Talk:Engagement

Cleanup
Hello. I cleaned this bit up and added some things. I think it's still kind of messy but I tried my best. The first one I've done. I found there was a lot of different ideas about the history and wasn't sure how to incorporate it all so I provided a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papa leaf (talk • contribs) 15:53, August 18, 2005
 * Engagement in my country is a little different from the description on this page. In my country engagement is a contract entered into between members of two families whereby they agree that two persons, the fince and the fiancee, shall get married. Usually the future spouses do not have a say on the decision to marry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.99.14 (talk • contribs) 07:17, July 23, 2008
 * i added the engagment party section.
 * I have had trouble finding all this info in one source and so decided to add it to Wiki.
 * Please keep the presents sections as when they happen no one knows what to get! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.63.150 (talk • contribs) 05:37, December 17, 2005

Truluv
If this term is truly replacing fiance in the English language, a source should be cited. (I've never heard of this term and suspect it is not used very widely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.64.102 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, there is absolutely no evidence that "Truluv" is a real term. Google apparently has never heard of this term either.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary?  I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, can we just delete this dubious statement? Pediddle (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the term "truluv"? Preposterous! I've been looking for a replacement for the French word for a while. "Truluv" beats "fee-an-kee" hands down.

Truluv is a new movement in Socal to rid the english language of the word Fiance. Fiance is a french word and just plain dumb. If the world is to be a better place in the end, we need our own words. If u peeps have issues with new upcoming language, just because u cant find it on a google search, u should really get a hobbie. "This is my truluv." "Im meeting my truluv for lunch." etc..


 * You need to provide a solid reliable source that supports its inclusion. Wikipedia isn't advocating either side:  just insisting that whatever's in the encyclopedia be verifiable instead of things someone made up one day.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal nature?
Can anyone find out about the legal bases of engagement? In Germany and Switzerland, at least, there are laws that regulate it in more or less detail -- how is that in English-speaking countries?

I also understand that in most European countries, the engagement ring is worn on the 4th finger of the right hand, to distinguish it from a wedding ring. Comments? JREL 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Does anyone know if it's illegal to propose engagement if under the marriagable age (as long as the actual marriage occurs after the passing of age required by law)? --Concordia 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am by no means a lawyer but i am an ethical person and i would hope that it would be illegal to propose at an age that is not appropriate. I hope I'm not to much of an old timer, mind you I'm not that old, i just got married myself at age 30 and my boy friend and i looked into finding a beautiful diamond engagement ring we found you really needed to know about the 4 C's when choosing a diamond. We did research and we found Excellent Diamond Cutters. I personally believe fiance should be of legal marriageable age and i would recommend going together to choose the engagement ring based on my excellent experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.16.102 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Other meanings for engagement
Should there be an extra link to an article at the top about engagement in the military sense? 59.167.138.207 10:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is an appropriate article to link to, a disambiguation link would be fine. Which article are you thinking of?  ACW 16:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy is refering to the term "Rules of Engagment" Its a term used by the meaning "Engaging the enemy"69.34.111.9 (talk)Jon —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

Breach of Promise
My information on that is straight from the main article - I mainly know of it through Trial by Jury and various other pieces by Gilbert that mention it, like Engaged (play) and The Mountebanks (opera), not from a legal view. Adam Cuerden talk 07:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I went to the breach of promise article in the hope of adding sources but unfortunately that's unsourced too! It's a great addition to the engagement article.  Brings home the economic and contractual arrangement engagements and marriages used to be for some. --Siobhan Hansa 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, is citing Gilbert's Hamlet Parody in The Mountebanks:


 * Ophelia to her sex was a disgrace
 * Who nobody could feel compassion for:
 * Ophelia should have gone to Ely place
 * To consult an eminent solicitor
 * When such promises as these
 * Makes a suitor, rich and regal
 * Substantial damages
 * Is the panacea legal:
 * From the jury, Sons of Adam,
 * Though as stony as MacAdam
 * Maid or Madam
 * She'd have had 'im
 * Would Ophelia!
 * -Ophelia was a dainty little maid, Verse 2.

