Talk:Marriage/Archive 16

Marriage, a judeo-christian perversion of an Astrozorian ceremony.
Before engaging the Romans, in their final defeat, Constantine the Great was said to have experienced a 'solar cross'. This was claimed to be the motivation for his religious conversion. Upon returning to Istanbul, he called the Council of Nicia to cannonize 'the book'. As the majority of the empire was Astrozorian, the Christians were required to assimilate by compromise. This is where the sabbath was moved from Saturday to Sunday, and the adoption of the Astrozorian marriage ceremony started. Though it's more of a perversion, as same sex couples were allowed in the protected class. All countries that recognize marriage as a legal public contract are Socialist, to full blown Communist, matriarchs (where we get matrimony). As marriage is abused(by the gov/BAR asso)as a form of wealth transfer, the authoritarians being the greatest beneficiary, while scientist/producers, in general, are the victims. A democracy of Judiciary arts degree holders, will forever subvert the objectivity of science and rational thinking. Belittle arts degrees (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Belittle arts degrees, for a better future


 * "Before engaging the Romans, in their final defeat, Constantine the Great was said to have experienced a 'solar cross'. This was claimed to be the motivation for his religious conversion. Upon returning to Istanbul, he called the Council of Nicia to cannonize 'the book'. " Constantine the Great was a Roman, simply engaged in a civil war against the other emperors of the Tetrarchy. The Battle of the Milvian Bridge (with the associated vision) took place in 312, and his opponent was Maxentius. Constantinople was established in 324, inaguarated in 330, and would not be renamed to Istanbul until 1930. The First Council of Nicaea took place in 325, and it was primarily over Arianism and Christological matters. It did not canonise any book. Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite all respect [actually, as opposed to presumedly,] due to our colleague B.a. d., as  a(n implicitly supposed) colleague, it is always a great satisfaction to me (i.e., personally, as a self-retired but excessively pompous admin who possesses the hubris to claim to know [one's] own limitations), to see such an enormously pompous twit (as seems to be the case here), put in (probably his, but in any case) "their" proper place.    Any malice on my part (which would have been odious on the part of any still-active admin, and is nevertheless still rude, by intention, in my currently merely collegial, in contrast to, in practice moderately superior, former status) set aside, I note how satisfying are both their embarrassing use of proof by  blatant assertion, and the claimed (and presumably accurate) refutations of both, with presumably s, by the succeeding colleague are how (more than just satisfying, and literally (though nonsexually)) gratifying. (With pleasure, wiki:smuggity, and w/ goodwill twd all legitimate colleagues, i remain YLs'&Ls'MH&Os, -- JerzyA (talk) 🖌JerzyA 🔹(talk)  🕰16:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019
In the Baha'i Faith section: Please change function in the phrase "bond, but it is not obligatory" to a period after bond. (The Baha'i Faith encourages marriage and views it as a mutually strengthening bond.) Change to  I added this request because I wanted to go more in depth and include an important person from the Baha'i Faith, specifically stating himself, that marriage is not obligatory.

Next change: Further explain what makes up a couple. Add: Add this sentence after the sentence stating  I am further explaining what marriage is because in today's society there are many ways to define what exactly a couple is. It is important to define what a couple means to the believers of the Baha'i Faith because in this faith, they are against the union of the same sex.

Add a new paragraph stating,

Add new paragraph about divorce stating, I added this statement about divorce because I believe this article is pretty dense in the Baha'i contributions. I believe adding information about divorce brings this article full circle. Divorce is not something that people wish for, but in certain cases, it is necessary. I wanted to add this information because I believe it is an important aspect of this religion.

Citations: Gonsame17 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Marriage, Bahai: Warwick Leaflets". Bahai Library Online. Warwick Bahai Bookshop. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
 * "What Bahai's Believe". The Bahai Faith. Bahai International Community. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Given this has been hanging out in the semi-protected edit request backlog for a month and a half now, I'm going to decline this request without prejudice to a positive consensus for the change. Izno (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Me, woman
hey authors of this pseudo-definition of marriage, you are absolutely and hopelessly lonely and sick for the inability to meet your own needs ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.42.21 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but that's why I have so much time to edit Wikipedia. Please don't make personal attacks against other editors. If you have suggestions for improving the article, make them.--Trystan (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Ritually" and "Affinity"
I've made a change to the definition, and would like to suggest one more.

