences - they haven't married and searched for spouses in their son/daughters generation before or have much experience with it. I agree forced marriage is an entity, but when you start to look at "coaxed" marriages, this fine dividing line dissapears.

Neutrality
I find it odd that absolutely no talk of the criticisms of these marriages- they must exist- is present in the article. I added the neutrality tag since this sounds more like an advertisment for the marriages than an actual article discussing the practice. -RomeW
 * Added the "Unreferrenced" tag to this, because there are no references either.-RomeW
 * Actually I've read through the article a few times and it describes "the practice" quite well. Also, since this tends to be a cultural phenomenon, I doubt you'll find or even need a scientific study to substantiate any of the practices in here. For many people this is a norm so asking for references is like asking for references regarding the sky being blue. Being that this is the English wikipedia, I can completely understand why these concepts would be foreign to you but neither of these tags should be on there. I vote for them to be removed unless you can provide a worthwhile counterpoint. 24.7.141.159 09:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rarely ventured (and have never made edits) outside of English Wikipedia, so I know this area quite well. According to Citing sources, even articles written from memory or your own knowledge you should be able to track down sources, meaning that since this is a wide-spread practice, there should be a lot written on it (and there is). Furthermore, statistics such as "some cite a divorce rate of only 1 in 25 (in arranged marriages) as opposed to 1 in 2 for the average "love marriage" in western culture" DO need a reference, because without it that's just a random number. If that statistic is true, back it up.
 * As far as neutrality is concerned, just gleaming several sites online points to a wide derision of the practice at least in the West: Marriage at First Sight (Washington Post), Procrastination: Arranged Marrages (Blog), The Sad Reality Of Arranged Marriages (Chowk.com)Blunkett Defends Marriage Comments- this last one contains a few references to Western derision even if the article's not necessarily a critique of the practice. Only the Post's article and (possibly) the Chowk.com article are authoritative, but the fact remains that this isn't something that's universally accepted, especially in the West, and this issue needs to be addressed. There's no reason to have a "Proponents' Views" section without an "Opponents' Views" section, as a "Proponents' Views" section indicates that there *are* opponents. In fact, just reading the articles (especially the Chowk article), a refutation of the divorce argument surfaces- that the reason why divorce rates are so low is because women in South Asian societies either do not enjoy those rights politically or are so discouraged from enjoying those rights culturally that they essentially don't have those rights. You may not agree, which is understandable, but since Wikipedia is supposed to entail *all* sides of an arguement- even if it's not something you agree with- criticism of the practice needs to be included. -RomeW 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a born/raised American with Indian acestory which doesn't give me any more authority than anyone else here but it does provide me with unique insight into both worlds. I don't think any cultural phenomenon can ever be honestly termed as "universally accepted." I agree that there should be a presentation of both views. However, that moves this article from just describing the practice to passing judgement on it. Maybe the "view" section should be renamed into just a "debate" or "western perspective" or whatever you deem appropriate. The link to Zack Ajmal's blog entry is great because he can provide the Pakistani/Muslim perspective on arranged marriage. As far as the sources, there is a *LOT* written on it and I agree with you. However, most of the best works on this are not in English but in Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, etc. Once I find more time, I'd like to work with you and possibly involve Zack Ajmal is trying to get as much information as we can into the article and then we can clean it up. Thanks for the long response, it's appreciated. 24.7.141.159 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the statistic as it has no sources. Even if it is true, divorce is actively discouraged in many countries despite being legal.  The low divorce rate could be due to that, not just arranged marriage (As RomeW said).  If you can support it, please be my guest. --Macrowiz 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As for sources and references, PROQUEST is your friend. If I could do it, anyone can (provided a library/university computer).--Macrowiz 05:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please evaluate for neutral tag removal. And someone finish the references!!! --Macrowiz 05:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Once I have time I might write the section criticizing the practice, using the sources I found. There seems to be enough out there to at least make a section, if not a whole new article. -RomeW 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know Wikipedia articles usually have the two sections separated, but this issue seemes into intertwined like a long argument.    From a NPOV perspective, I did see some psychological surveys showing that women in arranged marriage are not as happy as those in love marriages due to an unequal division of labor. I should add them when I also have time.  --68.73.56.57 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)  --Macrowiz 18:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in)
 * What's up with the "Love or Logic" section? It's basically a giant segment saying arrangened marriages have no flaws, and barely cited (and when it is, it's all anecdotal), not to mention slightly sketchy (it lauds low divorce rates and then uses the phrase "difficult to leave" later on. I think that might be a hint as to why the rates are so low, but whatever). I think it needs a rewrite, or better yet, just excision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.137.3 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Improved definition
I extended the definition to Muslims. Here (and especially among Muslims living in the UK & USA) an arranged marriage usually means that husband and wife got to known during meetings initially arranged by their parents. These have the open intention of finding a spouse. If there is mutual attraction then there are further meetings in the presence of members of both family. These marriages only happen if there is considerable mutual attraction. Rajab 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-arranged arranged marriages
I've heard that in many cases where communities that encourage and/or require arranged marriages form immigrant communities in countries that don't culturally encourage it, what often happens is that a young man and a young woman from within the culture will meet and fall in love without their parents input, but then later tell their parents about it. The parents will then contact each other and go through the motions of making it look like an arranged marriage for the sake of tradition. This is different from the types of arragned marriage already described in the article because the parents don't have input in the initial choice of partner. It's not really arranged marriage, but I've heard that this happens a lot in cultures that prefer arranged marriages. Has anyone else heard of this? Should it go in the article? Rhesusman 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I can't speak for all cultures where arranged marriages take place. I can speak for India, where what you described happens a lot. Indians have combined traditional values with modern democratic principles by reconciling with the fact that observance is more important than actual belief. Though you shouldn't talk about any of the "love" stuff. That's not very NPOV. What should be said that a couple interacts, they choose to get married, and have their parents discuss the details. Most arranged marriages are consentual like that. Perhaps this should go in the article, though some background info should be linked or something.Netaji 08:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)]