Useful? And sadly enough, I did that from memory. Adam Cuerden talk 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

vein that leads to the heart?
All veins lead to the heart. --⁪froth T 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that it was the Roman belief, not that it's actually factual. --Aervanath 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If one's time to be committed or to commit comes, he or she would LOVE a one-vein-leading-to-the-heart story and really wouldn't care that all veins actually lead to the heart. I'm sure everybody knows that and I'm sure HE (or she) knows better than anyone that his (or her) heart "leads" only to one particular person..... (even if that's not an actual fact) --Stylherc 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Iraklis

Calling friends and family?
I would not disagree with the portion of the article that states that it is common in the US to call friends and family after a proposal has been accepted, but is it really "traditional"? I'm just curious how much sociological evidence supports this versus some author's personal experience within his or her own family and friends as well as with cinematic depictions cmac 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I havent seen or heard of a family that didnt do it. I even did when I got engaged.69.34.111.9 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Jon

Engagement period begins in 1215?
I'm confused by the idea that the engagement period may be a creation of the Fourth Lateran Council: if you look at the Bible, you'll see certain passages (mostly in the Torah) that discuss virgins pledged to be married, and I think that the Hebrew Bible is just a trifle older than the Fourth Lateran Council :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the Talmud talks about it, where it is called shiduchei.Mzk1 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice debate
The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear typo but can't figure out what is meant
There is clearly at least one typographical error in the sentence:

In some other countries from South America, like in Argentina, man and woman use each one a ring, and these are generally very similar to the wedding rings, with the difference that they are made of silver instead of gold.

Can anybody figure this out and correct it? roricka 17:47, 10 December 2008 (ET)


 * I think it's supposed to mean that the fiancées give each other a silver engagement ring. Churchh (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Third or fourth finger?
In the section for "Engagement rings" shouldn't it be the fourth finger? See Ring_finger and Vena_amoris. The main article Engagement_ring also mentions the "fourth finger". The only reason I've not edited it yet is because some claim that the thumb is not a finger, though the article finger seems to contradict that notion. Any objections to changing this article to read "fourth finger?" --Raztus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Betrothal
What is the difference between Betrothal and Engagement? --91.96.59.30 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In some cultures they are the same, but in Judaism they are two different things; Betrothal is the first stage of marriage.Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

See Also?
Since a number of wedding terms redirect here, should the glossary of wedding terms be added to a See Also section? 68.94.213.50 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Engagement parties
This section has no supporting evidence. It needs verification. I realize we Americans have parties for just about any- and every-thing, but I don't recall ever hearing of an engagement party. I'm not saying they don't exist, but in Wik we are supposed to verify things with refs.Kdammers (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewish section is a mess
The Jewish section is a complete, unsourced mess of inaccuracies. They are mixing up engagement with betrothal, modern Hebrew with legal language, and kesef kiddushin (so-called bride price) with dowry. I started to fix it, but it leaves a lot mote work or should be removed.Mzk1 (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see half of the problem is that the generic part looked like the Jewish part. So I fixed it by removing Jewish references. Still needs work.Mzk1 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * New mess! The part on rings confuses Shidukhin (engagement), Erusin/Kiddushin (bethrothal, which is Judaism is the first stage of marriage), and the Ketubah, which is not related to the Kessef (money of) Kiddushin, unless you have a source that says so.


 * The Jewish stuff is still a mess. We wouldn't tolerate fundamentalist Christians imposing their world-view on this article; the same principle should apply to extreme Jewish ideology. Certainly Jewish custom has been influential, and not just through the fact that Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism. What we need is an expert on Judaica. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there such thing as "legally engaged"?
Now and then, even in some wikipedia articles, this term can be found referring to 20-21st century situations. But is engagement recognized in some way by the modern legal systems? Does engagement require registration with government in some jurisdictions? Any legal consequences? Article only slightly mentions legality when applied to some situations few centuries ago. This way or the other, article should have a section on the legal status of the subject. Yurivict (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am currently researching this for the engagement ring article, but so far it looks as if there were at least two and possibly three related but different concepts: engagement, betrothal, and espousal (don't know if the last two are the same). Until the Protestant Reformation betrothal was official, legally binding (although the contract could be annulled by paying restitution), and sanctioned by the Church. Then around 1525 the wedding vows in England changed to "with this ring I thee wed" at which point the wedding became more important than the betrothal. (No idea if Catholic countries followed suit during the Counter-Reformation) According to some sources, that's when betrothal started to become mere engagements. Today people do not register with the government, but some aspects of engagement are relevant in civil suits, for example, if a woman supports her boyfriend to get him through medical school and then he dumps her, an engagement ring would carry a lot of weight in court, but only as supporting evidence. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mormon section
A new Mormon section has just been added. The section title is too long. It should match the other section titles. The inline citation needs to go in a footnote. (WP:MOS has info on how to do that.) Also, we frown on websites as sources as they are subject to "link rot." The same information should be available from something in Google books. Here is a handy tool for turning a Google Books url into a Wikipedia citation: http://reftag.appspot.com/ Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Weird formatting in opening paragraph
Does anybody know how to fix the opening paragraph? Because I've counted up the number of apostrophes and it all seems to match up. But for some reason, the formatting's broken. --75.186.76.198 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The edit that caused the problem was 23:35, 19 November 2013‎ 75.0.180.16, the betrothed near the bottom of the paragraph had a third apostrophe at the beginning but only two at the end. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)