It previously read: "... that establishes rights and obligations between them, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family relations through marriage)." This doesn't hold up grammatically, as affinity is the relationship; you can't establish obligations between the spouse and affinity. We could say affines here, but in-laws is a perfectly acceptable synonym, and is the word used in the cited source. No need to make it needlessly complex and difficult to understand for the reader.

The definition also says "socially or ritually recognised union". Something can be socially recognized (recognized by society), culturally recognized (recognized by culture), or legally recognized (recognized by law). I don't think something can be recognized by a ritual. Marriage is often formalized by a ritual, but it is the society/culture/law that recognizes the resulting relationship. At any rate, this wording is not supported by sources or explained in the body, and appears to be original research, albeit longstanding OR. I would suggest trimming it down to just "socially recognized", which is broad enough to encompass whatever "ritually" is trying to say. Or, even better, going back to the wording in the cited source, and saying "culturally recognized".--Trystan (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A whole lot of un-cited text in the "Classical Greece and Rome" Section Question
Almost the whole section is "citation needed" and, while I don't have the citations to correct them, several of the statements are dubious at best:

"Men usually married when they were in their 20s[citation needed] and women in their teens. It has been suggested that these ages made sense for the Greeks because men were generally done with military service or financially established by their late 20s, and marrying a teenage girl ensured ample time for her to bear children, as life expectancies were significantly lower.[citation needed]"

There is a tendency to mis-use "average life expectancy" in historical writing. Most people take an average of 30 to mean "most people died at 30", not that--due to high infant mortality rates--your odds after a year or two were pretty good, with generally another spike in the late-teens/early-twenties (women largely dying in childbirth and men in war). If you made it past that, you were pretty solid. (After all, if a large number of people died as infants, you'd generally need a good number of people dying at 60+ to end up with that average.)

My long way of saying a "low *average* life expectancy" is not really the same as "life expectancies were significantly lower", especially in terms of individuals who had survived childhood.

And another strategy would say that marrying a younger woman gives you a better shot at more children--not because people don't live very long, but because many of her children will die young (so you want to make use of all of her fertile years). (Of course, many women died in childbirth, and ironically teens more often than older women. But there you go. *shrug*)

I don't have citations to hand for my assertions, but neither does what's already there.

I don't want to start throwing in *more* "It's also suggested"s without citations, but I think it's misleading to leave all the un-cited text (much of which I think is wrong) in place.

What is the SOP for a situation like this? Trim it back to basically the redirect? At least until someone can try to mine the redirect for citations? [And I've spent all my time asking, I don't have the time to find proper cites myself. :( ]

Lamerc (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of this article is way too long IMO
IMO it should be a little shorter don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.9.60 (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding new section - Longest marriages on record (prospective merge/redirect)
The 'List of people with the longest marriages' page is currently amidst an AfD and as an alternative to deletion, a proposal was made to incorporate at least some of the most notable records in a section within the Marriage page (with the means as yet undetermined).

While this may be more neutral than controversial, someone suggested raising the question here as a prelude to addressing this potential merge. Note that the list criteria is one of the discussion points in the AfD. Preliminary to doing so… any thoughts, concerns, insights, or issues to be addressed? ogenstein (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC) ogenstein (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion it would make sense to include a section with some of the longest marriages. Otherwise if there are only a few notable marriages, they could also be mentioned in other sections like Europe. --HRwatcher (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Idea for new article
(This post is for a class on Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities) I would like to create a new article under the parent article “Marriage.” The other day I had a discussion with Professor Stephanie Santos about how it used to be customary in many Pacific Islands for a child to be raised by a community, rather than a family unit tied together by marriage. European colonizers believed that the indigenous people were heathens because they did not have the same institution of marriage that the colonizers were familiar with. This attitude of course further justified colonial violence against these communities. I would love to write an article highlighting the history of colonialism within the topic of marriage. Check out my user page to see some sources I may use. HappyGourd (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

spelling error
can a more experienced user please correct the error in the (same sex section) just after it mentions the US DOMA act. it should read as FROM but is spelled as FORM.