Definitions of "traditional", "modern", etc
I find the definitions of "traditional arranged marriage", "modern arranged marriage" extremely non-NPOV. "Traditional"... in which culture or ethnic group? According to whom? "Modern"? There are A LOT of ethnic groups who sometimes practice at least one form of arranged marriages (sometimes jews and gypsies, arabs, persians, also some indigenous peoples like mixtecs come to my mind). I propose deleting this "traditional/modern/m. with courtship" non-sense and substitute it with a list of ethnic groups that practice it (at least partially) and how it is done in their culture. And yes, I've heard also that some people who've been engaged since childhood find it not that bad, and also claim that it's more succesful than marriage by love, but I feel the article needs more links to both disenting pages and blogs/homepages/articles by people who got into these marriages and found them OK.


 * I see the definitions accurately convey the reality of arranged marriage: the different degrees vary greatly even within a culture. This is especially true for some eastern cultures that have been westernized.  In dealing with westernization, different groups have gotten rid of arranged marriage to a different extent.  It isn't an all-or-none thing, which is something people definately need to understand.--Macrowiz 02:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Read this excellent article:
 * Netting, Nancy S. Two-Lives, One Partner: Indo-Canadian Youth between Love and Arranged Marriages. Journal of :Comparative Family Studies. Calgary: Winter 2006.Vol.37, Iss. 1;  pg. 129, 18 pgs
 * If you go to a library and look up this Proquest document ID you should get it:977552121
 * It defines 3 types: Rebels (suggestion only), Negotiators (modern AM), Traditionalists
 * While I like the definitions illustrating the grey area surrounding arranged marriage, they are now in my opinion ORIGINAL RESEARCH (No_original_research) and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that they either be backed up with citations or changed to the ones in Netting above. If you agree, you can change them yourself, or say so here and I will do it.  I would like some consensus before doing so. --Macrowiz 15:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of low divorce rate paragraph
I removed the paragraph because of following reasons: Please discuss here before adding again. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It was largely about Hindu arranged marriages.
 * 2) It was having a strong POV, with illusory correlation. What does arranged marriage have to do with divorce rate is not established. In India, even love marriages have lower divorce rates as compared to western counterparts. This has to do with social reasons, like women not wanting to divorce as they fear that society will not accept them, etc.
 * 3) It lacked references for tall claims.

Agreed. Wikipedia:No original research. --Macrowiz 06:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what was removed, because I still see that the article fails to mention that the lower divorce rate is a byproduct of the social pressure, and the fact that if you did NOT choose your partner yourself...how are you going to divorce that person yourself? Thewhitesamurai 03:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Change wording re "children"
The English language is seriously deficient in having only the one word in normal speech for two concepts. The definitions of arranged marriage at the beginning of the article go on and on about "children", and this sounds worrying to me. I am sure that in most cases it means progeny, ie sons and daughters, but it can also be read as minors, ie little kids. (Which, as we know, was historically, and may still be, the case in some places.) Can anyone think of an elegant way of rewording this?

BTW I came to this article from one on George V of the United Kingdom, where I changed a sentence that said that DESPITE his arranged marriage, he managed to be happy. I could have changed it to BECAUSE of this, but thought that would be just poking fun at people who have never really thought about the issue, so I rewrote the sentence as NPOV and added the link here. I suspect there are LOTS of other articles with this sort of casual thoughtlessness (not malice). Editors with more time than me may care to look for them and remove the POV re arranged marriages. THe "What links here" on the left-hand menu is a good starting place. Good luck. BrainyBabe 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've checked all articles currently linked to this one and have corrected two of them (Omiai and Charlotte von Rothschild). I'm not sure what should be done with Forced child marriage though. It's currently linked to Arranged marriage which sounds wrong but I don't know if we should relink it to Child marriage or do something else. Do you know if there are cases of such marriages that are not forced - i.e. the marriage would be programmed while the spouse is a child but would happen only at adulthood with the right to say no given to him/her? BernardM 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about this subject, so can't comment directly re your question. You might want to read the (sometimes heated) talk pages at arranged marriage.  I would support you redirecting the search term "forced child marriage" (for which no page exists) to forced marriage rather than arranged marriage. More research and writing is needed. BrainyBabe 15:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced marriage not so rare
I have been researching arranged marriage for a college assignment. I do not presume to know enough to have strong opinion on the subject itself. However my research did show that forced marriages are not as rare as the wiki article implies. Please see the new york times magazine article "The Bride Price" by Barry Bearak from July 2006. This article discusses the selling of young girls in marriage to older men for money. I decided to post this on the discussion before editing anything - comments anyone? ~ Samantha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.201.8 (talk • contribs).

Opponent's Views
I would like to propose the addition of another paragraph to the section on opponents' views. It would say something to the effect that:

One argument against arranged marriage it has been traditionally associated in the past with dowry and bride price. It has been argued that love marriage may better promote the accumulation of wealth and societal growth than arranged marriage. (link to article)

Any comments are welcomed by this newby, as is assistance in developing the link for proper wikipedia formatting. Regards to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Sorry I've not yet developed any consistance in signing. Trilobitealive 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this would be better put in another existing section, perhaps Economic principle in arranged marriage? Here is a semifinal draft:

Arranged marriage has been traditionally associated in the past with dowry and bride   price. Economists have argued that arranged marriage is less apt to promote the accumulation of wealth and societal growth than love marriage. That last attempt was obviously NOT the correct way to cite a reference...back to the sandbox! Trilobitealive

It works, though I'm uncertain still about the style. I put it in the article. Trilobitealive 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that in arranged marriages people have little time to know each other up front and they may have conflicting personalities. What about the fact that many people get deceived in arranged marriages where a significant shortcoming is hidden, such as the guy (or girl) is HIV Positive or has another health defect, or some things are hidden which are significant to some, such as that the person smokes. Even proponents of arranged marriage (such as myself) have to admit that there are shortcomings.

Correct Gender Bias
This article has several instances of gender bias. I am going to use the section on "International Marriage" to highlight a few:

"The parents of the man may be happier/feel secure knowing that their son is to marry a person of their own country and culture rather than one "corrupted" by Western influences" - It is incorrect to assume that it is always a man in the "wealthy" country who marries a woman from a "poorer" (I recommend using the word developing) country. There are several instances of the reverse happening. The sentence also implies that it is the woman who is more likely to get "corrupted" by Western influence.

"The parents of the girl hope that their daughter enjoys a higher standard of living" - I don't think this sentence deserves place under this section. It doesn't make a difference to the parent whether this is an "international" marriage or not - most parents want their children to enjoy a higher standard of living. Again, this sentence assumes that it is the woman who migrates.

"Limited choice — The man is constrained in not being able to choose a person of his liking outside his home country" - What about the choice of the woman? Isn't is constrained similarly?

The section consistently implies that only a man is capable of giving a woman a higher living standard and that it is always the woman who migrates. Also, if you're going to use the word "girl," might as well use the word "boy" and not man. Otherwise, please replace "girl" with woman. Titania 06 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of unsourced biased views
Aside from the apparent gender differentiation, the tone and jargon used in this article indicate a general bias against arranged marriages. The subject matter is varied and extensive, requiring more generic topic paragraphs. Then the arguments can be explained in greater detail with subsequent paragraphs. This form facilitate the inclusion of varying styles and practices of arranged marriages, while fostering neutrality.

Example for tone:
 * "An arranged marriage is a marriage that is established before involving oneself in a lengthy courtship,"

This statement can be incorrect in differing situations. It insinuate that the marriage can only take place before lengthy courtships. It does not define what a marriage is, requiring the reader to have existing knowledge of marriages. "Involving oneself", suggests free will, which may not be the case in some arranged marriages. My suggestion is as follows:


 * "An arranged marriage is a recognized social union between two principle members, based on the deliberation of independent persons."

Once the definition has been explained, further expansion on the issues and trivialities of marriages can be expressed without bias. It is necessary to note that marriages are recognized unions, as ones that are not, can be considered null by the society.

Subjectivity of certain phrases which are not localized can be interpreted to encompass the norms of arranged marriages.

Examples for subjectivity:


 * "Many parents, and children likewise, feel pressure from the community to conform, and in certain cultures a "love marriage" or even a non-married relationship is considered a failure on the part of the parents to maintain control over their child."

Although this may be true of the family dynamics of post-classic eras in "Western" societies. This does not always hold true for many South Asian societies. The religious beliefs do not always emphasize control over others but harmony within the community. This is especially true of Hindu and other Mon-Khmer communities practicing early Buddhism.