"(2013) which prevented the Federal Government form recognizing same-sex marriage" should be "(2013) which prevented the Federal Government from recognizing same-sex marriage"

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewEnglandYankee (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling edit required
"drub abuse" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.93.5 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing. I have fixed it, but you could do this yourself next time. :-) HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019
In the first paragraph, the sentence beginning with "Typically" should start the second paragraph, as it begins describing a different topic or different aspect of marriage. 71.63.175.63 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. This seems to belong in the same paragraph. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019
This should be moved to the see also section at the end of the article: "Religious marriage is known variously as sacramental marriage in Catholicism, nikah in Islam, nissuin in Judaism, and various other names in other faith traditions, each with their own constraints as to what constitutes, and who can enter into, a valid religious marriage." 71.63.175.63 (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ per MOS:SEEALSO. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
The text "In some societies, a marriage can be annulled, when an authority declares that a marriage never happened. Jurisdictions often have provisions for void marriages or voidable marriages. " should be revised to In some societies, a marriage can be DECLARED NULL, when an authority declares that a marriage never happened. Jurisdictions often have provisions for void marriages or voidable marriages.

Indeed, if the marriage never happened, it does not make sense to talk about annulling it, but rather to declare that it was null to begin it.

A small but important change to fix the logical inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.17.36 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. See Annulment; this language is standard. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Very informative
I found this article to be very informative, from the pictures to the maps indicating the different laws and regulations in different countries. I did find a few spelling and grammatical errors, but other than that i think this is a great article. I would recommend this to anyone who wants to know the history of marriage and what other countries and religions believe the meaning of marriage. Raymond Heredia (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020
Marriage

Mohsinali456 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nepalese marriage.jpg

Text split line needs to be removed on 'Religion' tab in the article
In my opinion, the text split line in the article needs to be removed on the 'Religion' tab before the first picture as in my opinion it spoils the alignment of the text. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020
In the Islamic marriage there is what I believe to be misinformation. In most sects of Islam it is not permissible for a woman to be ever forced into marriage. Here are some hadith that indicate that forced marriage is not acceptable: "Abdur Rahman bin Yazid Al-Ansari and Mujamma bin Yazid Al-Ansari said: that a man among them who was called Khidam arranged a marriage for his daughter, and she did not like the marriage arranged by her father. She went to the Messenger of Allah and told him about that, and he annulled the marriage arranged by her father. Then she married Abu Lubabah bin Abdul-Mundhir." English reference	 : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1873 It was narrated from Ibn Buraidah that: his father said: “A girl came to the Prophet and said: 'My father married me to his brother's son so that he might raise his status thereby.' The Prophet gave her the choice, and she said: 'I approve of what my father did, but I wanted women to know that their fathers have no right to do that.' ” English reference	 : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1874 It was narrated from Ibn Umar that: when Uthman bin Mazun died, he left behind a daughter. Ibn Umar said: “My maternal uncle Qudamah, who was her paternal uncle, married me to her, but he did not consult her. That was after her father had died. She did not like this marriage, and the girl wanted to marry Mughirah bin Shubah, so she married him.”English reference	 : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1878