 * "Several cultures deem the son or daughter less likely to find a suitable partner if they are past a certain age, and consider it folly to try to marry them off at that stage."

This statement is correct in some degree but is indicative of a general view and can be further localized to a more appropriate scope. In Japanese culture, Miai are used by all generations as a form of courtship leading to arranged marriages. Although as the person ages and becomes a less desirable candidate, it is not uncommon to see people in their late 50s still searching out prospective partners.

My opinion follows: I write from experience as my reasons, for undertaking an arrange marriage, are rooted in tradition, ethnic pride and nationalism. I have dated many, from differing background while residing in Canada, but found that the exclusionary frame of mind, exhibited in courtship, can be very detrimental to a relationship. During courtship one ascertains compatibility by discriminating the partners faults and having ones own interests in mind. When I married, I now have a life-partner and a companion. I take offense to the very subjective term "not so bad after all", for I married out of my own volition. Because of personal beliefs and religious views, the claim of domestic violence because of incompatibility, is unfounded in the majority of countries with arranged marriages being the norm, as I have experienced. Once again this is my opinion. This article is in dire need of a full rewrite.

I agree, this article is biased and offensive. KingLouie84 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Matchmakers
Um, should matchmakers be included in this article, sometimes marriages are not arranged by family members, but by matchmakers. In ancient China, a matchmaker is used as the go-between of the involved persons and their families (also why Disney's Mulan is so WRONG when they had the guy lurking outside Mulan's residence). Today, while the individuals have more choices, some might still use the service of a matchmaker. Like, in the future, I want to use one when I feel like looking for a husband, to weed out the losers so I'll waste less time dating those that just won't work.

Courtship and other "immoral practices"
This page contains the sentence "...accepted courtship and other immoral practices". Since courtship is a happy, exciting and essential process in most cultures many people would find it offensive to describe courtship as 'immoral'. This is a baised and non-neutral comment and should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.228.105 (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the biased, non-neutral sentence with a MOVIE as it's source! Courtship has a wide range of meanings in many cultures, most of which have nothing to do with immoral practices in any culture. In Western cultures, "courtship" is seen as an arcahic form, and actually has some parallels with arranged marriage practices, esp the involvement of familiy, and consent of hte parents. I assume the editor adding the phrase really meant "dating", not courtship, particularly the casual, non-commital form of dating as practiced by some, tho not all, Westerners. Since this is an English website using primarily British and American definitions and connotations, it is extremely misleading to use "courtship" in this sense. And please, a MOVIE as a sources? Almost makes me chalk this one up as sneaky vandalism! - BillCJ 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prohibit references to film. In some cases, I believe film can be used to record cultural circumstance in an immersive way which is comparable to written anthropology. Jpritikin 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

New research evidence is available which shows the practice of courtship, especially the subtle competitive nature, can create life-shortening stress in men. A report on this research is available at NPR news report:. The implication that the roots of arranged marriages may be found in health implication, rather than social implications could be something this evidence may point to. havanhelper (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural POV
I appreciate the effort that has gone into writing the existing content, but I can't help but feel a lot of it is culturally based and may not be universal across all the different times and places that arranged marriges have been practiced. Perhaps references to the points that have been made will at least make it clear the basis of the assertion and to what culture it refers. 205.211.160.1 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To that extent I added some citation needed tags and marked the page as not representing a world view or all opions. Please discuss if you disagree or ideas for cleanup.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Common in the Southern US?
This states that arranged marriages are common in the Southern US, but no documentation is provided. I'm 52 and lived in the US South most of my life and never heard of one in this part of the US (I have heard of them in New Mexico, which isn't mentioned, when I was in college). Is there any documentation for this assertion or should it be deleted? CsikosLo (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In many marriages?
The following sentence is wrong.


 * "In many arranged marriages, one potential spouse may reside in a wealthy country and the other in a poorer country. For example, the man may be an American of Indian ancestry and the woman may be an Indian living in India who will move to America after the marriage."


 * Take for example India. There are billion people, the number of arranged marriages that happen within India far outrun the number of arranged marriages with people outside of India. Thus, to say 'many arranged marriages' is wrong. I recommend replacing the sentence as:


 * "In some arranged marriages, "

The problem with saying many is it implies that arranged marriage is designed to benefit people who want to immigrate to other countries.

TwakTwik (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Lead-In Wording and Grammar
It initially was: "Such marriages are numerous in the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia." I then changed to: "Such marriages are not uncommon in the Middle East, parts of Africa, and Asia." which is logically more appropriate, and omits the extra 'and', as well as adding commas where necessary.

I didn't bother to check the rest of the article, but Just noticed that when I was looking up the subject and happened across the page. This page could benefit from some editing no doubt. B.Soto (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the word immoral
"One spouse may retain traditional values while the other spouse has accepted immoral practices". What does immoral mean? What does traditional mean? Is it something to do with sexuality? 67.160.36.123 (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Jeb

im·mor·al [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-] Show IPA adjective 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

tra·di·tion·al [truh-dish-uh-nl] Show IPA adjective 1. of or pertaining to tradition. 2. handed down by tradition. 3. in accordance with tradition.

05:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.81.78 (talk)

Western Tradition?
I came here looking for a description of the history of this tradition in the West. However the article focuses largely on the modern tradition in other cultures, and it seems to me that there should be a fuller account of our own history. Romantic love and its associated tradition of having the man and woman* decide, by my understanding, is a later development--say last 300 years or so--in the West. Indeed the article is illustrated with a Hogarth commenting on it, and points to the tradition of arranging marriages still lingering in some aristocracies.

As always, however, I appreciate the enormous effort it takes to create these articles and to satisfy the sometimes extreme needs for NPOV.

--Jobowo (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gender specific descriptions for marriages may indeed be inappropriate for description of the narrow window of Western marriages over the last, say, 20 years (hopefully, a window that continues to expand). However, gender neutral descriptions of arranged marriages, marriages outside Western culture and indeed marriage before the last century also seems unnecessary and inaccurate.

Common sense
Hasn't this been made illegal in the more important countries? How can some countries be so backwards as to allow this to continue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.186.116 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Because their political leaders don't realise how harmful it is. This is far too common among people in much of the world. The majority of humanity has not jet realised that the society can be changed for the better. This realisation is necessary for social and political progress, at least progress fast enough to be noticeable during a human lifetime. You have to learn more about cultural differences.

2010-12-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Race/ethnicity as a factor considered in matchmaking
In a list that considers Diet and Horoscope as factors in considering matchmaking, I think Race /ethnicity should be included. Even while considering that race/ethnicity is a touchy subject, and with no intention of denigrating the moral character of 'arrangers', it is still likely to be a major factor in their decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.167.248 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

it is very possible for a arraged marriage to not last for longer than 5yrs but thats just my opion through expierence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.43.40 (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensually arranged marriage!?
I seriously question the prevalence of people letting others decide which ones to marry. When parents choose partners for their children in how many cases have the children even been asked about their opinion? I find it much more likely that the parents did not allow their children to choose their partners themselves. People's interest inevitably vary for the simple reason that we are all unique individuals. What is in someone's interest even varies between family members. This is something far too many people have not yet realised. So from a psychological point of view having someone else deciding who you should marry is a lottery. Usually, when parents arrange marriages between their children they do so on economic or political grounds. In the case personal traits are even considered they are typically limited to physical appearance and/or handicap. Decisions based on such superficial traits rarely lead to happiness. A happy marriage is dependant on three factors: sexual satisfaction, emotional closeness and successful co-operation. I will explain the importance of each of them.

First, human sex drive varies enormously between individuals. Some people have to have sex almost every day in order to get sexually satisfied. Others are unable to enjoy sex more than four times a year. For a couple to sexually satisfy each other it is necessary for them to have roughly the same level of sex drive. Worse, it is estimate that 5% of humanity is exclusively homosexual. In other words they are only sexually attracted to persons of the same gender. When such persons are forced to marry someone of opposite gender he or she will feel no sexual attraction at all to his or her wife or husband. This causes a lot of problems especially if it is the man who is homosexual. In some cases the woman never gets any sex with her husband. In other cases the homosexual is able to have sex with someone of the opposite gender by simultaneously fantasising about doing it with someone of the same gender. If a couple can't sexually satisfy each other the risk of infidelity is imminent. It is in societies where sexual dissatisfaction is very common that gives rise to proverbs like “mother's baby – father's maybe”. Women which has chosen their husbands themselves are usually faithful to them.

Second, close emotional relationships can't develop between any individuals. For every person there is a limited number of individuals he or she can form such a close relationship with. This is why I think marriage should at least be based on friendship. If people are not allowed to choose their partners themselves they may well marry one who despises or dislikes them. There are examples of couples forced to marry for political reasons not even standing each other! It would not surprise me if this has happened to couples forced to marry for economic reasons as well. It is true that destructive relationships exists among people which has chosen their partners themselves. However, being forced by your parents to marry a certain person multiplies the risk of ending up in such a relationship. This is especially true in societies where men commonly despise women. Then I mean openly considering them less intrinsically valuable than men. The prevalence of that approach is thought to be the cause of gender imbalance in the favour of men.