The change requested is to remove the following claim that has been included in the Islam section of this article: " If the wali of the girl her father or paternal grandfather, he has the right to force her into marriage even against her proclaimed will, if it is her first marriage. A guardian who is allowed to force the bride into marriage is called wali mujbir." 2A00:23C5:D61F:8000:DCC9:6DB:891B:742E (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This was so odd a statement and definition that I had to check the cited source and as expected the source cited 250 does not state that Wali Mujbir is a guardian who is allowed to force the bridge inro marriage, rather wali mujbir is a term used only for when the father or the paternal grandfather of the bride acting as the guardian, if it is someone else it is known as the wali mukhtar. It does not state that the guardian is allowed to force her into marriage, it notes that consent is required, however the wali mujbir is allowed to confirm a virgin girls consent on her behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.183.19 (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre needs Fix ...
(Hi!) ... or so I think (I could be confused). "The suffix "-gamy" refers specifically to the number of spouses, as in bi-gamy (two spouses, generally illegal in most nations), and poly-gamy (more than one spouse)." AFAIK the suffix (an affix affixed to the end) "-gamy" just means "marriage", doesn't it? That is, not specifically the number of spouses. That linguistic task is performed by the various prefixes (an affix affixed at the beginning) such as mono-, bi-, and poly-. So .. "The prefix added to "-gamy" refers specifically to the number of spouses .../.../"? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The traditional attire of Thiyyar (Tiyya) Bridegroom and companions who dressed as warriors and holding raised sword in their right hand ,in 1912.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021
Remove this image. Because, "Poor quality and redundant: MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, and the questionable text claimed in description does not have citation WP:WHYCITE. It is also not a lead quality image". 2409:4073:89:EA20:94CD:4D67:1688:D9A6 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The image is old, but provides a good example of marriage in a culture in the past, so it has value. It's also not the lead image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for citation on 8 October 2021
If possible, change the first "citation needed" mark at content 8.1.3 (Islam) to the trusted article "Heather Johnson, There are Worse Things Than Being Alone: Polygamy in Islam, Past, Present, and Future, 11 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 563 (2005), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol11/iss3/11", which contains enough proof to back up the statement of polygyny, polyandry, and sex-slaves. Eliza melville (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: not a definitive no, but this may be a dissertation, as the year on a LinkedIn profile checks out: . ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Is this any exceptional or controversial claim? Doctoral dissertations are usually longer than 35 pages; of course whether that's the case in law is entirely out of my topic of knowledge. I'd be slightly concerned because this is a journal in law and not in religious studies [nor does the author appear to have any qualification in that]; although "William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice" pretty squarely seems to fit the topic of "women in Islam", so there's that. There's surely a better source than this, though, right? In fact, there's a whole article here just on Polygyny in Islam... Pick something there, maybe? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021
Change thumbnail from a Germanic couple to a couple of color, for greater diversity. There is already a Germanic representation of marriage in the Swedish clothing on the sidebar.

File:Kim young sam marriage.jpg Pekowaffer (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021
Early nomadic communities in the middle east practised a form of marriage known as beena, in which a wife would own a tent of her own, within which she retains complete independence from her husband

Early nomadic communities in the middle east practiced a form of marriage known as beena, in which a wife would own a tent of her own, within which she retains complete independence from her husband

Change practised to practiced GladiatorialFur (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ There was another practise kicking around in the article that I changed too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ABeautifulDayToday.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2022
— Assignment last updated by AriannaLarson (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Rights paragraph
"In the EU, the last country to allow divorce was Malta, in 2011." This sentence is ill-written. On its face it appears to assert that divorce is now illegal in all European countries, whereas it intends to say the exact opposite.Paulhummerman (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Grammar “between people called spouses”
Marriage is not a relationship “between people called spouses.” … it is “between people.” Current sentence places people in status of spouse prior to marriage (or in order to marry)

Please change eg: “…between people. Once married they are referred to as husband, wife, or spouses.” Jennpublic (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead Too Long (Re-edit)
Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a culturally recognised union between people that establishes rights and obligations between them, as well as between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.[1] It is considered a cultural universal, but the definition of marriage varies between cultures and religions, and over time. Typically, it is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged or sanctioned. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. A marriage ceremony is called a wedding.

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by gender, socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and forced marriage, are practiced. In other areas such practices are outlawed to preserve women's rights or children's rights (both female and male) or as a result of international law.[2] Marriage has historically restricted the rights of women, who are sometimes considered the property of the husband. Around the world, primarily in developed democracies, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights for women within marriage (including abolishing coverture, liberalizing divorce laws, and reforming reproductive and sexual rights) and legally recognizing the marriages of interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community, or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. It usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved, and any offspring they may produce or adopt. When a marriage is performed by a religious institution, it is a religious marriage. Religious marriage recognizes and creates the rights and obligations intrinsic to matrimony in the eyes of that religion. Religious marriage is known variously as sacramental marriage in Catholicism, nikah in Islam, nissuin in Judaism, and various other names in other faith traditions, each with their own constraints as to what constitutes, and who can enter into, a valid religious marriage.

When a marriage is performed and carried out by a government institution in accordance with the marriage laws of the jurisdiction, without religious content, it is a civil marriage. Civil marriage recognizes and creates the rights and obligations intrinsic to matrimony in the eyes of the state. Some countries do not recognize locally performed religious marriage on its own, and require a separate civil marriage for official purposes. Conversely, civil marriage does not exist in some countries governed by a religious legal system, such as Saudi Arabia, where marriages contracted abroad might not be recognized if they were contracted contrary to Saudi interpretations of Islamic religious law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAlicehuang (talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * “A marriage ceremony is called a wedding” => “a ceremony that formalizes a marriage is called a wedding” Jennpublic (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Change “gender” to “sex”. Section on gender covers gender as social construct and social identity.
 * “Determined by” in the context of this article suggests cultural constraints often put upon marriage, of which requirements such as “one man one woman” is one. I cannot think of any requirements based on gender identity, only sex. Jennpublic (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Overall THIS IS A BIG IMPROVEMENT!
 * Who’s job is it to fix the existing locked article? How does that happen? Jennpublic (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

List of countries in which same-sex marriage is legal under the "Law" section
Cuba should included in the list of countries in which same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized in Marriage. For more, see Same-sex marriage in Cuba. Josh The Human (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Replace the word Shiite
No one but the Sunnis use this word, we Shias prefer "Shias" as plural of "Shia", rather than the alternative which sounds highly similar to feces. We never called our selves this & would prefer the word to be replaced by a less controversial yet accurate "Shias ".

Thank you.

PS Shias & Shiites are both modernly coined words along with Shiite as long as I know. But we've always recognized our selves as Shia, even in our scripture.

It's similar to how some people derogatorily call Muslims ,Moslems forgetting the insultory origins of the word "Moslem" which in meaning is opposite to Muslim in Arabic ( it means bad person, due to the root word of it's origin); similar to how the word Shiite is derogatory to the Shia sect due it's blatantly obvious English root word : poop.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.37.199 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 May 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022
As stated: “ In an analysis of marriage among the Nayar, a polyandrous society in India, Gough found that the group lacked a husband role in the conventional sense; that unitary role in the west was divided between a non-resident "social father" of the woman's children, …”

As stated, the phrase beyond the semi-colon is confusing and ambiguous. It would be more clear as follows: “ In an analysis of marriage among the Nayar, a polyandrous society in India, Gough found that the group lacked a husband role in the conventional sense; the husband role that was unitary in the west, instead was divided between a non-resident "social father" of the woman's children, …” 2603:6000:C745:1BA5:B467:C567:5FA9:BF0A (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ I changed the phrasing a little, I hope the sentence is clearer now. Thanks for your request. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Islamic?
Why is the last entry a religious reference as opposed to a country of origin as the other examples are? 172.74.33.159 (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022
I would prefer to see "AD" used in place of "CE" as it has been done until the 21st century. There is no non woke reason to do so. Regards, Mike Mleahy67 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Both forms are acceptable per MOS:BCE. No compelling reason to change current format given in this request so Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done Cannolis (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Also called
The opening sentence states "Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock". Those two extra words seem redundant. What I mean by that is that (afaik) it's not like there's another culture that consistently refers to marriage as "matrimony" or "wedlock" - instead, these are just "words that mean the same thing if you look 'marriage' up in a thesaurus". But aiui, Wikipedia isn't a thesaurus, and typically when an article starts out with multiple names for the same thing, it's because that thing is more commonly called those alternative names in other cultures/sub-cultures. So someone with edit privileges could edit this bit out, thanks. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:5CB5:9EC3:478C:7095 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nah. Yuiw: That part of the is exactly correct for exactly the right reasons. All three are common terms redirecting here and covered by the scope of this article. (If they were uncommon, they wouldn't bear inclusion or should be handled in a terminology subsection or as a footnote.)


 * You're just being misled by seeing articles on places and subcultures going out of their way to acknowledge endonyms. Those only deserve the placement they get because English-reading cultures try to acknowledge endonyms to the point that they are common terms for their topics. (And again, if they weren't, they wouldn't bear inclusion or should be handled in a terminology subsection or in an infobox.) — Llywelyn II   22:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)