Thirdly, in order to live together people need to co-operate. Co-operation in turn requires a certain minimum amount of communication which is differ between individuals. This minimum amount is not obvious any more than the level someone’s intellectual capabilities. It is also worth noting that different persons have different talents and skills. As such couples most make an agreement on who should do what. Traditional gender roles don’t necessary solve the problem. A person may be unable to do what is expected from him or her due to lack or personal skill. People forced to marry by their parents may not even be mentally mature enough to start a family. Black and white thinking is far too common when thinking about the mental capacities of others. Because someone is able to do a certain thing he or she is assumed to be able to do a great deal of other things. In reality there are many different mental capabilities which matures at different times. Modern cognitive scientists has in fact found that we are not mentally fully adult until the age of twenty. Consequentially, the human body matures faster than the mind. Furthermore, different organs may well be out of phase with each other. A little more than half of all girls get menarche years before their hips are wide enough to allow them to safely give birth. The unwillingness to have sexual intercourse so commonly shown by pubescent girls might well be an instinct to prevent them from getting pregnant before they can give birth safely. However, this only makes sense as long as consensual sex is the norm. If a girl aged twelve or less is forced to marry by her father because she has just had menarche the risk is imminent that she will die from childbirth. Even if she survives giving birth the child may well die from neglect because the mother is not mentally mature enough. Fathers forcing their daughters to marry shortly after menarche probably think that the prime purpose of marriage is to reproduce. The tragedy is so few of them realising that their daughters are too young to reproduce successfully.

You may ask why people don't adopt any better to these situations. The answer is because they can't. The malleability of the human mind is actually rather limited. Although some degree of adjustment is possible due to training the basic principles for how the mind works have biological causes. Evolutionary speaking, our minds are adopted to the life we lived as hunter-gatherers which constitute 94 – 95% of humanity's existence. The 10,000 – 12,000 years since the development of agriculture is simply too short for any large evolutionary changes. Among typical hunter-gatherers there are neither social stratification nor formal political leadership. This eliminates the motives for forcing your children to marry a certain person. As such people can choose their partners themselves. Men which no woman wanted occasionally commit rape out of desperate need for sex. But consensual sex was the norm. Consequentially, the want to choose your partner yourself is common to all humanity. I don't think people would allow their parents to choose partners for them unless they has been fooled to think there is no point trying themselves. The heart of the problem is the lack of informed consent and not if a relationship is accepted by the surrounding society.

2010-12-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

While the expression still carry negative connotations my idea of “arranged marriage” was probably more based on forced marriage. This means I imagined things like these:

1. Two men make an agreement that their children will be married. 2. Two men make an agreement that one man's daughter will be the wife of the other man. 3. A man literarily byes another man's daughter with the marriage ceremony making the only difference to buying a slave. 4. A man kidnaps a woman and then uses the marriage ceremony to legitimize exploiting her. 5. A man dies resulting in his widow being automatically married to his brother.

In other words, I imagined the one or both of the married having no influence on who he - or more often she - will marry. If a woman has no influence on who she will marry why would she have any on who her daughter will? Also, I have been told that marriages were arranged on economic or sometimes political grounds. No-one told me of anyone caring about personal characteristics. So I concluded that the only ones ever influencing the decisions were possibly age and looks.

To a large extent these ideas reflect the very real threats against certain girls in Sweden which parents grew up in the Middle East. (We don't have many immigrants from North Africa.) The fathers of these girls have no freaking idea of the interests of their daughters being inevitably different from their own, personal ones. Alternatively, there are too misogynic to care about it.

Now I have been told that at least in some cultures did take personal mental characteristics into consideration. This can explain why so many claimed bloodlines through “arranged” marriages are actually useful in genetic research. People in general and especially women don't easily accept reproducing with just about anyone. From the point of view of evolutionary psychology that would be the result if no consideration is taken of personal mental characteristics and/or wants. Maybe people in societies where women were not pretty much held captive in their homes learned that the hard way?

2015-01-12 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Evolutionary biology
Seeing as arranged marriage plays a novel role in mate choice, it would be informative to include at least a section detailing the subject from a scientific standpoint. Essential highlights should likely revolve around the evolutionary effects, such as population genetics and epidemiology. —  C M B J  11:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The element of choice

 * An arranged marriage is a practice in which someone other than the couple getting married makes the selection of the persons to be wed ... (first sentence of Arranged marriage)
 * A forced marriage differs from an arranged marriage, in which both parties consent to the assistance of their parents or a third party (such as a matchmaker) in identifying a spouse (copied from Forced marriage).

Are we saying that there is no element of choice in arranged marriage? I object to this characterization, because I happen to know many people who have had arranged marriages, and virtually all of them stressed that both spouses had a veto! --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

very common in Iran ?
The article says: "This type of arranged marriage is very common in Iran under the name of khastegari."

The information that I could obtain does not suggest that it is common. I therefore suggest that the unreferenced statement quoted above be editted.

"Traditionally this is called the “Khastergari” where the suitor or the “Khastegar” accompanied by his parents, guardians or elder family members calls upon the bride’s family to ask for her hand in marriage. The bride’s family receives the guests warmly offering tea and sweets “shirini”. In the olden days, when the couple did not know each other too well, they would be allowed to go on a date. Today, arranged marriages are not typical in Iran or within Iranian culture. Most couples have met and fallen in love and are ready to make the commitment. It is always polite and respectful to ask the parents for the daughter’s hand in marriage. If you are about to ask someone to marry you and you want the correct phrase or pronunciation for "Will you marry me?" in Farsi, then check out our tips section." http://www.persianmirror.com/celebrations/persianweddings/engagement/iranianengagement.cfm

"Khastegari is a traditional Persian ceremony for proposing. It is not used as much currently, because arranged marriages are becoming less and less common, but in many cases khastegari is still used in non-arranged marriages as a symbol of respect and tradition. In Khastegari, if a man wants to marry a woman, he must go to her house, accompanied by his elder relatives, such as his father, and propose. In an arranged marriage, this might be the first time the groom and bride meet each other. The groom’s family are then received by the bride’s family, and have a small engagement party where the two families get to know each other. 	When Amir falls in love with Soraya, he asks his father to arrange the khastegari. It seems to be a big deal to both Amir and Baba when they go to her house, and receive General Taheri’s blessing for them to get engaged. This is the first step for their marriage." http://devonlawrence.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/9/3/11934442/portfolio_nonfiction_analysis.docx

Academic reference

Behnaz Jalili writes in "Ethnicity and Family Therapy, Third Edition edited by Monica McGoldrick, Joe Giordano, Nydia Garcia-Preto", page 456 that "the number of arranged marriages is declining, but they still occur". (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6Al1kB_6GyMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasha Abd (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Islam forbids marriage to non-Muslims?
The article raises the issue of multi-religious marriage within Islam, stating that cross-religion marriage is prohibited. It is quite controversial, and contradicts the following passage(s) from the Koran.

"And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men [to your women] until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite [you] to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember." Chapter 2 (Al Baqarah), Verse 221

Furthermore:

"Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve." Chapter 2 (Al Baqarah), Verse 62.

The following article within the page contradicts the aforementioned passages, and renders the information provided therein invalid: "Religion Some religious dominations recognize marriages only within the faith. Of the major religions of the world, only Islam forbids marriage of girls born to a devout parent to a man who does not belong to that religion. In other words, Islam forbids marriage of Muslim girls to non-Muslim men,[99] and the religious punishment for those who marry outside is death. This is one of the causes of arranged marriages in Islamic minority populations in Europe."

Regardless of stated sources, the Koran assumes authority over all aspects of Islam, thus cannot be challenged, negotiated or altered by any person. Having said that, I assume there will be some people who would like to challenge what I say - stating that the website (Wikipedia) is better off without people making such statements (I.E, the Koran says this and it is true). That raises an even further issue. If that was the case, then the source stated was most likely from a Muslim scholar. Muslim scholars are in no position to contradict what the Koran says in such regards because they themselves follow it. If they do not follow the Koranic teachings and alter the teachings thereof, then they nor are they Muslims, and nor is the source valid.

This concludes the raised topic. Hopefully, for the betterment of the website, the issue will be resolved.

Unfortunately, I'm relatively new to this website and I do not know the format in which to post this issue. Thus, should there be any inconsistencies with the formatting, I am liable. I do not know the rules regarding posting (somewhat) personal information either, so I'll take responsibility if anything bad happens. With that said, should any questions arise, feel free to email me. My email is "aahma34@gmail.com". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.169.115 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken; you are incorrectly interpreting 2.221 and you should check Quran's Al-Mumtahina verse 60.10 and others. Wikipedia articles cannot rely on personal selective interpretion of primary sources such as Quran, as you do above. They rely on reliable published WP:V sources. Beren Dersi (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Lede, timeframe, use of historical terms
There is a problem in regard to the lede of this article, in regard to the use of historical terms, and factual accuracy.
 * Here is a copy/paste of what I posted on the page of User:Beren Dersi - User_talk:Beren_Dersi.

The lede of arranged marriage continues to be very confusing. It reads:

"In modern era, arranged marriage has continued in royal,[2] aristocratic families and ethnic minority groups in developed countries;[3]"

"Modern era" links to modern history, which is generally understood as lasting from 16th century - early 20th century. The article modern history reads: "The modern era began approximately in the 16th century". The formulation of the lede remains very problematic: it implies that throughout all of the "modern era" in "developed countries" arranged marriages were restricted only to "royal, aristocratic families and ethnic minority groups". First of all this is not supported by sources and is contradicted by the lede and article itself which state that it was only from the 18th century onwards that non-arranged marriage became somewhat mainstream. Also the source for royal marriage is for Princess Diana's marriage to Charles - this is generally referred to as contemporary history rather than modern history. I cannot access the other source for "ethnic minority groups in developed countries" but I believe it refers to the contemporary era too. Also terms such as developed countries/Western countries should not be used when discussing societies from centuries ago.

I changed "modern era" to "more recent times". It is still problematic, but I think it is better. If an exact timeframe cannot be given, at least it should not appear misleading. The lede still needs work. 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:5679:AED5 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference [3] refers to contemporary era too. I am fine with your change. I re-arranged it, and added another source. Beren Dersi (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - This RFC does not ask a question. Usually an RFC asks a question with !votes.  This RFC will be difficult to close unless a Survey section for !votes is added.  Does the proposer want to restate the question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Not only does this RfC not ask a question, there hasn't been sufficient discussion on this talk page. Per WP:BRD, be bold and make whatever change you want. If you get reverted, discuss with that editor. If you can't reach a consensus, then make a request for comment. If you don't know how to fix it, bring the issue up on the talk pages of the WikiProjects this article falls under. You can also ask the Guild of CopyEditors for a re-write. For what it's worth, it would be better to state that arranged marriage died out among European peoples during modernity, with the exceptions of the aristocracy and ethnic groups still practicing endogamy. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment My comment may not be very helpful, but I am flabbergasted to see 'Charles and Di' characterised as an 'arranged marriage'. That any leading Royal knows that they have to make a choice acceptable to the public is obvious, but I don't see how that is different from a politician knowing that their choice of spouse will affect their future career. As I said not very helpful to your present dispute.Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just be BOLD and change "In modern era" to "Since the 1800s" or something to that effect. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015
Please change "the religious punishment for those who marry outside is death." to nothing (remove it )  because it's incorrect information because referenced verse in the holy Quran does not state that.

Inkversion (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The citations are not to the Quran but to two textbooks. What verse do you believe is being referenced? Cannolis (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Arranged marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-beer-bride15-2009jan15,0,7106665.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The bible verse in the Religion section
Get rid of it. It's contextually ambiguous and it sounds better just to leave it out. the verses before speak of how Paul the apostle is speaking without the authority of God for the following verses. Just get rid of the Verse 1 Corinthians 7:14 at the end of paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.6.36.103 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Many arranged marriages also end up being cold and dysfunctional as well, with reports of abuse."
The first source is a singular case, the second source is a singular case, and the third source does not in fact list the prevalence of it happening. Using the world "Many", with these sources, is a rather long stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.169.9.116 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Arranged marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718015033/http://www.ifuw.org:80/fuwa/docs/Early-marriage.pdf to http://www.ifuw.org/fuwa/docs/Early-marriage.pdf
 * Added tag to http://taiwanpedia.culture.tw/en/content?ID=3664&Keyword=wedding
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150618091443/http://www.spi.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/PDF/wp23.pdf to http://www.spi.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/pdf/wp23.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Section called "Causes and PREVALENCE" does not give any
Yet, in that section, there is no cited and verifiable data given for the PREVALENCE on a world-wide basis.Starhistory22 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Should the "Related books" section be here?
I removed some errors with it, but it seems kind of extraneous to the article as a whole. 75.110.35.108 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)



I Agree IP user. I suggest we delete it. --XTMontana (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 21011 Research Writing
— Assignment last updated by Wordnerd104 (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 21011 Research Writing
— Assignment last updated by Wordnerd104 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Editorialization in the Past vs Present section
I don’t have the time to edit this myself, but I feel like attention should be drawn to the editorial tone of the Past vs Present section of the article. It is fairly informal and contains many phrases that editorialize without references. Drcatherwood (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed--I read through the section trying to find points to keep, but ultimately deleted the section seeing as there are no citations (save for one on the existence of a dating site), and most of the claims are ones that would require a compelling source or otherwise fail to have an NPOV, ie:
 * "Modern-day arranged marriages are different from old-time arranged marriages. [...] In the past, both families set up arranged marriages when the future couple were children. In many arranged marriages, the couple would get engaged one day after meeting for the first time." - This does not hold true for all modern arranged marriages, nor for all past arranged marriages; modern arranged marriage isn't always so autonomous, and many past arranged marriages were decided past childhood & involved courtship/consent.
 * "Most people in the U.S. would think that sounds absurd" - this shows a heavy Anglo-American focus, and also carries judgemental connotations. No source is provided on "most people." This is also phrased more like an argumentative essay than an encyclopedia.
 * "Something new is that young couples can date like normal couples and get a feel for one another." - This is the only sourced claim in the section, but has a judgemental tone, and also implies that past arranged marriages did not involve courtship; calling non-arranged marriages "normal" implies heavy judgement towards arranged marriages.
 * "However, with this upbringing of dating apps and websites, relationships have become more and more casual, so arranged marriages may now be more successful than ordinary day relationships." - This absolutely needs a source both on relationships becoming more casual as a result of dating apps and on arranged marriage being more successful. Both are opinions.
 * If that section were to be re-added to the page, I think it would probably have to be rewritten from scratch. I don't think it's necessary at all, though, especially since there's already a history section--shouldn't any comparisons to the modern day be included there instead?
 * Solvdiaz (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)